JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

epeairs-78150 When asked which of the 89 films that have won the Academy Award for Best Picture I consider to be the WORST I instantly think of this movie. This movie is awful for so many reasons. On the surface it is not a pretty movie (no grand shots like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia) nor is it a fun movie (like The Sound of Music or My Fair Lady). No this movie is a serious, overly done historical drama in which it's two most famous actors (Robert Shaw and Orson Welles) are hardly in the movie at all! On the surface it is very dry and not at all entertaining.Digging deeper does not help this movie either. The development of Thomas Moore, the protagonist, makes him less and less likable as the story goes on. He's sacrificing his family and everything he has for what he believes is right, but all he has to do is LIE and agree to let the king have his way and the conflict would be over. Instead he fights for a lost cause, fighting for the way things used to be instead of how they could be; a fight he should lose. He becomes ignorant and arrogant for this cause he knows is hopeless and causes his family to suffer because of him. Meanwhile I found the antagonist, Thomas Cromwell, to be very relatable as he is just trying to please the king and therefore keep the country stable. Yet the movie insists Cromwell is bad and Moore is good and it just isn't believable.The nail in the coffin, for me at least, is that this movie beat out Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the taboo-shattering movie that almost single-handedly killed the Hays Code. This movie appears to be a resistance to Virginia Woolf in fear of public outcry or something to such a dark movie. What this movie lacks in deep, relatable characters with realistic and understandable motives Virginia Woolf has. Thus, not only is A Man For All Seasons an underwhelming and mediocre film, it was also completely undeserving of ever winning the award for Best Picture. Not only that, Paul Scofield's win for best actor is highway robbery from Richard Burton performance in Virginia Woolf, I can't begin to imagine why Scofield won this award.But if you're the kind of person that enjoys a movie about a man from 500 years ago trying to destabilize his country by fighting for an old way of thinking then this is the movie for you.

Lee Eisenberg Sir Thomas More was Lord Chancellor of England in the early 1500s. He opposed King Henry VIII's decision to break off from the Catholic Church and divorce his wife. This story gets dramatized in "A Man for All Seasons", showing the moral dilemma that More faced. Paul Scofield plays More as a man who simply did what he thought was right in the face of insurmountable odds.To my knowledge, this was the second time that Fred Zinnemann had directed a movie about a person who is forced to follow his conscience in a desperate situation (the other was "High Noon"). Both are examples of some of the best that cinema has to offer. It's a shame that Zinnemann isn't a more well known director; he also gave us "From Here to Eternity" and "Julia". Even if you don't know much about England's history, this is still a fascinating story. Along with Scofield, we get outstanding performances from Robert Shaw as Henry, Leo McKern (the cult leader in "Help!") as Cromwell, and Susannah York as More's wife Margaret.And yes, I think that John Hurt's character looks like Ringo Starr.

Bryan Kluger One of the greatest film directors of all time is Fred Zinnemann, and the shocking thing is, most people wouldn't know who that is, let alone even heard the name. He has a whopping 65 Oscar nominations under his belt with a great 24 wins. His films have stood the test of time and continue to be debated and discussed to this day. Perhaps Zinnemann is most known for 'High Noon', 'Oklahoma', 'The Nun's Story', and 1977's 'Julia'. All of those movies are excellent and have each earned their own numerous awards in filmmaking.But there is another film from 1966, which was one of Zinnemann's last films that not only took home Best Picture, Best Screenplay, and Best Actor, but it is the best film ever made according to The Vatican. Needless to say, that's a pretty high honor, considering the film isn't 100% about religion. The film centers around the time where King Henry VIII was wanting to marry Anne Boleyn, and right before the King became the chaotic leader he is known for. But this story does not follow around King Henry (Robert 'Jaws' Shaw), but rather 'A Man for All Season' focuses on Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield), a family man who was the right hand man to King Henry VIII, at least for a little while.Based on the 1960 stage play by Robert Bolt with Bolt writing the screenplay, 'A Man for All Seasons' can be seen as an accurate portrayal of the downfall of one of the most infamous kings in England, not to mention the intense and brilliant dialogue that occurs. As the film starts out, King Henry is already wanting to marry Boleyn and leave Lady Aragon, because she cannot bear children, specifically a son to take the reigns someday, which is something King Henry is obsessed about. He has his lord chancellor Wolsey (Orson Welles) ask Sir Thomas More, Henry's right hand man to attend a secret meeting to convince the Pope to allow Henry to divorce his wife and marry another.If you're Catholic, you have been told this a big "no-no" in the religion. Already knowing that the Pope will not agree to this, Sir Thomas More, declines to help. You see, back then, almost everything had to be approved before the Pope and the church, and if it wasn't "kosher", it would be considered illegal. When More declines, King Henry tries to bribe More with power and riches. When that doesn't work, King Henry takes a more violent approach. All the while, Sir Thomas More sticks to his religious convictions and does what's right by his family and God. He never bows down or takes the low road. Instead, he takes the righteous path, always standing up to what he believes him, no matter what the obstacle is to overcome.Well, we all know what happened, King Henry overthrew the Pope basically, making it law that the church had no say on people's lives. He went on to marry five more women, some of whom he had killed. But what works so well with 'A Man for All Seasons' is the attention to detail of the time period, and the incredible performances by each actor. These actors just throw themselves into these roles and make you believe every single action and emotion, especially Paul Scofield, who is one of the best Shakespearean actors to have ever lived. He fully immersed himself into these roles and there are stories of how intense he was on set in character. It definitely shows here as he won Best Actor at the Oscars for his role here. 'A Man for All Seasons' is smart, beautiful, and well-acted, and remains one of the best adaptations of King Henry VIII's life out there today.

jvance-566-20403 Try to imagine a time when there was only one "Church", where diocesan/papal power was supreme and separation from the Church body was the one of the most terrifying punishments that could be meted out. And in this same time temporal kings absolutely believed that it was their divine right to rule with impunity over the masses.Combine these conditions with a transcendent confrontation between 2 of the most intricate and influential intellectual giants of the era and you've got the basis for a truly epic tale - and it's not fiction.Add a gifted modern playwright and a superb cinematic director and let them work their magic. The result is one of the finest dramatic expositions ever brought before the public.There are plenty of other commenters with details and technical observations far superior to what I could offer so I won't bother adding to them. I will say that if you figure there could be nothing remotely interesting or inspiring in a conflict between a narcissistic, power-mad potentate and a pious religious scholar you're absolutely wrong and missing out on a real opportunity.