X
- 2002
- PG
- 3 h 38 m
- 2002
- PG
- 3 h 38 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
- PG
- 3 h 38 m
- 2002
- PG
- 3 h 38 m
Lawrence of Arabia (re-release)
100
8.6
Where to Watch
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
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.
User Score
Universal Acclaim
Based on 404 User Ratings
8.6
88% Positive
355 Ratings
355 Ratings
7% Mixed
30 Ratings
30 Ratings
5% Negative
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
User Score
Universal Acclaim
Based on 404 User Ratings
8.6
88% Positive
355 Ratings
355 Ratings
7% Mixed
30 Ratings
30 Ratings
5% Negative
19 Ratings
19 Ratings
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
A classic masterpiece i love so much. Truly a masterpiece that should be talked about still.
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 secret life of Arabia. What makes this historical drama about one of the most notable but misunderstood heroes of World War I interesting is the performance of Peter O'Toole, in the title role. It's hard to believe he didn't get the recognition he deserved at the award ceremonies, but that doesn't add to or take away from his record.
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`m one of this low number of people ,who do not like this film. I just think Lean`s films are not my cup of tea.Yeah,undoubtedly,it has stunning visual ,but besides it,i can`t find anything interesting in it.
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 38 m
Rating PG
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
