Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

kijii This movie is the third joint venture paring writer Harold Pinter and director Joseph Losey. The other two are The Servant (1963), and Accident (1967). This venture, combined with a top-notch cast, makes for a great film: No. 56 of the BFI's Top 100. Yet sadly, the movie has not been restored, in its original aspect ratio for DVD, and I had to see it on VHS in the full screen pan-and scan version. I've a feeling that this is one of those films that MUST be seen in its original wide screen format, since the photography of the English countryside setting is crucial to the movie, and anything less does not tell the movie's whole story!Michael Redgrave tells the story, in retrospect. It begins as a 12-year- old boy, Leo (Dominic Guard), comes to spend the summer of 1900 at a large English country estate. He is a guest there, and his relationship to the family is never made clear. We don't learn much about his background except what we overhear: that his mother is a widow from the city. As he is introduced at the family dinner table, he tells them that he knows magic and has conjured up curses on people, but this seems a game between him and the other boy his age on the estate, Marcus. As the two boys play, the rest of Marcus' family starts to emerge as Marcus tells Leo about them while pointing them out. We view their lazy hot summer's life as they attempt to occupy themselves with conversation, nature, art, culture, and games. Leo attempts to fit in with the family led by its matriarch, Mrs. Maudsley (Margaret Leighton). Leo also becomes attracted to Marus' older sister, Marian (Julie Christie), and develops a puppy love for her. (At one point he proclaims that he would do almost anything for her.) She, in turn, shows an admiration for him.One day as the family goes out for a swim, they encounter their lower- class neighbor, Ted Burgess (Alan Bates), who is trespassing on their property by swimming in their lake. Leo later meets Ted and is gradually taken into his confidence. At Ted's coaxing, he starts to secretly deliver notes to Marian, and she, in turn, returns notes to Ted, through Leo. Feeling 'out of the loop,' Leo wants to know more. He eventually asks Ted to tell him about sex ('spooning'). At almost thirteen and with no father to guide him, Leo has never been told the facts of life. Yet, he senses that he should know more and that Ted will explain it to him-- though he never really does. When Marian becomes engaged to an upper- class gentleman, Ted seems displeased. However, after a brief break off in communications; Ted and Marian begin their secret exchanges again with Leo still acting as their dutiful Mercury-like 'go-between.' Then, on Leo's thirteenth birthday, he suddenly learns the shocking nature of his carried missives.This film, accented by Michel Legrand's score, has a mysterious, almost Gothic, feel about it. There seems to be something always missing, just out of view, waiting to be discovered. But, just as Leo is never made part of the secret, neither is the audience--until the surprising ending.

hou-3 This film ought to be better than it is, because it has a lot going for it. The third in a trilogy of movies about the English class system, it benefits like its predecessors (The Accident and The Servant) from a well crafted, highly literate script by Harold Pinter. The house it is largely set in and around - Melton Constable - looks stunning, very different from its present sad condition. It benefits from a stellar cast of actors, some of the best in the UK at the time. Julie Christie looks absolutely gorgeous, at her best, and Margaret Leighton turns in a dazzling performance as the embattled and indignant matriarch. So where does it fall down? It lacks tension to start with. Losey's direction is lacklustre, just look at the cinematography in some of the longer, interior scenes, it's basically painting by numbers. The whole film is languid, like the hot Norfolk summer it is set in. The colour print has not worn well. And the music is inappropriate for both tone and plot, all jangling piano, far too loud and intrusive. Still, it's worth watching for the recreation of rural England pre-1914. This is so well done, albeit a tad over the top at times in the playing up of class differences (especially in the cricket match)

d_m_s Horrid adaptation with inexplicably high rating on IMDb.The whole thing looks like a low budget BBC TV episode from the 70's.The story is expressed badly and I felt lost even though I am familiar with the plot from reading the book so god knows what it must be like for anyone coming to it without this prior knowledge.The generally quiet and slow paced film is interrupted sporadically by ill-fitting, over the top and very loud dramatic music that is a complete contradiction to what is happening on screen (e.g. at one point a boy wandering through fields is accompanied by a pounding, overly dramatic piano score).The music, bad camera work, laughable acting and shoddy editing made this a very difficult film to endure and after about 30 minutes I watched the rest in fast forward.

moonspinner55 In the early 1900s, a 12-year-old boy staying with his school-friend and his friend's family in the English countryside for the summer becomes indirectly involved in the clandestine affair between a privileged young woman and a lusty, low-class farmer. Harboring a crush on his friend's older sister, the lad is at first anxious to be her messenger, but his feelings soon sour once he realizes he's being used--as is the woman's rich, stuffy intended--in a game of love-play which he does not altogether understand. Harold Pinter's adaptation of the novel by L.P. Hartley smartly concentrates on the boy's perception of the events, although the flash-forwards in time (which culminate in an obtuse epilogue) fall rather flat. Joseph Losey directs in a clear, concise manner without too much dawdling about, building up the tension in the household with precision. Disapproving family matriarch Margaret Leighton, who sees the world through slanted, jaded eyes, has a terrifically charged moment late in the movie where she confronts the child over a letter in his pocket, and young Dominic Guard is excellent as well. The star-crossed lovers, Julie Christie and Alan Bates, have far less to work with (surprisingly), but do have superlative moments. The unvarying score by Michel Legrand becomes monotonous before long, and the production design and cinematography are disappointing, though the film has a quiet power that is unsettling. **1/2 from ****