From my favorite movies..

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

I was initially hesitant as the poster was not particularly attractive, but I am glad that I did not judge this book by it's cover.It was quite obvious that this was a piece created for the theatre, and fortunately the actors managed to pull of this filmed version perfectly.It's one of those pieces where each word has a sense, where each movement and each reaction has meaning.JB Priestly understood how to portray society and it's problems down to a tee.This piece/film/play is as pertinent today as it was in it's époque.I thoroughly recommend this film as one of those that at first appears to be a slightly superficial but with some retrospection we are understand how deep it actually descends.Definitely worth watching... I have never read any of JB Priestly works but this has given me the initiative to discover this playwright/author..

This movie is strongly recommended for anyone who cares about other people, who stand for a Christian morality, who enjoy British acting, cares for an intelligent plot, and with more than one surprising twist. That was all I wanted to say, really, but the guidelines requires to write at least 10 lines. I felt strongly that this movie had a social message that was so beautifully intertwined with the story. The inspector asked all the right questions, and did so precisely in the order needed to make all of members of the family aware of they're part in the tragic demise of the low class girl. The suspense built up in one single table was remarkable - as well as the lingering question; who was really the inspector? I came to my conclusion, and I was glad that the movie let that part be decided by the viewer.

The film is based around a play that unlike other reviewers here, I have not seen or read before. I found it thoroughly entertaining, but a little disappointing at the end. Some spoilers from here.I know the final speech given by the inspector is from the original play, but it seems contrived and unlike the rest of the performance, a bit quirky and out of place. It's a shame the director did not extend changes or liberties to it, but the critics may have had a go at him/her if they had.Some reviewers here did not like the time travel bit the inspector was doing at the end, but I understood a different sequence was occurring which was not time travel, but another chance for the family to do the right thing before the tragedy actually occurred. A chance which they squander while rebuilding their personal confidences and putting down or blaming the messenger of their personal inadequacies.Overall, a marvelous tale shot and acted well. Would I watch it again, yes.Improvements, maybe but things I would have liked to see, may not suit everyone. Maybe seeing the inspector in the background of some of the external scenes of the girl (that they have added as the original play doesn't have them). Like they do in the Murdock mysteries, but not as much in the forefront. At the end, you'd be really guessing about his capabilities then. Giving it a real hint of guardian angel for the girl.

Based on Priestley's work, an Inspector Calls (AIC) has been brought to video quite a few times, and most recently, this year on BBC1. I have to say, I was slightly disappointed. Many people think Priestley made a social critique, and he did, but in this version of AIC, I saw less critique and more drama. I'm not going to deny, it was a cinematic masterpiece, with many amazing shots and beautiful music (I'll get back to that later). But it completely missed the point Priestley was trying to make. In this play, a rich, British family (representing capitalist mentality) sit down and try to enjoy a nice dinner, celebrating an engagement, when the Inspector arrives (representing the socialist way of thinking) and tells them a girl (Eva Smith) committed suicide because of them. Now, he doesn't pinpoint one person in particular and say like "You! You killed her, it was all your fault! Have fun in jail!". No, instead he guilted them individually one by one and made them, well only Eric and Sheila to be honest, feel bad about what they did. Mr and Mrs B are seen to be the capitalists (and Gerald too). They "ruined" Eva purely out of spite and power. The entire play is a power struggle. The other family members had a somewhat legitimate reason for doing what they did. Anyway, back to the point. By the end of the play, Eric and Sheila (The Birling's children) see themselves as horrible people for doing what they did and they're filled with guilt and remorse. They see their parents (and Gerald) as horrible capitalist people who care more about their image than someone else's life. The Inspector then proceeds to lecture them about how "there are millions of Eva and John Smith's in the world, and if they don't learn, they'll be taught in fire, and blood, and anguish." He then leaves and decides to TIME TRAVEL because you know, he's The Inspector, he can do whatever he wants. This part in particular actually annoyed me. Priestley may have suggested that The Inspector might not be entirely human, but the director didn't do a very good job with this. I mean, to have him time travel is one thing, we see it all the time in other good shows, like Doctor Who, but to have him actually disappear at the end, that's another thing entirely. Was he a ghost? Who knows. Is he not human? Probably. But all that put aside, it was actually quite entertaining even though it lacked similarity to the original play. I'm sure the script was pretty much identical, but still. It lacked a moral. Also the hinted romance between Eva and The Inspector was completely unnecessary, I can't have been the only one who picked it up. The camera angles were glorious, portraying power, control, lack of control sometimes, snobbiness and just about every adjective you can imagine. The music was spooky, but not eerie enough to distract you from the script. Also, there is one particular shot that is perfect in every sense. Eric is sat down, back to the audience (or camera), the two women are sat down by his right, and his father and brother-in-law are stood to his left. The Inspector is standing at the other end of the table, if I'm not mistaken. This shows a perfect social critique and understanding of the play. The woman are aside, trying to not get involved, whereas the men, especially Mr B are distressed and ready to take action. Perfectly done, I think. It portrays the characters perfectly. Mr B is trying to seize the floor, fists clenched on the table, leaning forward with his head down. Gerald is looking away, visibly uncomfortable and trying to get uninvolved. Mrs B is sat there, head high, proud as a queen, whereas Sheila has her head down and looks absolutely ashamed of herself. On the whole, I'm not sure I liked it. It was entertaining, but I'm not sure I learned anything from it other than not to fire people who smile at you.