Rating: 
Summary: Justice will be done
Review: As Shakespeare once wrote in Othello, "He who steals my purse steals trash, but he who steals my good name steals everything." Such is the basis of this movie, based on a true incident in 1908 when a young boy is expelled from the Royal Naval College for stealing a 5-shilling postal order (5 shillings then being less than a dollar today.) The father believes his son when he says he did not do it, and launches a campaign to clear his son's name, taking all of the family's health, wealth and peace of mind as he does. But the family rallies together and so it is all worth it to them, even when they become the subject of political cartoons and object of public ridicule. This is a good film, well-scripted and acted, directed by David Mamet and starring his wife Rebecca Pidgeon and Jeremy Northam. It makes you wonder if you would seek justice in this case, and if not, why not? It is a true testament of values prevailing, whether or not the public believes it to be a worthy campaign.
Rating: 
Summary: A Masterpiece Neutered and Shrunk
Review: David Mamet's version of "The Winslow Boy" quite fails to understand Terence Rattigan's play, from which the film is derived. The film is glued to a one-dimensional stereotype of pre-World War I English behavior, decorous and emotionally suppressed, which defeats the drama at every turn. The play, on the contrary, is not a period piece. It portrays the agony, humiliation, disbelief, indifference, anger, confusion, determination, persistence, idealism, sacrifice, protective love, cynicism, and fear with which a boy's nearest and dearest react to his expulsion from naval cadet school, and the crusade to vindicate him. Their language may be more refined and their emotional expression more controlled than often occurs, but within these limits the range and conflict are substantial. By combining his stereotype with extensive deletions, Mamet cuts off his characters at the knees, if not higher. The father's determination and persistence remain, but most of his tendency to dominate and humiliate is gone. The sister's intelligence, loyalty and tact are there, but not the poignant depth of her love and vulnerability. We see the mother's protective love, but not the formidable passion of her attack against the crusade. The original play feeds the intellect by raising questions about the boy's innocence, and about the worth of the crusade in his behalf; contrary opinions are not merely stated, but supported with cogent reasons. It feeds the soul by raising the banner of doing Right, and facing the substantial sacrifices along the way. It feeds the heart by showing the deep and vulnerable love of a father for his son, of a mother for her family, of a daughter for her fiance, of a family friend for the daughter. All this food is on short ration in Mamet's remake. Rattigan has a fine dramatic sense, which Mamet often spoils. Watch, for example, what should be the most striking scene of the story, a cross-examination of the Winslow boy in the family parlor. England's best trial lawyer is deciding whether to take the case. In the original, the questioning starts quietly but builds to an aggressive harshness that has the boy muddled and crying, and the family angry and alarmed. Whereupon the lawyer, to everyone's surprise, accepts the case, calling the boy "plainly innocent." Mamet doesn't cut the text in this scene, but he does cut way back on the lawyer's aggressiveness and the boy's distress. The dramatic excitement of the original, based on powerful emotional reversals, is mostly lost in the remake. Within the limits of the Mamet stereotype, Nigel Hawthorne as the father and Jeremy Northam as the lawyer are interesting and pleasant to watch. The rest of the cast is not memorable.
Rating: 
Summary: Justice, pride or self importance?
Review: I liked the way this movie flowed, how the actors moved through the scenes. This is my first time seeing Rebecca Pidgeon. She has a captivating aura about her. The way she speaks and pronounces her words, very soothing. Jeremy Northam was gorgeous and charming as usual. Both actors play very well off each other.
Rating:
Summary: Wislow Boy... COOL!
Review: This movie "The Winslow Boy" showcasese the "correct" view of a movie while finding the truth and for the help of this young boy. The acting was great, the cast was wonderfully put wooven with love for each and the fight to keep the case of "The Winslow Boy" showed the love between family and friends!
Rating:
Summary: Mamet's fine adaptation of the 1948 Rattigan play
Review: The Winslow Boy is based on a famous legal case that occurred in England in 1908. A fourteen-year old boy was expelled from a British naval academy for allegedly stealing a five-schilling postal order, which is equivalent to just a few dollars. His father, believing his child's innocence, sued the state in order to clear his family's name. The story was turned into a successful play by Terrence Rattigan in 1948, and the playwright's work is the basis for this film by David Mamet. Mamet, who has written many plays himself, has previously been known for more visceral fare, but he handles this more sedate material with flair. The focus of The Winslow Boy is not on the trial. We are never shown the inside of a courtroom. Instead, it focuses on the effects of the case on the family. It shows us how difficult and costly doing the right thing can be. We also see the high price of notoriety. Even today, when people willing display their problems on national TV talk shows, notoriety still has its costs, I believe We can imagine how devastating it must have been back in the days when privacy and self-esteem were held in high regard. The story is one which begins rather slowly. We get a lot of character development, but the payoff is that it becomes riveting by the second half. Much of this is due to the superb acting of Nigel Hawthorne and Jeremy Northam. Hawthorne plays Arthur Winslow, the father who instigates the case. Hawthorne brings dignity and grace to a character who otherwise might seem a bit mad. Winslow never raises his voice. He quietly and persistently pursues his goal, not realizing until its too late that his family's lives are in danger of being ruined. Yet, can people pursing right ever be truly ruined? That is the question the movie raises. Jeremy Northam, who reminds me of a young Laurence Olivier, is astounding as Sir Robert Morton, the famous lawyer who finally agrees to take the case. He is especially interesting in his interaction with the daughter, Catherine Winslow [Rebecca Pidgeon]. She is a brilliant woman who works for women's rights, a thing which appalls Sir Robert. At the same time, we must remember a truism about relationships: A strong person tends to be attracted to another strong person who disagrees with them sooner than they are attracted to a weak person who agrees with them. This idea sums up the relationship between Catherine and Robert, and it all becomes quite romantic in an understated British way. Obviously, this is a cerebral movie. Action fans, this means that nobody gets beaten up and nothing blows up. Exit polls showed it to be most liked by people over the age of forty-five, but I feel that many thinking people over the age of twelve might enjoy it, if they know what to expect going in.
