Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Leofwine_draca I was primarily interested in watching MORGAN: A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT because it was the film that made David Warner famous, and I've enjoyed watching Warner's acting work over the years. Roles like the ones in STRAW DOGS and THE OMEN have made him one of those criminally underrated actors who really should have been as well known as the big shots.Sadly, this unworkable mental illness comedy must have been dated on release, although I understand it has a reputation as a cult film. I can't work out why. I don't mind stupid humour, and I actively like surreal humour, but the stuff that goes on in this film is random and pointless. Warner dresses up as a gorilla, wanders around a bit, smashes some stuff in his room, and goes on various escapades. In between there's a lot of dated dialogue in the form of cod psychological debates and the like. It seems to trivialise mental illness a lot and the execution is so poor it can't be taken seriously.It doesn't help that the film was shot in black and white, making it look cheap and old-fashioned; some colour would have better brought the decade to life. Warner does his best with the material, but the likes of Vanessa Redgrave seem stuffy and too focused on acting without feeling natural doing so. I did enjoy seeing supporting roles for the likes of Bernard Bresslaw, Irene Handl, and Graham Crowden, but that's just about all I got out of it.

KissEnglishPasto ............................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA and ORLANDO, FL "Movies That Stand the Test of Time" is a list I recently compiled... "Morgan" WON'T be on it! Granted, the basic concept is starkly original, with outstanding performances by both David Warner and Vanessa Redgrave (In her first leading screen role!) There are a few savagely funny lines and bits sprinkled throughout here and there. But on the whole, a lot of the film comes across as anachronistically as the hammer and sickle Morgan insists on drawing or carving everywhere.Also, the constant insertion of Keystone Cop Slapstick bits (Ala "Hard Days Night") gets old really fast, especially since most of them fall flat. And my biggest gripe: I saw this movie 3 times at age 18 and 19, during its theatrical release and I clearly recall footage (1 minute?) where a then VERY HOT Vanessa Redgrave was romping around the bedroom being chased in a state of semi-undress. The scenes managed to be simultaneously humorous and sexy (Very risqué in 1966, but not more than PG by today's standards!) These scenes were about the best in the film and the main reason I rented it. COMPLETELY EDITED OUT! Does anyone else recall them? Ironically, at the beginning, the British Cinema Board announces, "This film is to be viewed only by Adults!" On EXTRAS, watch the Original Trailer and you'll see a couple seconds of snippets of the bedroom romp scene that was edited out of the DVD release! You decide what you want to do with this one! 6* (Being a bit generous?) ....ENJOY//DISFRUTELA?!?!?Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome! [email protected]

screaminmimi I loved this movie when it came out. Haven't seen it since, so I'm operating from memory, but one of the strongest impressions I got from it (and even wrote a letter to "Esquire" disputing that magazine's review) was that Morgan was not psychotic. Eccentric, sure, but crazy like a fox, a sort of McMurphy for swinging England. My impression then was that everything around him and Leonie was out of whack, and that Leonie was more inclined to submit to the dominant cultural mishigas because the life of an eccentric's wife was too hard to take, as much as she loved him.I felt that the story challenged conventional notions of what is normal, and the "normal" that Morgan was an outsider to was insufferably stifling to the human spirit. My fellow IMDb commentator who recoiled from the "weird politics" of this movie, missed the point. Morgan wasn't a Communist. He was the son of Communists. He was a lot freer than any ideologue. The sight gag at the end of the picture is not about him being a Commie. It's about him being an outsider and a prankster to the core.I don't think the movie makes light of real mental illness. I think it skewers overly enthusiastic diagnoses of psychosis when someone's behavior is socially inconvenient. I don't know that I'd find an assessment of Morgan Delt as a harmless flake to be any more appropriate, in that it's still an incredibly patronizing view of the guy, but at least it wouldn't land him in the rubber room. Although, I found that last scene so encouraging in showing his ability to transcend institutionalization on his own terms.Thinking in terms of what would happen next if the movie were to continue, my biggest fear at the time was that institutionalization would eventually break his spirit. He reminded me of so many of my peers who were dumped in psych hospitals because their parents didn't know what to do with them. It was easier to call them sick than to deal with the real people they were. In that sense, this is a very '60's movie, because it seemed that the psych hospitalization rate was spiking among young people of that time.Yeah, you had to be there. And, indeed, how can you go wrong with a movie that has a Johnny Dankworth score?

David (Handlinghandel) I saw this when it was new and I was a precocious child. I thought I understood books like "Madame Bovary" and "War and Peace." And I thought this was a thrilling movie.Lo! These many years later, it seems annoying and juvenile. During this period, and for several years after it, people with mental illness were portrayed as heroes, as misunderstood, as charming and denied of their rights.The title character seems now like a royal pain. David Warner plays him well but what in the world is he playing? A Trotskyite who likes animals and acts like a destructive eight-year-old. Vanessa Redgrave is pretty and good but gives no real sense of the magnificence of her acting that we were soon to learn about.Only two years later, the same director presented her as the title character in "Isadora." My memory of that is of a lovely movie, filled with beautiful music. ("Morgan" uses classical music well also, it must be said.) Of his American movies, I adore "Sweet Dreams," which I saw three or four times in theaters and many more times on tape. And he produced the excellent "This Sporting Life." I'll be honest, though: I watched this all the way through but couldn't wait for it to be over.