Opiniones de usuarios

Let's make it very clear from the outset, this version of The Charge of The Light Brigade is in no way a remake of the Errol Flynn film that Warner Brothers did in 1936. This is a factual account about how several hundred of the best of that generation in the United Kingdom met their deaths in the Crimea.

Great Britain from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until the beginning of World War I was only involved in two formally declared conflicts. Although many British folks will cite various colonial enterprises, the only two major wars the British were involved in were the Crimean War and the Boer War. And it was only the Crimean War which involved them with and against other European powers, in this case Russia.

It all was about propping up the Ottoman Empire and keeping the Russians from getting a hold of Istanbul and an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea for their fleet. The problem was all the powers were woefully unprepared for such a war, British included.

The Charge of the Light Brigade as no other film explores the incredible ineptitude of the British Army at that time. Today it beggars the imagination that field grade officers simply purchased their commissions. It's true though, it's the reason why Lord Raglan, Lord Cardigan, and Lord Lucan a group of Colonel Blimps if there ever were, got in charge of things.

It's how it was done, the high army positions were reserved for their aristocracy. The Duke of Wellington had died in 1852, three years before the Crimean War and the charge. He also purchased his commission back in the day. It was just dumb luck that he happened to be a military genius. Lord Raglan who is played by John Gielgud was an able staff officer for Wellington, but as a strategist was hopelessly out of his depth.

Howewver the main two blunderers were a pair of quarreling in-laws, Lord Cardigan and Lord Lucan played by Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews. They would rather have sent their armies against each other than the Russians.

A lot of the best of that generation died charging the heights of Balaclava that day to get to Sevastapol because of these two mutts. In any kind of system based on merit these two would never have gotten to be sergeants let alone generals.

The Crimean War which basically ended as a stalemate because the Russians were as inept as the British led eventually to reform of the army. That reform came in the first ministry of William Gladstone (1868-1874)and his very able Secretary for War Lord Edward Cardwell who finally got Parliament to abolish purchase commissions and promotions were based on merit after that. Good thing too, because it staggers the imagination to think of the British Army going into World Wars I and II and the Boer War under the old system.

The charge at Balaclava gained its enduring legend through the popular poem of Alfred Lord Tennyson who was smart enough to romanticize the Noble Six Hundred instead of their inept leadership The movie that Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland starred in back in 1936 was a romantic story inspired by that poem.

What Tony Richardson and the cast he directed in 1968 bring you the real story of the charge. It's a graphically accurate account and military historians should love this film.

I first saw THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE in the late 1970s when it was broadcast on the Sunday night " Film Of The Week " slot . I liked it as a young child , then saw it several years later and wasn't quite taken with it mainly down to the fact that the first half is very slow and the second half is grim and depressing

After just seeing it again about ten minutes ago I still hold my second opinion . I will congratulate ( With reservations ) the production team for making a very British type of historical epic , this is far more accurate than say ZULU which was ironically directed and co-written by a Hollywood film maker for a Hollywood studio and in that film Cy Endfield showed that perhaps you have to rewrite history ever so slightly to make a classic epic movie based upon actual events . Unfortunately by being as accurate as possible as a history lesson THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE resembles the critically panned ZULU DAWN rather than ZULU which is in many film critics top ten movies including mine

We learn that many British officers in the Victorian British army bought themselves their rank causing serious friction with officers who were totally professional soldiers who achieved their rank through talent . We learn how calvarymen train , we learn what goes on in the officers mess , we learn that the Crimean war was the first conflict to get major press coverage but all this does tend to hold the story up . It may run for just over two hours but the movie feels much longer .

A cast member ( I can't remember which one ) was interviewed several years ago and she mentioned the production team's eye for detail so much that many of the cast honestly thought they'd been transported back to the mid 19th century . She also mentioned packed crowds watching the film in cinemas on opening night but the crowds had totally disappeared within a couple of days . You can't help but feel the attention to historical detail had everything to do with the poor box office . I guess the audience were expecting something in the vein of ZULU

As I said I will congratulate the production team for their accuracy in fine detail but bewarned it is top heavy with social comment and if you have little interest in history you might want to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster instead

So much of the hard part of making a movie about the Crimean War and those who fought there they got right, it's a shame the film-makers couldn't nail the last 30%.

The reenactment of Victorian society is impeccable. In dress, manner, and speech. The battle scenes, too, are remarkably faithful to the original locations and deployments, given the obvious limitations in budget and pre-CGI effects.

The actors playing they major characters, Raglan (Gielgud), Lucan (Andrews), and Cardigan (Howard) all do an excellent job.

And I actually likes the Punch-style animated cut scenes. There was, after all, no way they could show a fleet of several hundred war ships sailing into the Black Sea. Best not try.

