Gutsycurene
Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Brenda
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
John Brown
Without doubt, this is a fine film.The story of 'The Winslow Boy' began in a real-life case in 1908, although the play, written by Terence Rattigan in 1946, made many changes to the story of the original case of George Archer-Shee. Inevitably, transferring the play to the screen resulted in further changes, however and quite unusually, the story not only survived these amendments but thrived on them.The 1948 film was a masterpiece and perhaps the best compliment that can be paid to this remake is that it's almost as good. In fact, to rival a cast including Robert Donat, Cedric Hardwicke and Margaret Leighton, is quite an achievement.This version manages to convey the culture of the time without any pretension. Nigel Hawthorne is quite superb, as was Hardwicke in the original, in the role of Arthur Winslow, father of the wronged cadet. Rebecca Pidgeon conveys exactly the same mixture of upper-middle class duty and loyalty, femininity, rebelliousness and sexuality as did Margaret Leighton. As for Jeremy Northam in the role of Sir Robert Morton, his performance is excellent if, perhaps, lacking the charismatic brilliance of Donat.There are areas that are less good and characters that simply don't have the presence of those in the earlier film and this does detract. Catherine Winslow's paramour is a rather dull character and one has to wonder what a woman of her beliefs could possibly have seen in him. Even worse, solicitor Desmond Curry, who dreams of marrying her, is utterly forgettable, unlike the character played by Basil Radford in 1948. While the housemaid, Violet, may have been played with greater realism in this version, her portrayal by Kathleen Harrison in 1948 was certainly more memorable. Others, all rather peripheral characters, including even 'the Winslow Boy' himself, are probably equal in terms of performance and presence, excepting the Attorney General, so magnificently portrayed by Francis L Sullivan in 1948 and yet absent in 1999. Instead, a place was found for the First Lord of the Admiralty, played by Neil North who had appeared as 'The Boy' in the earlier version, but was a pale shadow.Regardless of these criticisms, this is a film that is well worth watching and will reward viewers with a great story and some fine performances.
Prismark10
This is an adaptation of a play by David Mamet which he also directs. Unusually it does not feature con artists, a favourite area that Mamet likes to re-visit.The film where a family wants to clear the name of their almost 14 year old boy who has been dismissed from the naval academy for stealing a postal order is all about performances, there is very little visual trickery but good use id made of sets, lighting, music and direction. The actors are very much at the fore of the performance with Jeremy Northam as the Barrister delivering the goods as someone who believes in the boy's innocence but seems distant and uninvolved. In some cases he got the role of the barrister in the pre World War 2 era very much spot on. Its all about the law and proving your case.Nigel Hawthorne does well as the father of the family who might be on the edge of financial ruin as he fights to clear his son's name. It might be viewed the Hawthorne would be too old to play a father of a 14 year old lad although his other children are older.Rebecca Pidgeon who in other roles comes across as uninspired especially when she plays tough Americans is more comfortable here as the radical sister of the accused who also suffers loss as her engagement is broken because of the fight to clear her brother's name.Its a brave undertaking to adapt a Rattigan play on the screen and Mamet has done very well in making the film watchable and highlighting the mores of the time.
tieman64
Set in 1912 and based on an actual event, David Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" is the story of an upper-class family whose 13 year-old son (Ronnie Winslow- a naval college cadet) is accused of stealing and cashing a five shilling postal order.Expelled from school, Ronnie returns home terrified of his father's reaction. But Arthur Winslow (superbly played by Nigel Hawthorne) isn't angry. Instead, he believes his boy to have been wrongly accused. And so with the help of his suffragette daughter (Catherine) and esteemed attorney Sir Robert Morton, Arthur sets out to clear his son's name.What follows is a beautifully written legal drama. But unlike "The Verdict" (also written by Mamet), there are no courtroom scenes here. No tense battles between lawyers or nail biting cross examinations, Mamet film revoking the usual legal maneuvers and opting instead to explore a family's determination to retain its dignity.But how can they remain dignified when their case becomes a nationwide news story? How can they remain dignified when their steadfast belief in their son is mocked by journalists and newspapers? How can they remain dignified when the British Parliament argues the case in the House of Lords? How can they remain dignified when the family suffers financial loss, much self-doubt, media scrutiny and even the break-off of Catherine's engagement to a status-sensitive snob (Aden Gillett)?"A fine old rumpus," the maid calls it all. And indeed it is. As Arthur's health deteriorates, his steadfast wife demands to know why he's sacrificing the family's well-being. "For justice!" he says. "Are you sure it's not pride and self-importance?" she counters.Of course, this being a David Mamet film - all Mamet's films are con games - "The Winslow Boy" is also a film about misdirection. On the surface, we're asked to wonder whether or not the Winslow Boy is really guilty, whilst below the surface, Mamet works in another layer of misdirection. On this level, every character is lying, every one of them misdirecting the audience by putting on a false facade.In this regard, every character's behaviour is precisely the opposite of their actual beliefs. So the father cares not for his son but rather his own family honour. The Winslow boy is guilty and stands embarrassed out in the rain. The older son is broke, hates his father and shall be shipped off to war, yet he accepts it all with cheerful good faith. Similarly, the maid, who always enters frame when there is talk of no money, is ambivalent to the fact that she will surely be fired soon. Then there's the three way relationship between the hotshot lawyer, the Winslow daughter and her fiancé. Her fiancé pretends to love her, yet leaves as soon as the case gains momentum, whilst she pretends to fight for women's independence (she's a suffragette) despite being entirely dependent on her family/men for her income. Similarly, the hotshot lawyer pretends to take the case because he believes the boy to be innocent, when in fact he's simply after the boy's attractive sister. When he confides to his friend that he has turned down a promotion to take the case, he does so knowing that this news will be confided to her, thus making him seem more appealing in her eyes.The entire film is thus an exercise in misdirection, the film communicating one thing while the truth sits just below the surface. The artifice is all a lie, a slick Edwardian card trick. End result: we're so busy looking for clues of the kid's innocence, that we don't realize that the whole family is guilty. 8.5/10 - Worth two viewings.
didi-5
The original version of this film had Robert Donat as the lawyer, Morton, Cedric Hardwicke as father Winslow, and was an extremely clever and involving piece.This remake came along when least expected, but was no less relevant or entertaining. In the role of Morton this time is Jeremy Northam - something of a film darling after portraying Mr Knightley to Gwyneth Paltrow's Emma - with Nigel Hawthorne as the father of the boy who might or might not have stolen a postal order.Guy Edwards plays Ronnie, the accused boy, effectively, and the story - although slight and somewhat preposterous to modern eyes - continues to engage and involve the viewer as it always did.David Mamet's film of 'The Winslow Boy' did fairly well at the box office and was an intelligent film, sticking to what it did best without resorting to cheap sensationalism or unnecessary updates.
