GusF I was really looking forward to this film but it was a major, major disappointment. In fact, I utterly despised this film. I thought that it was absolutely dreadful from start to finish. It was incredibly boring and horrendously written. I understand what they were going for in (accurately) depicting the British military establishment as an overly bureaucratic, incompetent mess which seemed to think that they were still fighting Napoleon but not one of these scenes - or any other scenes in the entire film, for that matter - were in any way interesting. As with "Battle of Britain", I had no interest in any of the poorly written, distracting, clichéd, melodramatic "romantic" stuff. The fact that the people involved were real didn't make these scenes any more bearable. The Crimean War does not even begin until almost a full hour into the film. Admittedly, the details of the war are not as popularly known as those of the two world wars but it still seemed excessive. 20 minutes would have been more than enough.The film is almost as big a mess as said military establishment. There is no flair or energy in Tony Richardson's direction and it is not a particularly good looking film. It has a great cast such as John Gielgud, Vanessa and Corin Redgrave, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and T.P. McKenna but it takes more than good acting to save it a film this bad. Conversely, David Hemmings is not a good leading man as Captain Louis Nolan. I'm a leftie pacifist so I certainly agreed with the film's anti-war stance and it was likely intended as an anti-Vietnam War allegory but I would have preferred a good film over...this. If you want an excellent anti-war film, watch "Oh! What a Lovely War" (which also features Gielgud and the Redgraves). If you want an excellent film about a failed military operation, watch "A Bridge Too Far". Both of those films are directed by Richard Attenborough, probably the best British director of his generation.The only thing that I really loved about the film were the "Punch"-esque animations. Actually, I not only loved them but I adored them. However, they took up about three minutes of a well over two hour film. Let's see. Besides that and some of the acting, what else did I like about the film?....Um, there were some nice dogs in it. I love dogs. Yeah...At one point, Nolan says, "I had such hopes of this war, Morris." I know how he felt. I had such hopes for this film! Out of a grand total of 430 films since January 2014, I was more disappointed with this film than any other. Even "Excalibur", yet another Corin Redgrave film. However, there were a few - though only a few - which were worse.The only reason that I didn't stop watching after about 40 minutes is that I promised myself that I would watch every single film from beginning to end no matter what. In retrospect, I sort of wish that I had as 2+ hours of this awful rubbish was a very painful experience. If it were not for the talent or at least basic competence of most of the actors involved, I would give it a lower score. To coin a phrase, someone had blundered. On the bright side, I have not gotten this much pleasure out of writing a scathing review in about three years!

Photoscots1 . I've always liked this film since I first saw it in the late 1970's. There are so many interesting aspects of this movie from the dandified dialogue to the cartoon inserts which are done in the style of Victorian illustrators of the day.A lot of high caliber actors really shine with the material including David Hemmings with his highly strung manner, Trevor Howard who has the funniest scene in the film when he spanks Fanny Duberley and the Lord Lucan of Harry Andrews who is constantly at war with Lord Cardigan, both being related and despise each other. Even Geilgud shines as the confused Lord Raglan and his ineptitude in the role of commander really highlights the inadequacy of the British military of that age which, if you read the history books, were outclassed by the French management of their forces.The injustice of the class system is another facet of the film which really gets under the skin and leaves a lasting impression of the British Empire and the military which held it in place. This is particularly the case when one of the Sergeant Majors is flogged for being drunk on duty after Cardigan insists he spy on Nolan played by David Hemmings. All of this demonstrates the sort of internal politics that goes on within organizations but not just the military.The battle scenes are very impressive, especially the final charge of the Light Brigade and the explanation of how this failure in military decision making occurred, is made perfectly clear. Cinematography is first rate and the overall art direction delightful. One of the great anti-war movies largely under appreciated by the movie going public of the 60's and has gained much more respect in recent years when compared with the dross being put out today.

rjm-geo So much of the hard part of making a movie about the Crimean War and those who fought there they got right, it's a shame the film-makers couldn't nail the last 30%.The reenactment of Victorian society is impeccable. In dress, manner, and speech. The battle scenes, too, are remarkably faithful to the original locations and deployments, given the obvious limitations in budget and pre-CGI effects.The actors playing they major characters, Raglan (Gielgud), Lucan (Andrews), and Cardigan (Howard) all do an excellent job.And I actually likes the Punch-style animated cut scenes. There was, after all, no way they could show a fleet of several hundred war ships sailing into the Black Sea. Best not try.So, the problems:The charge, a comparatively minor screw-up book-ended by major Allied victories at the battles of the Alma and at Inkerman, was the result of a combination of small oversights, fog of war, and bad luck. So while there is a story to tell here there are no clear cut heroes except for the soldiers themselves, and certainly no villains.So, to make a movie, you can choose either to change history and make larger than life, cartoon characters based on the exaggerated media reports of the day, and the 1950's book which was something of a anti- Cardigan hit piece, ... or you can play it straight, say "this is what it was like" and try to relate the experience, the esprit-de-corps, and yes, the interpersonal tensions, as raw as possible from the top of the command chain to the bottom.This movie tries to have it both ways, it's cartoony but only for the intention of scoring cheap anti-war satire (all generals are imbeciles!), rather than to actually make the movie more enjoyable or engaging. When the war gets close and personal, it reverts back to just showing events... realistically, but with little or no emotional investment. The mechanics of the charge itself are done well, though.And then the movie just ends, way too suddenly.Now maybe, just maybe, Captain Nolan was supposed to be the "hero", the romantic sub-plot (distracting and totally irrelevant to the movie) seems to suggest it, but instead he just comes across as an impatient, vain, inexperienced know-it-all, a thin and unflattering caricature.So, worth watching, but in better hands it could have been so much more.

oscar-35 *Spoiler/plot- The Charge of the Light Brigade, 1968, Mid Victorian England circa 1854 vividly contrasts the silliness of aristocracy and the squalor of lower classes. The film's bride innocently displays her primness and naiveté. Shows the context for the British empire in this time of that day.*Special Stars- Trevor Howard, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Harry Andrews, Jill Bennett, David Hemmings.*Theme- British army teamwork can conquer overwhelming odds. But sometimes the battlefield gives out no justice.*Trivia/location/goofs- British, 3500 historic uniforms made for this film. Clever use of animated news cartoons to tell the diplomatic & military positions in this story.*Emotion- A visually beautiful film of color, sounds, and action. Lead military men are driven by arrogance, ineptitude, and overzealousness. There is no humor or glory in the final charge that is a testament to military blind obedience and realism. Gives you more history on the famous poem of that Victorian imperial era. I got a chance to view this film just recently. I had not known about it before this date. I fully enjoy these types of films, costume dramas within a historical background. I liked Micheal Caine's first film, "Zulu". I am a history buff of the Napoleonic Wars like the TV show "Sharpes' Rifles" and "Horacio Hornblower". This lush and colorful film is wonderfully casted by the English movie greats. Today we will never see the likes of this film casting again. The history of this film might be somewhat trivial but the drama of the war's situations is tragically shown in this film. I enjoyed it. The tone of this film is seen as 'anti-war' with it's playing up the absurdities of Victorian culture over the back drop of the seriousness of war.