User reviews

The Robert Donat version of Goodbye Mr Chips might now seem sentimental, old fashioned and light on plot. It is still a great film.

In this new version. Martin Clunes rises to the challenge in playing Mr Chipping. The shy new Latin teacher at Brookfield school in the Victorian era who stays decades at the school rising to become the beloved headmaster. He finds love with Katherine Bridges (Victoria Hamilton) who he meets on holiday and they swiftly marry. Katherine shakes up his life and that of the stuffy school but domestic bliss is short lived.

This new version deals with the brutishness of private school life. The barbaric initiations, the fagging, the bullying. Mr Chips especially with the help of his wife wants to bring a more progressive way of dealing with pupils and the bullies. As he observes, the cane has had little effect with some of the pupils.

The Donat version did not deal with the brutality of World War One as much as this version. The anti German sentiment towards the German master Mr Staefel is more pronounced. The impact of the war on some of the ex pupils is more graphic.

There is a subplot when a new headmaster turns up in the run up to World War One. He wants to modernise the school but also ramp up the school fees, abolish scholarships for poorer pupils and introduce military training. Mr Chips is appalled at the rapid changes and the governors decide to back him instead of the new headmaster.

A young Henry Cavill plays one of the grown up ex pupils who is injured in the war. Clunes puts in a good performance, it is sentimental enough towards the end but it is never anything more than a well made television movie.

Wonderful stories are well worth retelling, and Martin Clunes does a good job here as Mr Chips.

It can't top the 1939 original, I don't believe anything can, but there are enough positive things here to warrant the remake.

Considering how brilliant, regardless of how sentimental it is, the 1939 Robert Donat film was, this 2002 TV adaptation had a lot to live up to. What a wonderful surprise! I loved this version from beginning to end, it isn't as good as the Donat version, but as a TV drama it is almost perfect. The production values are excellent, elegant in style and gorgeous to look at. The music had a lovely sense of whimsy about it, and gave a gentle and relaxing feel. There were parts that made me laugh, such as the classroom scenes, but others that were very poignant, the ending especially. The scripting was mature and subtle and also I loved the simplicity of the story. The acting was exceptional from all involved. Martin Clunes is brilliant as Chips, maybe just lacking Donat's superiority, but it was still a performance of subtlety and made me smile and cry. Not to mention that his transition from an idealistic 20-something year old teacher to a wiser and gentler headmaster was very believable. Victoria Hamilton is positively luminous as Kathie, Patrick Malahide is excellent as Ralston and the boy actors also give surprisingly good performances if careful not to overshadow Clunes in what I consider one of his better performances. Of course the drama doesn't quite explore what made Chips such a great and inspirational teacher, yet it has a greater emphasis on the progressive aspects of education, that I found most appreciative. Overall, I loved it, just a joy to watch in general. 9/10 Bethany Cox

This is a modern adaptation of a much-loved and revered story - it will understandably be compared by some to the classic 1939 film and found wanting on the basis of sentimentality and familiarity etc. However time has moved on and when I first saw this new production advertised I looked forward to seeing the story dramatised in a fresh new light, combined with the trepidation that the producers might really stuff up and ruin the whole thing as sometimes happens with classic tales (we all know that feeling, don't we?). Hooray, no disappointment here: Martin Clunes was a wonderful, believable Mr Chips; all other acting was superb; and this film was deeply moving and incredibly uplifting in age-old Mr Chips fashion. My only complaint is that it was all over too quickly but even so the difficulties of portraying an eventful lifetime in under two hours were handled well. If the epic tale of Mr Chipping is one you've revered since childhood, don't be afraid to watch this film: you won't be disappointed.

I have now viewed three of the four versions of this James Hilton story. It's a wonderful story, and two superb actors (Robert Donat and Peter O'Toole) have previously played the role of Mr. Chipping (whose first name is again not mentioned this version).