Rating:
Summary: Best Film of 1999!
Review: Quite simply, this is an overlooked masterpiece. A highly literate movie that really speaks to "family values." Brilliant dialogue (what else would you expect from David Mamet), superior acting and one of the most affecting (and understated) love stories of recent years. The ending is priceless. Although rated "G" it really isn't a movie for children since it so understated (and admittedly wordy, but in the very best sense).
Rating:
Summary: Not a very sophisticated review, but...
Review: I loved the parallels to our own courtroom media circuses. The struggle, the absolute struggle, of the father for his son. Who among us hasn't doubted, for just a second, that the people close to us are not quite the people we thought them to be? I also loved the ending two lines. I will resist the temptation to write them out, but it should speak volumes that I remembered them, verbatim, for many months after seeing the movie, and indeed until I actually purchased the DVD two months ago. As I was leaving the theatre, an elderly gentleman whispered to me, "At least we don't have to see it twice." But that's exactly what I did after buying, watching the whole thing straight through twice. What fun to watch Mamet put these actors, these scenes, this lovely story together.
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully written and exquisitely filmed drama...
Review: David Mamet's fantastic direction makes this version of "The Winslow Boy" my favorite. The acting is superb on all counts. Nigel Hawthorne and Gemma Jones are perfectly matched as Mr. and Mrs. Winslow and play off each other beautifully. The plot revolves around the case of Cadet Winslow, who is accused of a crime and suspended from the Naval Academy. Determined to clear the family name, Mr. Winslow pursues his son's case through the highest court in the land. Sir Robert Morton comes in as advocate for young Winslow. The best pairing in the film is the gifted Jeremy Northam as Sir Robert Morton and Rebecca Pidgeon as Catherine Winslow. Catherine finds her "non-militant" feminism at odds with the views of Sir Robert Morton, whom she has long disliked. This creates a delightful tension between the two in their scenes together and leads up to an ending that will leave you smiling and wishing there had been a sequel. The case of the Winslow boy is an intriguing one, and this film version does not dissapoint. If you like courtroom drama, this is perhaps the best movie about a legal issue that does not include one courtroom scene!
Rating:
Summary: ANOTHER WONDERFUL PERIOD PIECE..
Review: All lovers of period pieces should enjoy this one. This remake, based upon the play by Terrence Rattigan, takes place in the early part of the twentieth century, before the advent of World War I. A thirteen year old Naval cadet is excused of stealing a postal order and subsequently expelled. He claims that he did not do it, despite seeming evidence to the contrary. His upstanding and prosperous family rally around him. After going to the Naval academy from which he was expelled and having their entreaties fall upon deaf ears, they decide to take the unprecedented step of suing the Crown. The family retains the services of a well respected barrister, Sir Robert Morton, played with British reserve by the always wonderful Jeremy Northam, who agrees to represent the boy. The case becomes a cause celebre all over England, and Sir Morton's client becomes known as that Winslow boy, a notoriety that shakes the boy's very proper family to its core. While the case wends its way through the English legal system, tension between the boy's intelligent, bluestocking sister, gravely played by Rebecca Pidgeon, and his barrister bubbles to the surface. The courtroom scenes do not dominate the drama, though they are interesting. The outcome of the lawsuit is, of course, predictable. Yet, it is of no consequence, since the movie is not really about the resolution of the case. The movie ends on a note of romantic hope, as it wittily augers what is surely to come. Another version of this film, released in 1948, is just as good as this one. There, Margaret Leighton does a better job than Rebecca Pidgeon in the role of the bluestocking sister, while the barrister role is better served by Jeremy Northam than Robert Donat. It is easy to make the comparison, since both films are nearly word for word the same. One is shot in black and white, the other in color. They are both, however, excellent.
Rating: 
Summary: Sorry, but I found it a bore
Review: This movie tells the story of the Winslow family's fight to clear the name of their 14-year-old son. It takes place in the late 1800's or so. Seems the boy was expelled from the naval academy for stealing. Father Winslow cross examines the boy and, convinced he is telling the truth, hires an expensive lawyer and vows to fight all the way. His daughter also gets involved, which allows a conventional Victorian romantic drama to unfold as a side plot. Who will she wind up with - the boring soldier who could never make her happy, the washed up cricket player or the dashing, unconventional lawyer?Yawn. You've seen this all before and it's straight out of Jane Austin. By the time of the denouement, I couldn't have cared less, either about the fate of the Winslow boy or the Winslow daughter's romance. Really, there was nothing at stake. The boy is happily off at another school, as is pointed out in the film. Yes, his name is "tarnished", but no one would know about that if the family hadn't made itself a national spectacle. What is actually important about this case? Catherine Winslow, the daughter, is supposed to be a rebel, a suffragette, but she comes off so reserved and passionless that this fire must burn way, way down below, because we sure can't see it. People have said Rebecca Pidgeon didn't get a fare shake playing her, because she is Mamet's wife. But I found her acting atrocious. In addition to her lack of feeling, her timing seemed to be off, like she was interacting with imaginary characters that she couldn't hear or see and were added in to the film later.
|
