Un homme pour l'éternité

standing alone it might be a 6, even a 7; standing next to the masterpiece a 5 is generous; heston is a stock Hollywood movie star with rock-jawed delivery in every movie basically playing himself the Hollywood star; you see a clip of him on Carson it's the same, ben-hur, it''s the same; scofield is simply another level, thoughtful, wide dynamic range, crisp- and the supporting production design again no contest; maybe a personal coup for heston to get the part he wanted in 66, but it's very, very risky to remake a gem- a la the branagh remakes of olivier; they're good but as this does they pale next to the original gems, specially when you have nothing to add like an updated circumstance, romeo+juliet become west side story; zinnemann really got it right, a highly rewarding movie on every level- sets, score, you name it- and no need to go elsewhere

Heston is not Scofield, and this is not what the movie version is. Still, it preserves the core of More's life and meaning, and is far better than the typical TV-movie (if only because it dares to take out of the closet the old-fashioned notion that life means nothing unless there is something to die for).

While this television remake of "A Man For All Seasons' is closer to the script of the play,it falls far below the masterpiece original film version. The main problem is the miscasting of Charlton Heston as Thomas More. His performace ranges from Bombast to boredom. Never a strong actor all his flaws show here,especially when compared to Paul Scofield's masterfully poignant performance in the original film.Roy Kinear as Common Man holds best of show honors. He is a delightfully sly narrator and covers the role of Matthew with ease. Vanessa Redgrave is as strong as Wendy Hiller as More's wife Alice but Adrianne Thomas' Lady Margaret falls far short of Susanna York's memorable portayal.Even the great Sir John Gielgud is miscast here. As Cardinal Wolsey his voice is indeed imposing but his slight frame in no way conveys the "full fed prince of the church" that Wolsey was. Over all it is a good effort at preserving the play, but for emotional power,well developed relationships and emotional passion...see the original film.

This made-for-TV version of "A Man for All Seasons" both wins and loses when compared to the more famous movie version of the show, which stars Paul Scofield as Thomas More. It wins, because it stays faithful to Mr. Bolt's original theatrical script, and so keeps much of the play's impact that was lost to "production values" in the big-budget movie release. It loses, in that the main characters, especially Mr. Heston's Thomas More, are weaker than those of the movie version. For example, Mr. Heston completely misses nuances of language that Mr. Scofield caught and used to great advantage; but the supporting actors in this version (Vanessa Redgrave as More's wife comes especially to mind) are far stronger than in the movie version. On the whole, though, I highly recommend that you see this version, mainly to watch Mr. Bolt's craftsmanship that was totally lost in the movie version.

I watched this film with some trepidation as the 1966 version has long been a favourite of mine. I could not imagine an American actor portraying my hero, Thomas More. However, I enjoyed it very much. Charlton Heston's performance was a revelation. I thought he did a really good job of showing More's famous wit but at times, his anguish too. Vanessa Redgrave's Dame Alice seemed at times almost a caricature ('A printed boook!') Yes I know Alice was from Yorkshire but Redgrave's 'common touch' was a bit overdone! Ben Whitrow as Cromwell was wonderful. Genial yet sinister, loved it! As for Roy Kinnear, he was just perfect as the common man, I always thought it a shame that this part was left out of the 1966 film. Having seen the play a few times, this is truer to the stage version but I wouldn't compare the two films, they are both very good.