Surprisingly incoherent and boring

An action-packed slog

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

When a film receives critical acclaim the director is usually the first person that the media points to as being responsible for the film's success. I noticed that IMDB has Billy Budd at an overall rating of 7.9 which I am more than a bit surprised at such a high overall rating. Peter Ustinov as the film's director penciled himself in as none other than the ship's Post Captain of the Royal Navy, Edwin Fairfax Vere, and the crew's moral compass. When Billy Budd is confronted by the mean and manipulative liar Master of Arms/Captain John Claggart (Robert Ryan) trouble follows the young Billy Budd (played by 24 year old Terrence Stamp), whose fate is left in the hands of the ship's Post Captain of the Royal Navy, Edwin Fairfax Vere, and his military brass.I thought Robert Ryan was not cast properly as the Master Of Arms and that hat he is wearing looked absolutely ridiculous. His hat reminds me of the Irish leprechaun from the Lucky Charms cereal commercials. All that was needed was for Robert Ryan to jump up in the air and kick up his heels as he doles out his punishment(s) to the various crew members to be reminded he was acting more like a leprechaun and less as a Master Of Arms.I also did not think that this film held up well over the decades. I certainly would not even place it near to the class of watchable film as the 1954 film Caine Mutiny, starring Humphrey Bogart, and/or the 1962 Mutiny On the Bounty, starring Marlon Brando. I love the old films all the way from the 1940's-70's so as much as I wanted to see Billy Budd I am going to blame the poor delivery on the film's director and star Peter Ustinov. He really should have stuck to acting only.I give the film a poor 3 out of 10 rating. I cannot recommend Billy Budd for any value whatsoever.

I first saw this film at age 18, and was not ready for the language and psychological underpinnings of the story, but a great story it is. Classic in the sense of a story for all time and and riveting in its humanity. No film captures better the physical conditions of the way sailors lived in the British navy of the Napoleonic Wars. The claustrophobia, the constant movement of the ship over the deep "full of monsters surviving because of the sharpest teeth" as the Master of Arms John Claggert notes. Claggert is memorably played by Robert Ryan, perhaps one of Hollywood's most under-sung actors. His Claggert is a man who seems to be devouring himself with acidic self-hatred. What the world has made him is the doom of Billy Budd, the newly impressed seaman who is the very persona of guileless innocence. These two are headed for tragedy and how they get there is the basis of the film. Very fine actors all around such as John Neville, Paul Rogers, and a young David McCallum lend credence to a shattering conclusion that I found still quite moving in a recent viewing on TCM. Peter Ustinov who directed and wrote the screenplay and plays the Captain was equal to the task in all those roles. One of my favorite top- ten movies of the sea with a story that will never grow old. Neither will Herman Melville's novel.

Billy Budd is directed by Peter Ustinov, who also stars, writes and produces. It's adapted from the stage play that in turn was adapted from the Herman Melville story of the same name. Joining Ustinov in the cast are Terence Stamp, Robert Ryan, Melvyn Douglas and Paul Rogers. Shot in Black & White, it's a CinemaScope production, with Robert Krasker on cinematography and Antony Hopkins provides the musical score. Story is set in 1797 aboard the British naval vessel HMS Avenger, after naive youngster Billy Budd (Stamp) joins the ship it sees his indomitable spirit rub off on the hardened and cynical crew. But this brings him to the attention of the cruel and sadistic master-at-arms, John Claggart (Ryan). With the wily Captain Vere looking on, Budd refuses to accept Claggart as a monster. Something will clearly have to give, and when it does, this ship will never be the same again.Very much labelled as a mixed bag by the critics over the years, and very much a box office failure on its release, Ustinov's film today has merits worthy of respect. In essence a good versus evil fable that's flecked with an examination of moral justice versus maritime law, Billy Budd is reliant on its script and actors to see it home. Ustinov was forced to cut out a number of scenes that were deemed as being too violent, the suits at the British Board of Film Censors even complaining that the film was too downbeat! What is left is an easy paced period piece that still has moments of dramatic impact garnered from human interactions. True enough its measured narrative means it's possibly not a film for those looking for a cannon fuelled pre Napoleonic Wars epic, but the acting is rich, notably an on debut Stamp (credit Ustinov's direction of him), and once over, the film does have the power to make the viewer think onwards. And that's something to be applauded, not derided.I'd have liked it to have been in colour, to fully utilise the "Scope" in Krasker's hands, and yes, I would have liked some more savagery to fully flesh out the harshness of naval life. But a good story is a good story, which in Ustinov's hands is steered safely into port. 7/10

It's not a well-known movie, but people, this is a true masterpiece. It's almost like an European art movie, there's nothing Hollywood in it. Ustinov is a sensitive director who respects and remains true to the book (a rarity). A good idea it was made in B&W, for it makes the whole thing extremely beautiful. Hail to the photographer. And a perfect cast. Ustinov, although better known for his great comic roles, is a serious, noble, sympathetic Captain Vere. Okay, he's not as attractive as Philip Langridge (who played the role in the '88 filmed stage version), but he's credible. For Billy, the incredibly young, angelic, nice, innocent Terence Stamp was a perfect choice. He looks exactly like Melville described the character, and he's truly good and lovable without being a Mary-Sue. Maybe the only "extra" is that although naive, he has some kind of wisdom: he understands Claggart and tries to befriend him. And for the master-at-arms, Robert Ryan (who was so sympathetic and tormented in The Wild Bunch) is Evil incarnate. Not your overplayed bad guy, but a silent, smiling sadist. His death scene is one of the most frightening things I've ever seen: the dies SMILING, as if he knew he has won, and that Billy would die for this, too. One must think Claggart actually WANTED to be killed. He tempts fate again and again till he gets what he deserves. Not many movies are there what made me cry, but this one did. There's much more in it than a symbolic fight between Good and Evil. Billy might be an angel, and Claggart might be a lovechild of Iago, but the actors make them human. The tragedy is that there was the possibility of loving each other. Billy had offered it, and Claggart almost fell for good, but he couldn't deny his natural depravity. As for the homoerotic undertones: yes, they are there. Especially in Ryan's Claggart. His hate is mostly an oppressed lust.So it's a nearly-perfect movie, it really deserves more popularity. MJelville is so under-adapted! Only two versions exist for Moby Dick, and BB wasn't filmed again (at least not for cinemas) since this film.