Martin Clunes' effort in the role does not quite match the towering performances of the other two actors, but he's very good, and the other aspects of the production work as well as the '39 version and definitely better than the particularly flawed '69 film. Here, the logic and coherence of the story flow extremely well within less than two hours. The makeup accurately reflects the changing time period of the story exceptionally well. There is a greater emphasis on the progressive aspects of education than in the other two versions, but this emphasis contributes appropriately to the story line. The cast is uniformly excellent.

Overall, a bit less sentimental than the '39 version, which I appreciated. A worthwhile remake, and definitely worth your time - whether you've seen the other versions or not. I'd give it about 8.5 out of 10.

Of what I can find, this is the fourth version of "Goodbye, Mr Chips" since the 1939 classic. I've only seen the original 1939 one which I think was one of the greatest films of that era.

This was pretty much the same. While I think its quite a nice film, I was left wondering what the point of it was. It was set at the same time in history. The characters were similar. The sentimental movement of the film was the same. Oh, this time it was in colour.

I came to these conclusions why the producer might have felt the need to make this up-date.

1) It is a current film industry trend to make re-makes of old films. Re-makes can have more special effects and modern, big time celebrities. Old classics can be done in a modern settings. Hmmm... this film has non of these, so I'm still having my doubts.

2) The 1939 Mr Chips used THE CANE?!?!... even in his old age. Today, that is considered a CRIMINAL offence. Maybe we can't have a dear old teacher, that generations of boys loves to bit, but who, by modern definition, is a violent criminal who has in reality has emotionally damaged boys for the rest of their lives [sorry for slight sarcasm].

This film, on the other hand, has correct this. Mr Chips ABHORS the cane. In fact, the film to a large degree focuses on it. Possibly todays child phychologists and other new-age child rearing thinkers can't handle the 1939 Mr Chips being revered as such a high quality film. For sure, there are many in the last 25 years who believe that the whole 1000s and 1000s of years of human existence have got it wrong in child rearing, and only our little generation have it right. Hmmmm.... I better not go there.

OVERALL, this is a nice film. I enjoyed it. Its not overly intelligent with imaginary new dialogue from the old version, but I give it a 6, and might even watch it again sometime.

I would love to give this film 10/10, it was so totally amazing! The best version I've ever seen, let down only by the fact that it made me cry! Martin Clunes gives a fabulous performance, one of his best ever. From start to finish I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen. I can't wait to watch it again, can't recommend it highly enough! As I said, the only thing that lets the film down in my opinion is that its a tear-jerker. It's never a bad thing that a film can rise such strong emotions of joy, sadness or relief in you, but I hate it when I cry in films because I just feel so uncontrolled! If you don't love this film, I have to say I am utterly baffled. No scene is not compelling, no plot-line is not fascinating. All in all, if you don't like the film I really have to ask why!

This is one of the most interesting and touching dramas I have ever seen with stunning performances from all of the cast, especially Martin Clunes and Victoria Hamilton. I loved this drama to bits. I watched this on ITV a few nights ago and have to say that all of their dramas are spot on! Thankfully there were no Americans in the cast who could tone down this wonderful British programme!

Absolutely excellent! 10/10 !

This is a very good film; beautifully acted. Martin Clunes was exceptional as Mr. Chipping, playing the part from a young man to an eighty year old most sensitively. Indeed, all the actors in this film played their parts well. The make-up department also deserves some kudos for their part in the transformation in age of Martin Clunes. I had seen the original version and while generally I have found that re-makes fall well below the standard of the original, this one to me, was far superior. The whole atmosphere of the film gave me a breath of the era in which it was set, and indeed made me almost sorry at the end to find myself back in 2006! I would recommend this film to any discerning viewer, with the "warning" that they must watch it with open mind and not view it with Martin Clunes previous TV characters clouding their enjoyment.

If this were made in USA, it would be classified as "Oscar Bait."

It's about a beloved teacher a boy's school. We never exactly find out why he's beloved. The first day the students bully him but eventually he seems to gain control of the disciplinary situation. It's briefly mentioned that he believes in disciplinary techniques other than punishment.

