Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Leofwine_draca I was primarily interested in watching MORGAN: A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT because it was the film that made David Warner famous, and I've enjoyed watching Warner's acting work over the years. Roles like the ones in STRAW DOGS and THE OMEN have made him one of those criminally underrated actors who really should have been as well known as the big shots.Sadly, this unworkable mental illness comedy must have been dated on release, although I understand it has a reputation as a cult film. I can't work out why. I don't mind stupid humour, and I actively like surreal humour, but the stuff that goes on in this film is random and pointless. Warner dresses up as a gorilla, wanders around a bit, smashes some stuff in his room, and goes on various escapades. In between there's a lot of dated dialogue in the form of cod psychological debates and the like. It seems to trivialise mental illness a lot and the execution is so poor it can't be taken seriously.It doesn't help that the film was shot in black and white, making it look cheap and old-fashioned; some colour would have better brought the decade to life. Warner does his best with the material, but the likes of Vanessa Redgrave seem stuffy and too focused on acting without feeling natural doing so. I did enjoy seeing supporting roles for the likes of Bernard Bresslaw, Irene Handl, and Graham Crowden, but that's just about all I got out of it.

MrOllie Karel Reisz directed "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" which people went to see at the cinema in droves, and was enjoyed by many working class folk. Karel Reisz also directed "Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment" which far fewer people went to see at the cinema, and I feel was much less appealing to the working class viewer. I suspect that those who did see it and found it a hoot, where most likely to be middle class lefties and students. Because I am neither a middle class lefty or have ever been a student, I didn't find it a hoot at all. In fact I found David Warner's character Morgan, extremely irritating and annoying, him being a grown man acting like a badly behaved child. Although, in todays world grown men acting like badly behaved children are sadly accepted by society and are not deemed to require treatment. The Inbetweeners for example. I watched Morgan again recently, and it was nice to see Irene Handl and Arthur Mullard. I like the nostalgia of 1960's British films (even rubbish ones like this)and enjoyed seeing a youthful fresh faced Vanessa Redgrave. This lady was the reason I took out a short lived subscription of "The Workers Revolutionary Party" newspaper, way back in the early 1970's. I always intended to go to one of their meetings in the hope I might meet her, but never ever got around to attending one. Morgan was certainly not for me. If I have to watch so called slapstick comedy such as this (minus the political stuff) then give me a Norman Wisdom film anytime.

KissEnglishPasto ............................................................from Pasto,Colombia...Via: L.A. CA., CALI, COLOMBIA and ORLANDO, FL "Movies That Stand the Test of Time" is a list I recently compiled... "Morgan" WON'T be on it! Granted, the basic concept is starkly original, with outstanding performances by both David Warner and Vanessa Redgrave (In her first leading screen role!) There are a few savagely funny lines and bits sprinkled throughout here and there. But on the whole, a lot of the film comes across as anachronistically as the hammer and sickle Morgan insists on drawing or carving everywhere.Also, the constant insertion of Keystone Cop Slapstick bits (Ala "Hard Days Night") gets old really fast, especially since most of them fall flat. And my biggest gripe: I saw this movie 3 times at age 18 and 19, during its theatrical release and I clearly recall footage (1 minute?) where a then VERY HOT Vanessa Redgrave was romping around the bedroom being chased in a state of semi-undress. The scenes managed to be simultaneously humorous and sexy (Very risqué in 1966, but not more than PG by today's standards!) These scenes were about the best in the film and the main reason I rented it. COMPLETELY EDITED OUT! Does anyone else recall them? Ironically, at the beginning, the British Cinema Board announces, "This film is to be viewed only by Adults!" On EXTRAS, watch the Original Trailer and you'll see a couple seconds of snippets of the bedroom romp scene that was edited out of the DVD release! You decide what you want to do with this one! 6* (Being a bit generous?) ....ENJOY//DISFRUTELA?!?!?Any comments, questions or observations, in English o en Español, are most welcome! KissEnglishPasto@Yahoo.com

dougdoepke I thought the movie hilarious in '66 and still do. Of course, I can see why social conservatives take offense since the movie basically mocks settled convention. For example, when a gorilla-clad Morgan crashes the wedding party, it's like the intrusion of primal instinct on all that's refined and holy. But even more troubling, movie communists are portrayed as almost likably human, instead of the usual weasels or monsters of Hollywood lore. For Americans, that took real getting used to then, and I expect still does.Reviewer screaminmimi is, I think, spot-on in her commentary. Still, I want to venture a perspective on Morgan's weird behavior since he's such a fascinating character, for me, at least. He's like a believer who's lost faith—he keeps the Marxist icons on his car, but in his heart no longer believes in the revolution. Instead, as the dialog indicates, the weight of mindless convention is crushing his sensitive nature. What's more, despair is really rubbed in when Leonie leaves him for the asinine Napier, the epitome of the unworthy, in Morgan's eyes, at least.So, having given up on politics and despising the conventional, he retreats into the fantastic, non-human world of the gorilla by taking on the alter-ego of the primitive, which he then uses to pursue his ex-wife. In Morgan's mind maybe Leonie will respond to the magnetism of the primitive by bellowing out his call. So he conducts his wacky efforts at winning her back by donning a gorilla costume, and we get some of the movie's loonier comedic set-ups.Consider also that great scene at Marx's bust in Highgate when the camera plays up the over-hanging brow and ape-like visage. Morgan responds with an ape-like grunt, which Mom construes as disrespect. It's not. In fact, with that grunt he's incorporated the political into his new primitive fantasy. It's only later on, atop the trash heap, when he's lost Leonie and given up his gorilla alter-ego, that the political suddenly reasserts itself and with a vengeance. At that point, he imagines himself executed by Marxist guerrillas, perhaps in guilt over not fulfilling the Leninist expectations others had for the young Morgan. Defeated in so many ways, he's now ready to be carted off to the loony bin, but not without a lingering spark.Of course, there's also Leonie, the trigger of his desperation. She's really torn since she responds to Morgan's rebellious nature, on one hand, but is used to the conventional comforts of her prosperous class, on the other. It's clear that she's attracted to him, but can't take living with such an unpredictable cuss. So she retreats back to the prospect of the conventional with Napier. Asked by Morgan, at one point, why she prefers the conventional, she's perplexed and can't really answer, as if she's never actually thought about it. So, not only does Morgan lose out to convention, he loses out to a bunch of rules for which there's no apparent reason.The movie itself is very much in the emerging hip style of the day. Director Reisz films in brash, take no prisoners fashion, unafraid of breaking the rules. His cast of Warner and Redgrave are perfect for their roles. She looks every inch the well-kept daughter and wife who occasionally likes to let her hair down, while he manages a complex role in persuasive fashion. To me, the comedy set-ups are funny as heck, though one might question the explosive set- up under the bed. Still, I take Morgan's assault on the upper-class as akin to the Marx Bros. irreverent brand of humor in the 1930's. In fact, some of his antics could be likened to Harpo Marx's absurd stage props at a time when the brothers wreaked havoc among that day's well upholstered.Sure, some of the cinematic style may look outdated. But neither the laughs nor the targets are. To me, they endure. After fifty years, Morgan is still an exceptional movie.