X
- 2002
- Approved
- Columbia Pictures
- 3 h 36 m
- 2002
- Approved
- Columbia Pictures
- 3 h 36 m
Summary The 40th anniversary re-release of David Lean's 1962 masterpiece, starring Peter O'Toole in one of the most electrifying debuts in film history.
Directed By: David Lean
Written By: Robert Bolt, Michael Wilson
- 2002
- Approved
- Columbia Pictures
- 3 h 36 m
- 2002
- Approved
- Columbia Pictures
- 3 h 36 m
Lawrence of Arabia (re-release)
100
8.5
Where to Watch
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Summary The 40th anniversary re-release of David Lean's 1962 masterpiece, starring Peter O'Toole in one of the most electrifying debuts in film history.
Directed By: David Lean
Written By: Robert Bolt, Michael Wilson
Where to Watch
Not available in your country?
ExpressVPN
Get 3 Extra months free
$6.67/mth
Top Cast
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 8 Critic Reviews
100
100% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
Metascore
Universal Acclaim
Based on 8 Critic Reviews
100
100% Positive
8 Reviews
8 Reviews
0% Mixed
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
0% Negative
0 Reviews
0 Reviews
The movie manages both senses of scale—the intimate and the expansive—with equal majesty, merging them into something moving, mesmerizing, and poetic, in a way only Lean movies could really manage.
Lawrence is back on the big screen, and it simply demands to be seen. Yes, again.
By Janice Page
FULL REVIEW
User Score
Universal Acclaim
Based on 446 User Ratings
8.5
87% Positive
389 Ratings
389 Ratings
8% Mixed
35 Ratings
35 Ratings
5% Negative
22 Ratings
22 Ratings
User Score
Universal Acclaim
Based on 446 User Ratings
8.5
87% Positive
389 Ratings
389 Ratings
8% Mixed
35 Ratings
35 Ratings
5% Negative
22 Ratings
22 Ratings
Peter O' Toole is a legend and a rare diamond amongst the rough. I believe that he will go down in history as one of the best actors ever. He shined in 'How to Steal a Million' with Audrey Hepburn and here channels the wondrous adventures of T.E. Lawrence.
Report
What is there to say about Lawrence of Arabia that hasn't been said already?
Was it hard to sit through a film this long? Yes. Did it keep me engaged the entire time? Also yes.
Report
Released in 1962, it was pretty clearly the most intelligent spectacular within living memory. On its 40th anniversary, it's even better.
Riveting from beginning to end, featuring stellar performances, amazing cinematography, and a story without a trace of fat, the film does everything an epic is supposed to do - and more.
It's perhaps only because it can't be seen in its full glory on television that "Lawrence" isn't ranked more highly on some recent all-time "best film" lists. But it belongs near the very top. It's an astonishing, unrepeatable epic.
What a bold, mad act of genius it was, to make Lawrence of Arabia, or even think that it could be made.
In short, they don't make 'em like this one anymore. Viewing it is like taking a time machine to a movie age that was more naive than our own in some ways, more sophisticated and ambitious in others.
The epic of epics. Lawrence of Arabia is one of the finest movies Hollywood as ever made. It has some of the best cinematography ever, the scale makes it a must watch, and Peter o toole’s performance as Lawrence is really compelling
Report
The sandy front of World War I, set amongst the dunes and political turmoil of Syria, Egypt and Jordan, as seen by a **** British army officer with maybe a little bit of a messiah complex. A true epic, from the breath-stealing long shots of an unimaginably vast desert to the explosive, well-outfitted battle scenes, it lives up to the billing and then some. I was mesmerized by the photography in particular, which constantly discovers new ways to portray what could have been a rather redundant, flat, boring landscape. Truly beautiful, almost ruminative at times, with an appreciation for the artisanship of film.
As for the plot, well... it's a bit slow. Particularly so in the nearly four-hour director's cut, which feels completely unnecessary. I've never seen the theatrical release, which is noted for being incomprehensible in places due to the awkward cuts, but it seems suspicious that half an hour or more couldn't have been lopped off somewhere to improve the pace. Lawrence of Arabia is an exhausting watch, and not just because of the draining personal transformation we see in the title character. There's good material, of course, plenty of it. The hopeless inner squabble of an Arab population that's desperately close to the unified independence they seek. The protagonist's progression from philosophical humanist to enraged berzerker to **** shell. We get plenty to think about, long after the credits have finally, mercifully rolled, but it's a marathon to reach that point.