And that's precisely the major problem with this movie. It's packed with plots. It is, in fact, a biographical movie covering most of the adult life of the so-called "Mr. Chips." And under this timeline, every scene is so brief and fleeting. Nothing is allowed to take root. Under those conditions it's really hard to warm up to any character.

Things are presented that are really quite tawdry attempts to rack up Oscar-worthiness points. It's about as subtle as the Very Special Sitcom episodes. There's bullying in the boys' school. The administration is rigid. There's discrimination (against Germans, though). Some war happens in the background. I'm not sure which war. Judging from the costumes it should be World War I but at some point some boys mock a German teacher with a salute from the World War II Germans (or so I thought - actually apparently it's a Prussian thing, but still).

It's one of those movies I thought the world would have grown out of by now, where you're supposed to fill in the blanks about how to feel about characters instead of the movie itself letting the characters' personalities unfold ("his students in the film seem to like him so I guess I should like him too even though I haven't actually seen him do much likeable").

It's entertaining, though, as a soap opera is.

Honourable Mentions: Ikiru (1952). The same actor plays the character in his twilight years. But it's quite a histrionic performance with him wheezing and barely walking. He channeled a bit of the decrepit "mummy" played by Kanji Watanabe in Ikiru. I do not approve.

When I saw the ad for this, I naturally assumed this remake of the 1939 classic would be a sentimental period piece with a soundtrack replete with Elgar and choirboys. Instead I experienced one of the harshest exposes of hazing in the British public school system since If. Nothing is left to the imagination, making this movie unsuitable for anyone under 13. However, unlike the exploitative Oliver Twist miniseries that Masterpiece Theater did a few years ago, the writers did not go overboard trying to create a realistic atmosphere. This allowed a fine cast to turn in some superb performances without being overwhelmed by the plot and that's what makes this the BBC's best effort since the 1983 version of "Jane Eyre".

Nothing more to say than has already been said, other than to highlight an acting tour de force by Martin Clunes. Simply magnificent!

Today, I'll be analyzing the 2002 television movie of "Goodbye, Mr. Chip made by Masterpiece Theatre starring Martin Clunes (of "Shakespeare in Love" and "Doc Martin" fame) as the titular character.

The 2002 Masterpiece Theatre adaptation takes cues from the three previous versions, while making choices that enhance the James Hilton novella. From the 1939 version, this adaptation embodies the relationship that Mr. Chips has with his students and his willingness to help others before meeting Katherine. It starts off with a relatively young Chips arriving at Brookfield. During the opening credits, as he walks around campus, various boys spot him and mimic his walk. In addition, from a window, a teacher points out Chips's ears. This establishes how different he is from the other faculty and how kids are always looking for new meat to mess with. The chaos of Mr. Chips's first day is also similar to that of the 1939 version as the boys messing with him do so out of amusement. Heck, it even has the similar dialogue to the older adaptation when Headmaster Wetherby comes by and orders punishments for the students. One kid plays possum after he writes that word on the chalkboard. Later, when Colley slams his book twice, Chips calls him out by comparing him to a dog, thus putting the kid in his place.

In addition, before meeting Katherine, he is shown helping various students. In the 1939 version, there's only one scene where Chips tries to comfort a child with little success before he encounters his love interest. Here, there are more scenes of him aiding various boys. In one scene, he witnesses a group of boys initiate a new kid by putting him in a barrel full of water and later hanging him like Jesus at the cross. Chips gets him down and confronts the cruel housemaster Metcalf (in previous versions, he is a headmaster). Soon after, a nerdy student named Hawthorne confides in Mr. Chips about wanting to get into Cambridge despite his background. The teacher assists him with his studying in an English-like manner, and the student eventually gets in. It's devastating to find out later that Hawthorne is among the killed during the war. This adaptation definitely captures the playfulness and seriousness of the relationship between Chips and the students at Brookfield that's also present in the 1939 adaptation.

