Lawrence of Arabia (PG)

There is a difference between being 'literate' and simply pretentious. LAWRENCE has little to say but it says so with lofty words. Also, as Andrew Sarris noted back in '62, Lean falls for the naive notion that being more spectacular is being more cinematic, so the conquest of Aqaba, which the real Lawrence achieved without a shot being fired, suddenly is a mad, Western-style charge in the desert: not only did this not happen, it's NOT more cinematic to spend a lot of money and time on gratuitous spectacle.

It's wonderful to see this magnificent movie back on the big screen where it belongs. It was always a handsome looking movie but the 1988 restoration, essentially a Directors Cut, revealed that it was a much better movie than originally thought. I remember seeing it first in a heavily cut version which dimished its effect significantly. For me it's a movie that improves with age and this digital restoration is superb. One effect is to clean up the soundtrack so that more details of both the music and sound effects are revealed. I see that the script is described as pretentious by one viewer. No, it's a literate script which is a joy to listen to when spoken by so many first class actos. The film can rightly be criticised for some historical inaccuracy but it isn't a documentary. In the end this is what cinema at its best is all about. In its intelligence, scope and ambition it makes a lot of contemporary cinema look pretty pitiful.

Great cinematography and wondrous music compromised by a pretentious script, by Robert Bolt, allowing director Lean to magnify historical inaccuracies in the dubious name of being visually striking and, well, not much else.

Nicely put, Ian. This set the benchmark for epic storytelling. It's sad that in this day and age of filmmaking that, directors can not embrace the meaning of "Epic". I know times have changed, but every time i see this picture, i am enraptured by the visuals and the articulate form of storytelling...That mirage scene has yet to be bettered. What we have now in modern filmmaking are short cuts - sad, but true. This movie had it's visuals realised in a more tangent, practical way, that is sadly absent today...God forbid a remake is gestating inside some offensive bureaucratic film producer! Well, it is a possibility.

Still the benchmark. Everything Ian said is true, but what is a little surprising is that it has garnered only 4 stars in this Time Out review. Surely lumping those heavy camera's through the Jordanian and Moroccan deserts deserves a 5! In all truth this is one of those films (along with Apocalypse Now) that cannot be fully appreciated on your 42" wide-screen LCD TV. Treat yourself and see why?

From one of the worst films of the year in Nativity 2 to what is by some way the best all on the same day. Find the biggest screen you can that is showing this film because it truly sets the bar for epic movies. One thing shook me was how few people were involved in the making of the film. Today films need at least three producers, several Executive Producers and numerous other sort of producers as well as apparently hundreds of others. This had one Producer, a director, a director of photography and two screenwriters. The point is that it in all of these key roles you have possibly the best in the roles. Add to this a cast that any director would die for and we have what in my mind is one of the top five films of all time. Steven Spielberg saw this and it made him want to make movies. Possibly someone watching this this week will make the same decision. Five stars all the way.