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.

ccthemovieman-1 Boy, did I love this movie in the Sixties when I was a left-wing radical college student. Everything about goofy Morgan (David Warner) was funny or likable or just plain cool, in a weird sort of way. This movie was so '60s with its mores and humor. If they had VHS tapes back then, I would have bought this in a heartbeat.When I began seriously collecting movies in the mid '90s, I was excited to see this again. Wow, what a disappointment. What was so great back then now looks so incredibly stupid. The film was so bad, and Warner was so annoying (hardly 'fab' anymore), I couldn't finish the film. I couldn't believe how incredibly inane this was and how much I used to like it. Like another '60s period piece, "Easy Rider," it's amazing how differently we see things depending on our age and/or how we have changed culturally, politically or religiously. I wonder if Warner looks back at this film and cringes, too.

Conrad Spoke This film produced that "I guess you had to be there" feeling more acutely, and painfully, than for any 60's movie I have ever watched. It is almost impossible to believe that (as the vintage trailer claims) Time Magazine called this "Hilarious and poignant," the New York Times "Howlingly funny," and the New Yorker "Brilliant." I don't mind watching dated comic techniques (such as speeding up the film and music for a few seconds) so long as I can push my mind's eye back the appropriate number of decades and *imagine* how I might have reacted in 1966, or '46, or '26. I can smile at the places where an audience howled themselves to tears in an Abbot and Costello comedy. But the lame attempts at wit and slapstick in "Morgan" just left me slack-jawed in disbelief. Was it ever actually funny to watch a man act like a mere retardate, grinning ecstatically as he operates an electric can opener, imitating a gorilla in a subway station, and breaking things? At no point does any of this come across as eccentric or childlike behavior. It is simply annoying, and doubly annoying when Morgan's ex-wife responds, yet again, as though she were witnessing his infantilism for the first time.But perhaps I am missing a "point" which was obvious forty years ago. You could also say that David Warner is doing a pretty good job of portraying the self-conscious and highly calculated intrusions of an offensive creep. He is less beefy than the Robert Mitchum character in "Cape Fear," but is precisely the same personality type. You expect everyone around him to recoil in disgust. Instead, the most we get is a huffy, "Oh, you are simply insufferable!" reaction. And then his spectacularly beautiful and wealthy ex-wife suddenly makes goo-goo eyes, for absolutely no apparent reason, and goes to bed with him. "Aha!" I would have said in 1966. This criminal mind is merely masquerading as a dolt with delusions of becoming a Karl Marx-worshipping gorilla, a peaceful animal that merely blusters violence. Aha again! He is actually a Marxist "guerilla," a dirty fighter in a class war...Now I am thinking too hard. I am filling in the gaps where I am not laughing. I have no way of gauging the authors' larger intentions because their smaller dramatic and comic beats are indecipherable. In the middle of this Satire no one around Morgan does anything as realistically simple as changing the locks on the house doors.Morgan's antics are supposed to be wacky and impish but ultimately aimless and poignant. Yes, there is some sort of structure of comic/tragic insanity which is barely visible here. Unfortunately, that is all that is visible.I am so impressed by the un-funniness of this film that I would watch the whole thing again if it were shown split-screen alongside another movie showing a theater-full of people watching it in 1966. What, exactly, did they laugh at? At which gems of dialogue did they stroke their chins and nod their head to say, "Fascinating point," and "Very witty, indeed"? This screenplay was first produced for television. England's film community found the material so compelling, so necessary, so... funny that they demanded it be remade for the big screen. It won BAFTA's and launched careers. Why? I guess you had to be there.

morganyossarian A film that acheives what it sets out to be. It is an immature and unreasonable storyline that takes no account for anyones feelings but those of our hero, Morgan... But 1966 was a time of big brush strokes, not subtle pointers. Most of the situations and characters are cardboard and stereotypical, but done with a sense of style and flair that allows you not to get bogged down in it all. When at the end of the film, the seemingly battered and beaten Morgan still has the clenched fist of rebellion, it's time for a hot cocoa and then off to bed clutching Das Kapital in your rebellious mitts, with a wistful smile on your face for the simple values of yesteryear, when it was good versus evil. I gave it 9 0ut of 10. Very watchable and great fun