So, the problems:

The charge, a comparatively minor screw-up book-ended by major Allied victories at the battles of the Alma and at Inkerman, was the result of a combination of small oversights, fog of war, and bad luck. So while there is a story to tell here there are no clear cut heroes except for the soldiers themselves, and certainly no villains.

So, to make a movie, you can choose either to change history and make larger than life, cartoon characters based on the exaggerated media reports of the day, and the 1950's book which was something of a anti- Cardigan hit piece, ... or you can play it straight, say "this is what it was like" and try to relate the experience, the esprit-de-corps, and yes, the interpersonal tensions, as raw as possible from the top of the command chain to the bottom.

This movie tries to have it both ways, it's cartoony but only for the intention of scoring cheap anti-war satire (all generals are imbeciles!), rather than to actually make the movie more enjoyable or engaging. When the war gets close and personal, it reverts back to just showing events... realistically, but with little or no emotional investment. The mechanics of the charge itself are done well, though.

And then the movie just ends, way too suddenly.

Now maybe, just maybe, Captain Nolan was supposed to be the "hero", the romantic sub-plot (distracting and totally irrelevant to the movie) seems to suggest it, but instead he just comes across as an impatient, vain, inexperienced know-it-all, a thin and unflattering caricature.

So, worth watching, but in better hands it could have been so much more.

We have to wait nearly two hours for the eponymous event which climaxes this film. Prior to this we see a series of apparently unconnected episodes which give the viewer an insight into the workings of Victorian society, including anti-intellectuallism and idleness among the 'upper' classes, and brutality and theft among the 'scum' recruited in the slums.

While almost plot less this section of the film does follow a core of characters whose lives are connected by army service. The main character is Captain Louis Nolan, an idealistic professional in an army of amateurs. "England is looking well" he says in the first scene of the film. The irony is that the country that looks so good is a cruel and mismanaged place. Unlike his fellow officers, who have bought their posts, he has worked his way up the ranks of the Indian Army by merit. He despises them and they feel he isn't a 'gentleman'.

Nolan has very definite views on how war should be fought. Faced with the reality of battle and the inadequacies of the commanders (the senile Raglan and the childish Lucan and Cardigan) his impatience and temper have tragic consequences as he impetuously points the Light Brigade ("There, my Lord, is your enemy, there are your guns!") towards the bloody fiasco of which he is the first victim. The man who seems to know best makes the biggest blunder of all. Eye-witnesses said the hideous scream Nolan gave when he was hit stayed with them all their lives and the film re-creates it in a truly chilling way.

Although the film does reflect 1960's attitudes to war and politics (and I actually prefer these to the attitudes of the 21st Century) its setting is so perfectly realized that it hasn't dated as a '60s film'. In fact it seems better with the passage of time. If you can free yourself from the idea of a narrative history and give yourself up to a series of impressions which add new layers of understanding 'Charge of the Light Brigade' makes a fine historical film.

This movie was made in 1968 but I never got the impression from watching it that it was anti war. The movie was made entirely with British actors and a British director and the Brits never had an antiwar movement (because their government gave up its militarism after Suez in 1955). The movie depicts the British army as it existed in 1850. This was a period when one gained advancement in the army by money or title. It was a largely decadent and unprofessional army and the movie I think characterizes it rather well. In fact, Nolan wrote a book complaining about the need to professionalize the army but it took the near disastrous Crimean War to affect any serious changes (it too the British Navy another generation or more to make similar changes). At the time, there was a debate about the effectiveness of cavalry with some believing that no defensive position could withstand the full force of a disciplined cavalry charge--a left over from the Napoleonic Wars--while others thought a charge into artillery was near suicidal. Nolan's roll in the battle remains controversial and whether he delivered inaccurate verbal orders to Acrdigan to charge to prove the effectiveness of cavalry even against artillery or warn the brigade away has not been established because Nolan was killed.

As for the Crimean War, it also depicts the drum beat to war accurately and the implication that most of the dying was done by commoners and much of the death was caused by disease. It was an ugly war. What isn't shown is that the condition of the Russian army was far worse. The poor Russian peasant soldiers were sent to fight with smoothbore Napeolonic Era muskets with an effective range of perhaps 100 meters while the British and the French was new rifled muskets with a range of over 300 meters. In some battles very small forces of British held off huge numbers of Russians killing hundreds.

The Battle of Balaclave is generally depicted accurately. It was a calamity of errors. Capt Nolan actually lost his head during the charge and witnesses indicate that his horse continued running with corpse in the saddle for some distance before the body collapsed. The charge was initiated by the heavy Brigade led by Lord Lucan. There was a rivalry between Lucan and Lord Cardigan (brothers in law) and both brigades initially made the charge but the Heavies did not enter the Valley of Death. The Light Brigade continued into the Valley and were decimated but not wiped out. In fact they were supported by the French cavalry the Chasseurs d'Afrique and the Russian positions were in fact overrun. I think the charge as depicted in this movie is one of the most exciting I have ever seen captured in the cinema.