Like the 1969 version, the Masterpiece Theatre one has a similar structure and gives Max Staefel more of a character and more of a purpose in the story. Both are the only ones that don't use flashbacking as a main framework. Instead, they show Mr. Chips's story in a linear fashion. I bet this was done because the flashback as a framing device was so well done in the 1984 miniseries that the people involved like director Stuart Orme couldn't come up with a way to better it. Additionally, Max has more of an inner life. In the 1969 version, Max is the only friend that Chips has at Brookfield, and he puts the latter in his place when needed. Later on, when war is looming, Max is called back to Germany. He expresses to Chips, "Do you think I want to go back?"

I know that it's not much character development, but it's more than Max is given in other adaptations besides the 2002 one. In the Masterpiece Theatre version, Max (played by Conleth Hill who is best known for playing Lord Varys in "Game of Thrones") is present from the very beginning. He meets Chips on his first day, and when the latter has his disastrous first day of teaching, Max persuades Wetherby to give Chips another chance. As a result, Chips feels grateful for Max's intervention, and this begins a friendship that lasts for decades. When the Great War is looming and anti-German prejudice is high, the bigoted Headmaster Ralston persuades Max to retire. Even though Chips is upset by this, Max is more resigned because of the anti-German sentiment in the air. This leads to the confrontation between Chips and Ralston, in which the latter tries to persuade the former to retire. In addition, expanding Max in this way gives Chips, when as Headmaster, more of a reason to read his name when he is killed on the Western Front.

Finally, what the 2002 version takes from the 1984 series is how Katherine is depicted. Both adaptations portray Katherine's youthfulness. While Jill Meager from the 1984 version shows this through her spry performance, Victoria Hamilton (who is best known for playing one of the title characters in the "Victoria & Albert" television miniseries and the Queen Mum in seasons 1 and 2 of "The Crown") plays up the character's naivety with her wide-eyed stares. This is most apparent when Katherine and Chips meet for the first time. Katherine sits on a tree branch overlooking a river to watch the fish, not aware of the peril that she put herself in. When that branch breaks, Chips is able to rescue her. This is the only version in which he successfully saves her. Moreover, both adaptations play up her socialist views and her need to make a difference in the world. When they meet, Katherine and Mr. Chips discuss women being doctors and George Bernard Shaw. Soon after, she gives Chips a book about socialism written by that man. Later on, when they marry and Katherine moves in, she strives to improve the students' wellbeing. This involves talking to Wetherby about the bullying on campus, resolving differences between a pair of students, and organizing a social for the boys with a set of girls from a different school. Although Katherine doesn't live for long, I'm glad this adaptation makes her active in the story, both in helping Chips become more empathic and in her own right.

The 2002 television movie also makes choices that enhance the James Hilton story. This version takes on a more realistic tone than the previous adaptations. This is apparent in how Brookfield the school is depicted. It explores the systematic bullying that occurs at said school. There are several incidents, in which students get harassed by their peers and their teachers. Chips (and later Katherine) get involved and try to help through compassion and understanding. At one point, Mr. Chips has to discipline a boy for being on the roof. After he canes the student on the palm of the latter's hand, he throws the cane across the room, thus vowing never to punish a child in that way again. Even the sound effect the film uses for the cane sounds extremely harsh. Later on, Mr. Chips has a realization that disciplining the students in such a strict and cruel way doesn't make them act any better. This is also true during the war scenes. Students are learning how to use bayonets on the school grounds. Even an older Colley (played by a young Henry Cavill) comes home with a leg missing. The realistic portrayal of Brookfield shows what work Chips has cut up for him and makes the results of his interventions all the more impactful.

The realistic tone is also obvious in how Martin Clunes portrays the titular character. When Chips is young, Clunes plays with a sense of naivety, but not completely innocent. As Chips gets older, Clunes lowers his voice without putting on an old-man one. The makeup reflects this realism by aging Clunes naturally, and it's the best use of it in all of the adaptations. It also helps that Clunes's physical appearance allows him to play characters of various ages. In addition, the actor takes on the stoicism of the character, while also being emotional at various points of the story. In fact, Clunes shouts in a variety of scenes. This can be a bit much, yet it's most effective when Chips confronts Ralston about forcing Max to retire. When this scene is depicted in the previous adaptations, Chips usually raises his voice, but never yells. Clunes takes that to another level by having Chips outright shouting at Ralston after the latter confronts him about his teaching ways and tries to get him to retire. This makes the students all the more adamant to fight for his honor, whereas in previous adaptations, they are shocked and not much else. Overall, Clunes's performance shows that even Mr. Chips struggles himself to remain constant while the world is changing around him.

