Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

robertasmith I'm never quite sure what this film was aiming for. Is it a critique of war or is it a telling of a real story? The performances are average at best. Jill Bennet is annoying, Peter Bowles has a silly accent and Vanessa Redgrave is pointless. David Hemings does his best with a poor script and Trevor Howard hams it up beautifully. John Gielgud as Raglan is, unsurprisingly, excellent but again suffers from a poor script. In my humble view Tony Richardson was entirely the wrong director and gives far too much screen time to Redgrave's character Clarissa. The final product is boring and has not lasted at all well whereas the 1936 Flynn version is just as inaccurate but great fun.

Photoscots1 . I've always liked this film since I first saw it in the late 1970's. There are so many interesting aspects of this movie from the dandified dialogue to the cartoon inserts which are done in the style of Victorian illustrators of the day.A lot of high caliber actors really shine with the material including David Hemmings with his highly strung manner, Trevor Howard who has the funniest scene in the film when he spanks Fanny Duberley and the Lord Lucan of Harry Andrews who is constantly at war with Lord Cardigan, both being related and despise each other. Even Geilgud shines as the confused Lord Raglan and his ineptitude in the role of commander really highlights the inadequacy of the British military of that age which, if you read the history books, were outclassed by the French management of their forces.The injustice of the class system is another facet of the film which really gets under the skin and leaves a lasting impression of the British Empire and the military which held it in place. This is particularly the case when one of the Sergeant Majors is flogged for being drunk on duty after Cardigan insists he spy on Nolan played by David Hemmings. All of this demonstrates the sort of internal politics that goes on within organizations but not just the military.The battle scenes are very impressive, especially the final charge of the Light Brigade and the explanation of how this failure in military decision making occurred, is made perfectly clear. Cinematography is first rate and the overall art direction delightful. One of the great anti-war movies largely under appreciated by the movie going public of the 60's and has gained much more respect in recent years when compared with the dross being put out today.

TedMichaelMor This is a superb account of the tragic charge of the Light Brigand during the Battle of Balaclava. It is a fine x-ray of the abusive British military and class system and a thoughtful and colourful exposure of the propaganda of war.I recall as a teenager reading Cecil Woodham Smith's famous book "The Reason Why", which first acquainted me with the event. I have long considered the tragedy as what happens when military intelligence is flawed or lacking.The film has a sixties tone—long on detail, with side stories and colourful little touches like splendid Richard Williams's animations of British publications from the time of the event.I am not certain how well the film narrative corresponds to a recent PBS documentary on the topic. My memory is not that good. It seem that the role of Captain Nolan might have been other than depicted here. He did not have an affair with Captain Morris' wife. However, I think the film is not only accurate for the most part but depicts the moment in history vividly and with great feeling.This is a great movie, a masterwork. Watching it moved me.

barry-t-635-514889 Much has been written on the ill fated charge at Balaklava,& therefore pointless to mention it's course in history, learn-ed reviewers have already covered this ground. It's Richardsons charge sequence which for me,is both exciting,& yet infuriating. Technically for a movie that spent along time in production, something approaching 3 years, uniform wise it is inaccurate. This, if your a student of history is like making a western with General Custer brandishing a Magnum 44. Technical advisers John/Andrew Mollo were mortified that after years of sourcing uniforms & equipment Richardson insisted that the 17th lancers were clothed in the red breeches of the 11th Hussars (Lord Cardigans regiment).He insisted this was for artistic reasons and that the Mollo's should pursue their own 'boringly accurate movie' if they were unhappy. Stunt co-coordinator Bob Simmons was unhappy that a number of exciting horse & rider stunts, some involving stunt men to be blown thru the air via air ramp were dismissed out of hand. War in the middle East robbed Richardson of his Turkish Guard Cavalry, (playing the Light Brigade), & David Watkins cinematography craftily conceals most of this shortfall. However there are a number of battle scenes shown in various trailers, that do not appear in the final cut. Time plays tricks, because when I saw the movie in 1968, I seem to remember some sequences during the charge which are not on the DVD R1 or R2. For a movie that portrays the infamous ride into history, Richardson only seems to dabble with it. One critic called it an 'anti epic'. This for me is why this really good film, could have been a really great film, because the charge should have been the last word in epic action for its time. It had all the right people to have created it. Ultimately a sad missed opportunity.However