A Man for All Seasons (1966)

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.

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.

maybe, it is far to be the right word. because its meanings are too complex for define this definition. sure, script, performances, atmosphere, cinematography, costumes, values are impeccable. but it is not a real new thing in the context of historical films from the same period. maybe, the fact than, in my childhood, Thomas Morus was one of my heroes is not real significant too. the best part of this extraordinary film is the message. clear, powerful, precise. about duty. and about conscience. about the decision who defines yourself . about the clash between moral and politic. about one word who change everything. this is all. sure, it is tempting to do a parallel with "Beckett". but, maybe only for me, "A man for all the seasons" is more than the story between a king and his friend. and more than a glamorous Hollywood super production. it is a huge remember of what you must be. against the pressures. against the context.

Sir Thomas More was Lord Chancellor of England in the early 1500s. He opposed King Henry VIII's decision to break off from the Catholic Church and divorce his wife. This story gets dramatized in "A Man for All Seasons", showing the moral dilemma that More faced. Paul Scofield plays More as a man who simply did what he thought was right in the face of insurmountable odds.To my knowledge, this was the second time that Fred Zinnemann had directed a movie about a person who is forced to follow his conscience in a desperate situation (the other was "High Noon"). Both are examples of some of the best that cinema has to offer. It's a shame that Zinnemann isn't a more well known director; he also gave us "From Here to Eternity" and "Julia". Even if you don't know much about England's history, this is still a fascinating story. Along with Scofield, we get outstanding performances from Robert Shaw as Henry, Leo McKern (the cult leader in "Help!") as Cromwell, and Susannah York as More's wife Margaret.And yes, I think that John Hurt's character looks like Ringo Starr.