UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

jhseeker I am amazed at the positive reviews of this film! I was really shocked by the way it seems to have been thrown together.The first jarring presence is the theme by Michel Legrand, whose score though being enigmatic is completely out of place and mismatched to the country home setting, it sounds like a spy theme and is reminiscent of the era's John Barry/Iprcress File. This main theme is irritatingly repeated over and over at the expense of badly needed expository dialogue. Where is the dialogue? The great Harold Pinter must've taken all of an afternoon to write it all - a pitiable effort for such a great book. We are instead treated to endlessly repeated shots of Leo running back and forth through he fields in long shot. Joseph Losey has used no supporting players, opting instead to use what looks like Norfolk locals (why?) who are hopeless in delivering the simplest of lines and so are in many cases, dubbed. There is no atmosphere! The actors don't inhabit the house at all- the sound and lighting is terrible! Unfortunately the bulk of the story requires child actors, Leo just about gets away with it but the actor playing Marcus is awful, many scenes are botched and left in the edit I can only assume they ran out of time. The big scenes of cricket match and party after, so important to the story are completely ruined by terrible editing. Why is Leo's song not more imaginatively realised? It would have helped the story so much. Also Trimingham is meant to be repulsive, making him handsome kills one of the most powerful motivations for Marian's behaviour. The major cast are good but lack direction and a decent script they loo lost half the time! Honestly, I could go on I am so disappointed in this treatment of an amazing book which everyone should read (hopefully they haven't seen this first). And yes, please, someone do a remake! Even Michael Bay could do it better.

kenjha In the English countryside of 1900, a boy serves as a messenger between a young woman from a rich family who is engaged to be married to a viscount and a neighbor farmer of lower standing, facilitating a forbidden love affair. Like "Picnic at Hanging Rock," this is a very deliberately paced film where nothing much happens. The main point of interest is the atmosphere, marked by beautiful cinematography. However, with characters who are not terribly interesting and without much of a plot, the film really overstays its welcome at a running time of two hours. The acting is fine all around, including Christie and Bates in the lead roles of the lovers.

MARIO GAUCI Richly-detailed period romantic drama, told more or less from a child's viewpoint but treated with the maturity one has come to expect from a Losey film (the main plot is interspersed with fragmented clips of the boy as an old man - played by Sir Michael Redgrave - revisiting the aristocratic country estate where the majority of the narrative takes place).Though the characters are rather swamped by their surroundings (the two leads are particularly subdued) - as captured by the gleaming cinematography of Gerry Fisher and the elegant décor of Carmen Dillon - the film allows for several good performances from a sturdy cast, including Dominic Guard (as the boy Leo who acts as messenger in the impossible love between upper-class Julie Christie and commoner Alan Bates, both of whom he idolizes), Edward Fox (as Christie's intended, a war-hero), as well as Margaret Leighton and Michael Gough (as her parents); Leighton's role remains in the background for most of the time but, then, she asserts herself during the last third to bring down the couple's relationship - with the unwilling assistance of the bewildered Guard. Besides, Michel Legrand contributes an atypically ominous yet haunting score.This was the third and last time Losey and screenwriter Harold Pinter worked together, constituting a very fruitful and quite extraordinary collaboration; for about two-thirds of its length, the film finds Losey somewhere near his best - the contemporary subplot where Leo reprises his 'services' for an older Christie works less well, in my opinion (and is too sketchily presented anyway), rendering an already deliberately-paced film somewhat overlong! THE GO-BETWEEN won the Golden Palm at the Cannes Film Festival, was nominated for an impressive 12 BAFTA awards (winning 4) but received only 1 Oscar nomination (for Leighton as Best Supporting Actress).

drschnitz-1 Easily one of the best acted, best directed and most intellectually intriguing films I have ever seen. Julie Christie is so lovely that you will never forget her. The screenplay by Pinter is impeccable, building a rhythmic alternation of times and places, an alternation that ultimately crashes together. I have seen this movie several times - like Casablanca, it just keeps getting better - and have taught it to inner-city pre-freshmen - they loved it. They were not at all used to films that try to be artistic creations, and the slowness of the pace at first threw them off. However, once we explored the multiple levels of meaning and revelation in each of the initial scenes, they became drawn into the film, caught up in its mystery and romance and fascinated by the vision of a totally alien, yet oddly familiar, world. Losey at his best is on a par with Renoir. Why isn't this film on DVD? Even the background music is really good.