martinchorich This movie showing its age after 800 years. Visually, it's completely static and claustrophobic. The script is densely wordy, yet no one on this thread has identified any quotable lines. In terms of plot and story arc, it plays as if Stanley Kramer did the middle ages, with a lot of anachronistic business about ethnic/class differences, separation of church and state, and the corruptions of power. Despite the set piece tension between the supposedly Saxon Becket and the Norman Richard, it turns out that the real, historical Becket, too was a Norman. Never mind!As for the acting, get ready for some of the most egregious scenery chewing in Hollywood history. Peter O'Toole is particularly guilty of a when-in-doubt-shout performance. When he gazes guiltily up to heavens, he clearly must be thinking of the soul destroying self betrayals required to win an Oscar. I'm sure that's the hidden meaning behind the penance scenes.

Freedom060286 This movie definitely has some positive attributes, but also some annoying flaws. It is visually enjoyable, with very nice cinematography and superb costume design. And there is some fine acting, especially by Richard Burton, as well as John Gielgud. But there are many historical inaccuracies, most of them entirely unnecessary to the story. For example, Henry may have been harsh with his sons and with his wife, but was kind to his mother Matilda, who had always been very loving and devoted to him. The lack of respect between the two added nothing to the movie. Thomas Becket was not a Saxon, he was born in London but was the son of a couple from Normandy. Henry was less Norman than Becket, he was the son of an Angevin father, and his mother was a mix of Norman, Scottish, and Anglo-Saxon royalty. Her grandparents were William I, Matilda of Flanders, Margaret of Wessex (a descendant of Alfred the Great, she became St Margaret of Scotland), and Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. So Henry II had more Anglo-Saxon heritage (1/8) than Thomas Becket (none).The conflict between Henry and Becket actually went on for years, and there were many differences between them, not just the decision to execute a priest.Henry was almost certainly not a homosexual. He considered Becket a good friend and supporter at one time, but the movie makes him out to be madly in love with Becket while having no liking or respect for anyone else. The actress who played Eleanor of Aquitaine was nothing like her. In reality, Eleanor was an elegant and exceptionally strong woman. The makers of The Lion in Winter made a wiser choice by casting Katharine Hepburn.

evanston_dad A very solid, engaging historical costume drama about Henry II (Peter O'Toole) and his friendship with Thomas Becket (Richard Burton), a man who Henry assumed would be his tool but who instead imposed his own principles against the king's wishes and died for it.It seems that since its release in 1964, this film has been raked over the coals for its historical inaccuracy. To which I say, anyone turning to a Hollywood version of history for facts deserves what he gets. Instead, it takes the historical premise and makes a juicy character study of it. Burton and O'Toole are in top form, and watching them butt stubborn head against stubborn head for two hours is entertaining enough to make up for any bad grade assigned to the film for its factual flaws. O'Toole especially is tremendous, giving an endlessly fascinating performance as a king who's perfectly capable of deeply loving a friend even as he calls for that friend's destruction."Becket" is the sort of respectable prestige film made to win Academy Awards, and though it won only one in 1964, for Best Adapted Screenplay (Edward Anhalt), it was nominated for 11 others, tying the nomination tally of that year's best picture winner, "My Fair Lady." Its nominations included Best Picture (Hal B. Wallis), Best Director (Peter Glenville), Best Actor (Richard Burton), Best Actor (Peter O'Toole), Best Supporting Actor (John Gielgud, for what feels like about two minutes of screen time), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score and Best Sound.Of course, 1964 is the year of "Dr. Strangelove," which blows both "Becket" and "My Fair Lady" out of the water, and which predictably won 0 Academy Awards.Grade: A

Tad Pole . . . Richard Burton seems to be lamenting as title character Saint Thomas BECKET. But his producer Hal Wallis' insistence of substituting prayer for action whenever possible (since "talk is cheap") made BECKET's potentially epic story more like the lame "Best Picture" of 1963, TOM JONES, than the grand Best Pic of 1962, which had Burton's BECKET co-star Peter O'Toole in the title role as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Where LAWRENCE featured lots of young blood and eye candy, Wallis drowned Burton in a sea of old and\or ill-favored actors, making BECKET more of an EXCALIBER or Polanski MACBETH-type show than true competition for Audrey Hepburn's "Best Picture" triumph of 1964, MY FAIR LADY. The fact that BECKET's low-budget talk fest STILL managed to snag 12 Oscar Noms proves that the penny-pinching Wallis snagged defeat from the jaws of victory in regard to Hollywood's top prize. If Prince Hal had just hired a sword-master, he could have had ill-fated Brother John parry a thrust or two of the baron's with the silver cross before being Shish-Kabobbed. Viewers get the sense that most of BECKET's "action" is occurring off-screen. Oscar voters and the American public preferred to see Audrey lip-syncing.