Rating: 
Summary: A Masterpiece. Plain and simple
Review: I remember the day I stopped reading the New York Times, and also realized that most film revivers did NOT have a clue... and that's when I read the review for Tony Richardson's 'Charge Of The Light Brigade'. The Times Reviewer, a first stage imbecile went on and on about "how Richardson could have made such a glorification of war during the height of the View Nam conflict!" Was this man blind, or did he just sit in some bar drinking his lunch while the film was screen? For Light Brigade is perhaps the greatest ANTI-WAR movie ever made! I could go on for pages about this movie. One of the most amazing aspects is Charles Woods's screenplay. It is without a doubt the greatest piece of film writing ever. Now that's a big statement' but I promise you' it's not an exaggeration. From the very first speech of Trevor Howard, through scene after scene of perfect craftsmanship and dialogue, you are bombarded with a sumptuous love affair of the English language. Add to that one of the most opulently shot period movies this side of Barry Lyndon, and the most amazing animation sequences by Richard Williams (and for the love of God' if you still think this is a pro war movie after those sequences, you really need to be locked away for your own safety!)' and you have a cinema treat the likes of which you will find hard pressed to see anywhere else. From the first bars of John Addison's quirky emotionally charged, purposely overly blown score, to Williams animated lion's roar' to the last staggering image of the decapitated horses, silently rotting away in the 'Valley of Death', as only the sounds of flies can be heard' you realize you are watching greatest. You also realize you are watching history the way it really was. Never before or since has anyone dramatized 'blunders of great men' so magnificently. The parallels to today's world (and leaders) are terrifyingly accurate and prophetic! This is a movie that doesn't age gracefully, it ages with an explosive charge' a pressure cooker of artistic brilliance, that once uncapped, erupts in your face, grabs hold and doesn't let go until the last credit. Tragically, this movie was way ahead of its time, and has never been given its right dues. Long before the computer generated 'tension' of Private Ryan' Richardson and crew created a scene of battle terror that digs deep into your soul and is never forgotten. This is a movie you feel, and smell and taste. From the heat of the Turkish plains, to the stench of the English ships, to the flesh ripping sting of a whipping' 'Light Brigade' is truly in a class of its own. The balance of terror, humor, intrigue and human courage' and waste' there is no equal. The only one who 'blundered' in this movie was the distributor who ignored it, and the vapid reviewers without a brain, who didn't realize what they were seeing. But you can' rent or buy this masterpiece and see why I for one, fell in love with both the cinema, and the word.
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant depiction of a military action of epic proportions
Review: Following closely on the heels of ZULU (1965), THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1968) ushered in an era of unparalleled brilliance in war movie-making. Anyone who has read Tennyson's poem of the same name, or read John Harris' book THE GALLANT SIX HUNDRED will appreciate this film for its depiction of both the battle and of British Army life at the time. The technical detail is impeccable and, despite the obvious use of satire, the film is remarkably true to history. It vividly portrays the contrasting social circumstances of the officers and the rank and file soldiers, and the inextricable bond between them. The officers genuinely believed they had been born to lead and the soldiers followed them unquestioningly because of their personal courage and example rather than any demonstrated skill in the art of war. The courage, endurance and stoicism of the British soldier in the field is accurately rendered, carefully maintaining the simple dignity of those who were most responsible for the spread of Empire throughout the world. Everything else in the film obviously leads to the grand finale, the magnificently futile charge up the valley into the face of the Russian guns. The filming and choreography are amazing, replete with small details that have been recorded elsewhere through survivor interviews and the memoires of witnesses and participants. This is a MUST see for anyone interested in military history, or just epic war movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Terrible
Review: Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad...They should have negative star ratings for movies like this. If the British were such baffoons as this pictures makes them out to be, how did they have such an empire. Man, the rest of the world must have been filled with idiots.
Rating: 
Summary: Cartoons in a war movie? Please!