A Best Picture winner that's technically marvelous, thematically challenging and open-minded, but the ending left me feeling cold and there's really no excuse for it to run for as long as it does.
Report
It's long, it's dated, it's an old style Hollywood epic. One of the best of the last if you are into that sort of thing. All 8 critics here have given it 100 points, but what do they know?
Has some beautiful shots and some very long ones. I watched on TV, albeit an enormous screen so quality of image and sound were not diminished, on the downside I paused it few times for food and phone breaks.
Report
I found out one very interesting fact about this film users review is "CONSISTENCY" ... all the negative critics users written are very very similar like:
- film too long (3.50h)
- film too boring
- film has poor story
The users which gave negative critics also pointed out some positive thing found in the film similar like:
- film has great photography (desert scenes/animal scenes camels, horses...)
- film has some great acting performances (but boring story and very long scenes spoiled my interest)
MY CONCLUSION:
Like the most of the negative user critics I had very similar experience. I was actually very disappointed because I've read so many good critics from users before I watched this film all saying it is EPIC film but as I watched it -> partially/fully overrated... It deserves only three stars and no more. I shoul next time read aso the negative critics before reading positive to see the difference. But likely the critics which are many places consistent and repetitive are likely "genuine critics" or real personal experience. Im not sure if all this positive critics found on board are "truly genuine critics" because film making is big money today much bigger then before we are talking of billions of $$$...so what to think... I learn every time something new... one has to seems read also the negative comments/ratings and if there is consistency there is great chance of genuine viewers experience it means I may also not like this film.... chances are 50-70%....
Report
I watched this movie with no doubt that it would be as good as it was made out to be. It was in the top 10 of the AFI top 100 movies of all time, and it had received many 4 star reviews. About an hour into the film, I fell asleep. Now, fans of the film would say, "Oh, you can't handle the impact of a long epic film. You have a short attention span." Well, with me, that is not the case. But, on the subject of length, this film is almost four hours long. For the content displayed in this film, the running time was way too long. If Titanic can cram all the hefty things it needed in a matter of 3 hours, then this is no excuse. Nothing was happening. I mean, literally nothing. The screenplay needs a real doctor, because it has so much unneeded dialogue. It just procrastinated its way through, I think because it really had nothing more interesting. Director David lean is probably one of the best directors of all time, but in this film, you can tell that his and the producer's mind frame was "I wonder how many academy awards I can get through this film?" It wasn't made naturally, it was gargantuan for this point. I about turned off the movie when I saw a thirty second look at the desert landscape for about the millionth time. Yes, it does take place in the desert, but this movie was called "Lawrence of Arabia," not "The Arabian Desert." Which brings me to my next point: Peter O' Toole. I have seen him in many marvelous performances. I'm surprised he hasn't received an Oscar yet. But, his interpretation of Lawrence was so vague. You only saw the exterior, you never saw the interior. He gets a rush out of killing, yet we don't know why. i partially blame it on the script writers, but I also partially blame it on him. When you are an actor, you have to convey to the audience who you are, no matter how good or bad the script is. he is playing the character that embodies the whole movie. It is solely about him, and he doesn't sell that. Now, I'm not going to bash everything just because I don't like the film, but i will compliment Alec Guinness for his outstanding but short performance as Prince Feisal, Maurice Jarre for the superb score, and the editing. Sorry to burst the bubble of the "Lawrence of Arabia" fans, but I really think this film is overrated, and that it is not as good as it is made out to be. That is my opinion on "Lawrence of Arabia."
Report
Production Company
Horizon Pictures (II)
Release Date Sep 20, 2002
Duration 3 h 36 m
Rating Approved
Tagline A Mighty Motion Picture Of Action And Adventure!
Awards
Academy Awards, USA
• 7 Wins & 10 Nominations
Golden Globes, USA
• 6 Wins & 9 Nominations
BAFTA Awards
• 4 Wins & 5 Nominations