i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

Crappy film

Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Although Paul Scofield's performance is Oscar-deserving, overall this one is not worthy of the "Best Picture" Academy Award it won. Some of the casting could have been better. Orson Welles appears drunk and does not play Wolsey nearly as well as Anthony Quayle in Anne of a Thousand Days. Leo McKern is not as convincing as Thomas Cromwell as was John Colicos in that movie. Robert Shaw gave a poor performance as Henry VIII - his spitting at the mouth during his loud ranting, and maniacal laughing at other times was over-the-top and made the ruthless but shrewd king appear to be insane. The comment at the end that Henry died of syphilis is not historically accurate. However, most of the rest of the cast (for example John Hurt) perform very well. History reveals Thomas More to be clever and pious, but also stubborn and self-righteous, so his portrayal in the movie is historically accurate. The movie is for the most part well- written and the cinematography is very good.

A Man for all Seasons is a 1966 film directed by Fred Zinneman. It tells the story of the final years of Sir Thomas More. Like Elizabeth, the film was praised and won an impressive six Oscars. It was an adaptation of a play written by Robert Bolt and this is important to note, unlike certain adaptations that would come years later. A Man for all Seasons sticks much, much, closer to the actual history. In fact, only very minor details were changed as opposed to the almost fantasy-like take on Queen Elizabeth. While both are great films, A Man for all Seasons has a little more of my respect because of this. Now to the movie's story.The film centers on Sir Thomas More, played excellently by Paul Scofield, who refuses to submit in the face of ever increasing pressure. More is portrayed as a man who adhered to his religion no matter the consequence. Interestingly enough, the DVD I purchased had the tagline "His silence was more powerful than words". At first, I had not a clue what that meant. After watching the film, I see now that the meaning behind it is really rather tragic. In the face of threats and endless persecution from his peers and King Henry VIII himself, More refused to crucify himself by openly declaring his reasoning. It was a clever way of going about it, but also sad in that a man had to resort to such tactics in the first place.Of course , in the end it is not enough to save the main character from the king's wrath. Unfortunately, he goes the way of the martyr. In so doing, however, he became an impeccable symbol of virtue and strength. By refusing to allow politics to mold his beliefs, Sir Thomas More became a testament to integrity. The movie's theme is wrapped up cleverly inn its very title. Sir Thomas More truly was a Man for all Seasons.

When asked which of the 89 films that have won the Academy Award for Best Picture I consider to be the WORST I instantly think of this movie. This movie is awful for so many reasons. On the surface it is not a pretty movie (no grand shots like Ben-Hur or Lawrence of Arabia) nor is it a fun movie (like The Sound of Music or My Fair Lady). No this movie is a serious, overly done historical drama in which it's two most famous actors (Robert Shaw and Orson Welles) are hardly in the movie at all! On the surface it is very dry and not at all entertaining.Digging deeper does not help this movie either. The development of Thomas Moore, the protagonist, makes him less and less likable as the story goes on. He's sacrificing his family and everything he has for what he believes is right, but all he has to do is LIE and agree to let the king have his way and the conflict would be over. Instead he fights for a lost cause, fighting for the way things used to be instead of how they could be; a fight he should lose. He becomes ignorant and arrogant for this cause he knows is hopeless and causes his family to suffer because of him. Meanwhile I found the antagonist, Thomas Cromwell, to be very relatable as he is just trying to please the king and therefore keep the country stable. Yet the movie insists Cromwell is bad and Moore is good and it just isn't believable.The nail in the coffin, for me at least, is that this movie beat out Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, the taboo-shattering movie that almost single-handedly killed the Hays Code. This movie appears to be a resistance to Virginia Woolf in fear of public outcry or something to such a dark movie. What this movie lacks in deep, relatable characters with realistic and understandable motives Virginia Woolf has. Thus, not only is A Man For All Seasons an underwhelming and mediocre film, it was also completely undeserving of ever winning the award for Best Picture. Not only that, Paul Scofield's win for best actor is highway robbery from Richard Burton performance in Virginia Woolf, I can't begin to imagine why Scofield won this award.But if you're the kind of person that enjoys a movie about a man from 500 years ago trying to destabilize his country by fighting for an old way of thinking then this is the movie for you.

Perhaps I'm influenced by how I admire More, but I believe the way the film portraits the man is outstanding. More is a witty man that struggles to live up to the highest moral standards; regardless of what we think about them, I believe most people have this struggle too. Perhaps this is what I like about the movie, it inspires me to live up to be an honest, hardworking man in a country where drugs and corruption are everywhere. But the movie is outstanding in the settings and costumes too. And the script is also great. The only thing I would change of the movie is it's pace. We are used to faster paced movies nowadays and the parsimonious rhythm is slow for some people I've shared the movie with.