In spite of all of the praise I've lavished on the 2002 version, I have one caveat. Many of the scenes in the television movie play and end a bit too quickly. I can understand why this was done to make time for the Exxon Mobil ads, but it's from PBS. They don't cut to commercials during their shows. This swiftness makes this version the shortest of all the adaptations, clocking in at 1 hour and 44 minutes. If the movie slowed down just a little, then I think it would be neck and neck with the 1939 film in terms of effectiveness.

All in all, the 2002 version of "Goodbye Mr. Chips" is the most effective of the adaptations outside of the 1939 adaptation. It takes elements from the previous films in order to expand certain characters and the varying relationship between Chips and his pupils. In addition, its realistic tone helps to explore the circumstances Mr. Chips is in as a teacher. Martin Clunes takes on the titular character in a way that's familiar and different at the same time. It's not perfect mind you, but it's worth the watch. I would recommend it for those like Martin Clunes and want to see every version of "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" (like myself).

The overriding triumph of Goodbye Mr Chips was undoubtedly the performance of Tom Szekeres. His powerhouse performance was a joy to behold and kept me watching the show over and over again.

I would love to meet Tom and shake his hand for what is certainly the most heartfelt, compelling and overall spectacular example of acting that has been witnessed in the 20th (and 21st) century. He outshone Martin Clunes in almost every possible way and, even though Martin is a fine actor apparently, I believe Tom Szekeres is head and shoulders above the rest.

In conclusion, Tom Szekeres is the man. The one and only. There can be no comparisons and no alternatives. Goodbye Mr Chips was good, but Tom Szekeres was better.

I approached this re-re-remake of Goodbye Mr Chips with a great deal of skepticism. Surely, no filmmaker could hope to pry me loose from the unforgettable Robert Donat version.

Well, they didn't. But they did impress me far more than I expected. This version of the story succeeds surprisingly well, on several counts.

* Martin Clunes is truly astonishing in the part of Chips. He doesn't make me forget Robert Donat - but he does earn a place right alongside Donat. His performance is nuanced, evocative and impeccably believable. Ably taking the character from youth to old age, Clunes *is* Chips, in a way I would not have expected. Like Donat, Clunes *will* make you cry.

* Clunes is helped by a solid script. This rendition of the book gives us much more insight into conditions at the school. There's a frank look at elitism, bullying and antiquated teaching methods. We see in some detail how Chips and his wife stand for a more modern concept of education. There's no anachronistic moralizing in this - it's integral in revealing Chips' character, which is, first and always, the essence of the story.

* The modern production is not particularly stylish, but it does give us a better feeling of immersion than the old black and white Donat film can provide. We feel more connected to the school, and more involved with Chips' trials and frustrations, simply because they're presented through a more modern lens, in greater detail and scope.

Still, the movie does have two notable faults:

* Too much time is spent on World War I and its impact on the school. The movie's anti-war statements and historical perspective are absolutely valid and necessary, but they could have been presented more concisely. One particularly unlikely incident in the school's courtyard could easily have been omitted.

* The final sequence, showing Chips' in his old age, is also a bit longer than it might have been. Sometimes, less is more.

These relatively minor structural problems prevent me from giving this version of Goodbye Mr Chips a perfect 10 score. However, the movie is well worth seeing for its fine attention to historical detail, and for Clunes' resoundingly 10 out of 10 performance.

While this TV version of the classic film was good, nothing is as good as the film with Robert Donat.

I felt Martin Clunes was a good choice for the role and the acting was good, but far and away the best part was the story....something that can never be bettered.