Why so much hype?

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Let's start this review by addressing the fact that my opinions will only be based on the script of this film and not on its historical accuracy. I have come across some other reviews saying that the screenplay writers and the director has taken a lot of artistic liberty and the occurrences in the film are not historically accurate. But I will only judge the film in a standalone manner without going into actual historical facts.Becket is a grand, period-costume drama based on the friendship between King Henry II of England and his close Saxon friend Thomas Becket. They both belong to different races, Henry II being a Norman and Becket being a Saxon. This friendship gets sneered at by other members of both the races. Henry decides to appoint Becket as the Archbishop of Canterbury to do away with all the altercations he had with the previous Archbishops by expecting Becket to always be by his side. But things don't work out that way. The film has absolutely brilliant cinematography and art-design. The halls, the mansions, the extravagant buildings look absolutely fascinating. The larger than life surroundings make the characters look so small giving the impression that these are normal people caught in the middle of larger than life circumstances that force them to act in specific manners. The film won't be the same without two absolutely brilliant performances from Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. O'Toole and Burton beautifully complement each other. O'Toole is the loud, vocally aggressive and abrasive Henry who only found solace in the company of Becket, while Burton is restrained, sharp and mild mannered as Becket. While in the film, it is clearly apparent that Henry loved Becket as a friend, it is a matter of conjecture whether Becket considered Henry II to be his friend or not. But personally I think he did. I think Becket as a young boy was much like Brother John, a naive hot headed individual who sought justice. But gradually he learned the ways of the world and did things which were essential for his survival and the genuine friendship he shared with Henry gradually strayed him away from his principles. But his meeting with Brother John and his duty to defend God's Honor after being made the Archbishop made him recapitulate and remember the ideals that he once stood for and that made him go against Henry. Henry's subsequent anger I thought was mainly because of his jealousy towards God. He opined that Becket, his one true friend had chosen God over him and this made him go mad and it was fascinating watching O'Toole's performance while Henry gets eaten away by this jealousy, yet not forgetting his affection for his dear old friend all through.The script is rich both thematically and visually. It deals with racism, misogyny, British medieval history, God and religion and it also has very apparent homo-erotic undertones. But I still don't think that the script is without a few blemishes. Sometimes it lacks a bit of subtlety with people blatantly saying what they are thinking and one major transition that happens in the film felt a bit rushed to me. I thought that transition could have been allowed to happen without it having to be so sudden and it could have been handled a bit better with a bit more care. But having said that, considering the epic nature of the script, I think the director Peter Glenville did well to still make a film that is personal and a film that is about the characters and not the costumes.

The royals have long been popular on the silver screen, and Becket is a pillar of the genre, despite numerous inaccuracies and a general spicing- up-of-facts going' on.Book-ended by scenes at the tomb of Thomas Becket, the rest of the film is a flashback to his life, from a wild youth, to a career as a statesman, and then his appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury.Central to the drama is the bond between Becket and Henry II, to the point that the film is almost less a biopic than the story of a relationship. Peter O'Toole is at his best here, throwing himself into the dissolute, petulant king with gusto (a role he would reprise in 1968's The Lion in Winter). He nearly steals the show from Richard Burton's gentle, erudite Becket, but if O'Toole provides driving force of the narrative, it is Burton that channels it.Both characters begin the story as thorough profligates (brief, graphic female nudity earns it a PG-13 rating), living the high life, drunk on power and luxury. Henry is a man without restraint, but one senses that the cunning, enigmatic Becket is not entirely committing himself to the revelry. Always, there is something held back, something undisclosed, something he refuses to give. It will prove his destruction, for Henry can't stand the idea that his beloved Becket may hold loyalties above and besides the king. Ironically, it is Henry himself that destroys this loyalty when he appoints Becket archbishop, for it brings the two into inevitable conflict, and forces Becket to finally commit to something, to finally "find his honor..."Secondary to this dual clash of personality and faith is the symbolic rivalry of church and state. Unlike A Man for All Seasons, a film of ideas, and people who debated and defined themselves by those ideas, this is first and foremost an emotional drama. Because of this, it's not as good a film as Seasons (which invites comparison given the uncanny similarity of events). It suffers from over-complexity, over-length, and a main character who hasn't the power to command the narrative (Burton is good, but he's no Paul Scofield, as he was quick to admit.) The music is dated, a brassy, distracting clamor that leaps in to emphasize dramatic moments but instead converts them to comedic melodrama. Occasionally we're aware we're in a play, particularly when Burton performs his prayers as soliloquies.But these are quibbles. Becket is a lavish affair, taking a far broader approach than Seasons. We get to see much more of this fascinating archaic world (the 12th rather than the 16th century), explore some truly spectacular locations, meet folk from all classes, witness the awe- inspiring ritual of the medieval church, and the ugliness of secular and religious politics. Our tour guides are two of the finest actors of their generation, who have such enormous rapport that every scene without them feels empty (even if that scene features a young, mischievous John Gielgud.)While flawed, Becket's charms are many, from the witty writing to the breath-taking cinematography. These and other things allow Becket to easily take its place among the high circles of costume drama, but it is the immense chemistry between the two leads, Burton and O'Toole, that catapults it to a place of royalty.Originally posted at http://www.longview95.blogspot.com/2014/09/becket- movie-review.html

. . . Richard Burton seems to be lamenting as title character Saint Thomas BECKET. But his producer Hal Wallis' insistence of substituting prayer for action whenever possible (since "talk is cheap") made BECKET's potentially epic story more like the lame "Best Picture" of 1963, TOM JONES, than the grand Best Pic of 1962, which had Burton's BECKET co-star Peter O'Toole in the title role as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Where LAWRENCE featured lots of young blood and eye candy, Wallis drowned Burton in a sea of old and\or ill-favored actors, making BECKET more of an EXCALIBER or Polanski MACBETH-type show than true competition for Audrey Hepburn's "Best Picture" triumph of 1964, MY FAIR LADY. The fact that BECKET's low-budget talk fest STILL managed to snag 12 Oscar Noms proves that the penny-pinching Wallis snagged defeat from the jaws of victory in regard to Hollywood's top prize. If Prince Hal had just hired a sword-master, he could have had ill-fated Brother John parry a thrust or two of the baron's with the silver cross before being Shish-Kabobbed. Viewers get the sense that most of BECKET's "action" is occurring off-screen. Oscar voters and the American public preferred to see Audrey lip-syncing.

I had heard of this film for years and finally got around to watching it. I can't believe this film has an 8.0 score. It drags incessantly and it wastes the talents of Burton and O'Toole. As others have stated, the pacing is horrid. This film could have been shorter by 30 minutes.Mind you, I love old films especially "A Man for All Seasons" which is my favorite of all time. The plot of "Becket" resembles that of AMFAS, but the latter does it much better. "Becket" is a drama that aspires to be an epic, whereas AMFAS is comfortable in itself.O'Toole gave his usual sublime performance as Henry II. He was as good as he was in "The Lion in Winter". Burton was good although his character took himself too seriously. Save yourself some time and watch "A Man for All Seasons" instead.