Lawrence: After Arabia

Having watched it twice (with growing dismay) I have to say this film will probably be used by film schools to demonstrate how NOT to make a movie. The acting is, with few exceptions, terrible. Barber-Duffy as Lawrence puts in a wooden and unconvincing performance which is amply demonstrated by his first scene.

May of the scenes are framed so badly they highlight both the inadequacy of both sets and direction. (See for example the scenes where the Head of Intelligence briefs his agents, and the hospital scene later in the film).

Access to Clouds Hill was infamously limited: but why does the Director use the exact same bit of film (Lawrence arriving on his Brough to find the cottage door open), multiple times? It's just so obvious.

The blue-screen scenes which are meant to represent Arabia are simply atrocious. It would have been better not to use them at all.

I find it hard to believe the film has gathered so many awards.

On the positive side, (yes there is one) the Dorset countryside is beautiful and does evoke the landscape around Clouds Hill.

Sadly, a wasted evening. The wooden acting was matched by the poor photography, editing, sound and continuity. We were treated to an overlong funeral procession, on repeat. Even the beautiful Dorset locations were wasted by the lack of focus and lighting. The bloated script was an overlong conspiracy theory taking us up to the present day. Lawrence was a brave - even heroic - man, if confused about his identity. A shame this film couldn't do him justice.

The worst film I can remember seeing. Memorable only for the screenwriter, actors, sound recording, cinematographer, editor and director duelling it out for who could deliver the worst performance.

That said I would recommend it if only for comedy value. Films as terribly made as this don't come along often. Enjoy.

First things first, This was made on a non-existent budget for a feature, a first time director and a tiny crew. So I'll try not to be too harsh, but the director needs to know where he went wrong, so he can improve on it next time.

So there isn't a single aspect of this film that didn't have issues, some more glaring than others. By far the biggest issue is that technically is this the worst film I've ever seen. From Inaudible sound due to the lack of sound mixing and background noise, green screen issues such as jpegs being used as background and no effort to make these believable, visible artefacts from poor keying, horrendous editing (was there anyone keeping an eye on continuity??) along with all that, the camera work really felt like a lazy student film, shots being over and under exposed, lack of thought put into the shots, no colour grading and the footage just looked so dull, and finally I've never seen a film reuse so much footage before, you could turn it into a drinking game (which probably isn't a bad idea if you're going to watch this)

The acting wasn't the worst, but I can't see anyone getting any Oscars any time soon, and oh my god the pacing was mind-numbing this felt like a 4 hour movie. I hope the director reads and takes in all the feedback he will inevitably get and uses that as a jumping off point to improve his skills as a director.

I had high expectations for this film but unfortunately I found it disappointing. The story itself was interesting and held my attention, but the sound, continuity and photography were all inadequate, not to mention the tedious, incessant and inappropriate music score. The acting, with a few exceptions, was weak, and to bill Brian Cox as the star in the opening credits showed some nerve - what a con! He never even appeared on screen, just providing brief narration. I sat through the whole film wondering how on earth it could have won any kinds of awards or indeed how it was even selected for various film festivals. Clearly this film was made on too small a budget, making it look like an over-stretched amateur production.