Perhaps those who gave such negative revue should bother to watch the whole film before commenting. It is typical of those who believe nothing can replace the ‘classics’. Henry the V is a another example where the rather dull original ‘classic’ is out shone by the modern version. The fact is this version was well acted and beautifully made and gives a good representation of the play while giving a all to rare realistic view into British boarding school life.
I was educated at one of these institutions in the 1970’s and unlike the 51 version it is the best representation of an English boarding school I have seen. The 51 attempt had the usual belief that young boys cant act which meant the whole school was made up of 18-21 year olds making the whole thing rather unbelievable. The young boys in the modern version were mostly taken from the boarding school in the film and their acting was both good & highly believable.
ridiculous. I just came from watching the 1951 version, and this is stunningly bad. It's poorly acted as well, as if the boys couldn't quite bring themselves to sully the original with this kind of trash.
I guess what they might have been trying to do is (a) to comment on Rattigan's homosexuality and (b) to show the extension of the theme of cruelty - but why? But then, why remake it in the first place? I haven't seen the whole film, but I bet they can't match Redgrave or W H-W.
This shower scene is a completely gratuitous intrusion into the plot and was not in the original play or the vastly superior 1951 film version. In my opinion it says more about the tastes of the director than anything about Rattigan's beautifully thought-out drama!
I wish my high school would let us use the showers I'm not gay
jamminjoey245 2 days ago
Perhaps those who gave such negative revue should bother to watch the whole film before commenting. It is typical of those who believe nothing can replace the ‘classics’. Henry the V is a another example where the rather dull original ‘classic’ is out shone by the modern version. The fact is this version was well acted and beautifully made and gives a good representation of the play while giving a all to rare realistic view into British boarding school life.
Well done.
1960JNW 1 year ago
I was educated at one of these institutions in the 1970’s and unlike the 51 version it is the best representation of an English boarding school I have seen. The 51 attempt had the usual belief that young boys cant act which meant the whole school was made up of 18-21 year olds making the whole thing rather unbelievable. The young boys in the modern version were mostly taken from the boarding school in the film and their acting was both good & highly believable.
1960JNW 1 year ago
Yes...here, as in many other remakes, an attempt to make the film "edgy" makes it superficial and dumbs it down.
mlleprufrock 2 years ago
hahahah their all gay
XxLifeInFuneralXx 2 years ago
ridiculous. I just came from watching the 1951 version, and this is stunningly bad. It's poorly acted as well, as if the boys couldn't quite bring themselves to sully the original with this kind of trash.
I guess what they might have been trying to do is (a) to comment on Rattigan's homosexuality and (b) to show the extension of the theme of cruelty - but why? But then, why remake it in the first place? I haven't seen the whole film, but I bet they can't match Redgrave or W H-W.
leggie2112 2 years ago
This shower scene is a completely gratuitous intrusion into the plot and was not in the original play or the vastly superior 1951 film version. In my opinion it says more about the tastes of the director than anything about Rattigan's beautifully thought-out drama!
lahgbr 2 years ago 2
the boy with black long hair he so nice skinny i kie him
Andreas Germany
DoeringAndreas 3 years ago 2