Review: This movie is very good and the battle scenes are dramatic, just not long enough. The main flaw of the film is the ridiculous animations that drastically take away the power & value that this movie should have had to audiences. And although Capt. Nolan was a dashing and brave officer, his role was very limited in reality. Overall the film is very authentic in capturing the era of the Crimean War. Trevor Howard is great; he acts like he was made for this role. A lot of the dialogue at the end is what the real officers actually said. I wish the battle at the end could've shown in more detail how the light brigade fought against the vastly superior Russian cavalry and actually drove off many of them before being forced to retreat. This is far more accurate than the Errol Flynn versian although many prefer that over this versian. I admit Flynn was much better than David Hemmings's stale performance, but for history stick with this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Poor anti-war movie
Review: I am trying to decide if I am going to throw this DVD away. I watched the whole movie. It was the toughest sit through since "Mosquito Coast" with Harrison Ford. I do not mind watching a movie that is making the case that war is bad...war is bad, even though sometimes it is necessary. However, the movie itself jumped all over the place. As another review said, the relationships were poorly built. At first the animated portions of the film were interesting in an artsy way, but they kept coming back and were over used. The battle/war itself should have been more focused upon. The Crimean War was badly fought and this could have been a much better movie if it had shown the poor quality of generalship on both sides instead of just showing the character of the British and French generals.
Rating:
Summary: Into the valley of death they rode ...
Review: I first saw this version after seeing the 1936 film (both, ca. 1968) . Both are extremely good. In truth, I cannot remember which one was better. But this film did not disappoint me, that much, I recall.
Rating:
Summary: Full of promise that it never quite filled.
Review: The historical situations in building the light Calvary troop was well done, and it was easy to see the differences between the wealthy and everyone else; it was impressive that the common man did indeed become members of an elite force. Alas, the force was doomed to fail because of the very structure of rich and poor, expectations and experience. How strange it was to see a well-educated and seasoned officer treated poorly because he had been in India. He knew horses and men and how to bond them into a single fighting unit. He knew the strategy of winning a war. Yet, in battle, the generals watched the enemy steal the British guns and allowed it to happen because they could not believe a "gentleman" would do this. No one would listen, or look at the obvious theft as a threat. Each of the segues could have been political cartoons of the time used in some of the animations, I don't know. However, I found these segues laughable and irritating. The romantic triangle sub plot was not developed, but when the "other man" was killed, I was surprised. I wanted to experience the historical battle, but came away feeling that they certainly needed Patton in that war. The most telling statement of the war was something like: "The day an Englishman knows more about war and uses it would be shameful, it would be like murder." At least it isn't "The Piano," we said as we watched it, but decided in the end that the joke was on those of use who actually sat through it. Victoria Tarrani
Rating:
Summary: Cartoons in a war movie? Please!
Review: This movie is very good and the battle scenes are dramatic, just not long enough. The main flaw of the film is the ridiculous animations that drastically take away the power & value that this movie should have had to audiences. And although Capt. Nolan was a dashing and brave officer, his role was very limited in reality. Overall the film is very authentic in capturing the era of the Crimean War. Trevor Howard is great; he acts like he was made for this role. A lot of the dialogue at the end is what the real officers actually said. I wish the battle at the end could've shown in more detail how the light brigade fought against the vastly superior Russian cavalry and actually drove off many of them before being forced to retreat. This is far more accurate than the Errol Flynn versian although many prefer that over this versian. I admit Flynn was much better than David Hemmings's stale performance, but for history stick with this film.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time
Review: This is one of the stupidest "war" movies ever made. Cheesy character acting, unnecessary side plots that make up 80% of the movie. They finally get to the Crimea about the last 30 minutes of the movie and show about 20% of the actual events during that battle in which the Turks fought well but the British floundered. Watch the history channel special on this event and save your money.
Rating:
Summary: Rubbish. Pure rubbish.
Review: Okay, answer me this. Why go to all the trouble to make a movie about an historic event, take the time to make sure that the uniforms were correct and even that the right kind and number of horses were accurate and then blow it all in a climax that lasts about four-and-a-half seconds? And what in the name of all that's holy is up with the trippy cartoons? They don't belong in a war film!! I mean, this isn't "Yellow Submarine", is it? Oh, the humanity! I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I'm a huge fan of the British military and was hoping that this would be in the same vein as "Zulu" or "Khartoum". What I got was this turd of a movie. I don't know why everybody in the filmmaking establishment has such an unfettered hatred of all things British. I'm really getting sick of it, though. Hippies shouldn't make war movies. And that's all I have to say about that.
|