The so called Valley of Death has changed considerably since the 1850s. By 1994, it was entirely planted in vineyards and the only way to gain some sense of the battle is to find the famous Tractir Bridge over the Tchernaya River and follow the lines of hills. As for the town of Balaclava...I have a photograph of the town in 1854 with the British fleet anchored in the harbor. I took a photograph of this village in 1994 from just about the same angle as the 1854 image and then compared the two. The place is completely unchanged with even the stone buildings remaining. Of course, the village today is the base of the Ukranian Black Sea fleet and there is a not so secret submarine base cared into the limestone cliffs inside the harbor.

We may think that the Crimean War is ancient history but the people of Crimea do not. They have sort of a living museum called the Panaorma. This is a museum devoted to the siege of Sevastopol. There is a circular path and the visitor is engulfed by the on going battles on both sides of the path. One may wander the hills above Sevastopol and many of the rifle pits and trenches from the war remain (they were reused by the Russians during the unsuccessful defense of the city in 1942). It is a wonderful museum and it exemplifies the Russian attitude that history is alive and they don't forget their past.

This is a historically accurate movie. It moves a little slow at times and it has some amusing cartoonish graphics (almost reminiscent of Monty Python graphics). All the major players obviously have a great deal of fun with their rolls.

Anecdotes: Tony Richardson's two children, Nastasha and Joely are in the film as well is his sister in law Vanessa Redgrave. I think I have these relationships correct. Anyway, they are all related.

Anyone who is looking for an historically accurate depiction of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava, and the events that preceded it, had best leave this one on the video store shelf. Visually, the movie is well done and the cavalry action scenes are nearly as good as those portrayed in Sergei Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" - despite the fact that Bondarchuk had most of the Russian Army as extras. Unfortunately, director Tony Richardson couldn't make up his mind whether he was making a movie or a social commentary and his indecision pervades the story line from beginning to end. I notice that some other commentators here have praised the film for its accuracy. In reality it was anything but - most of the sub-plots were fabricated and some of the actual battle scenes are either gross distortions of what actually happened or improbable speculations. Captain William Morris (17th. Lancers), for example, was not foppish dilettante soldier portrayed - rather he was a tough, seasoned professional who had attended the Royal Military College, served in three previous campaigns and had taken part in the charge against the Sikh guns at Aliwal, India. Nor did he ride back wounded to the British lines after the charge as the movie would have it - in fact he was so badly wounded that he was left on the battlefield and was rescued much later by two of his comrades, both of whom received the Victoria Cross. And Captain Louis Nolan certainly didn't have an affair with Morris' wife (Vanessa Redgrave) as the plot implies - Nolan had never met Morris before they were both sent to the Crimea.

It was much in vogue to make iconoclastic war movies in the late '60s - "Oh! What a Lovely War", was another - probably because of Vietnam. It's a great pity that Richardson choose 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' as his protest vehicle since it leaves an enduring stain on the memory of 700 very gallant men. Yes, there were 700, not 600 - Tennyson got it wrong.

First, it should be noted that Tony Richardson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) is not a remake of the Errol Flynn classic adventure film of 1936; rather it is based on the Cecil Woodham-Smith work of military history, "The Reason Why". Both book and film are a debunking of the Tennyson poem. And hard as it is to believe, Richardson's film actually tones down the absurdities of the three principle figures responsible for the debacle at Balaclava. And these three stooges thoroughly deserve the censure of history, for never were the lives of six hundred brave men thrown away more senselessly than with the charge of the Light Brigade.

Richardson depicts the insanity of the Crimean War and Victorian society's glorification of militarism with a death's head sense of humor which makes the horrors of the conflict all the more potent. And he is unsparing in his condemnation of the culture that could glorify so unmitigated a disaster as Balaclava. The film was made at the height of America's involvement in the Vietnam War and it is an implicit critique of that conflict and war in general in that all countries regardless of time and place indulge in the pastime of National Lying. The greater the calamity, the greater the need to lie or glorify, for always the dead must count for something. In that sense the film is universal as well as timeless.

Using animation in the style of the Victorian newspaper caricaturists, during the opening credits, the film quickly details the events that led up to the war. This is also one of the few films to hold the media, in this case the English newspapers of the time, accountable for their actions. Instead of calling for deliberations and a halt to the madness that must inevitably lead to war, the press is shown whipping the British nation into war frenzy. These animated sequences which appear throughout the film to forward the exposition are both wonderfully inventive and wickedly delicious.

Throughout the film which is satiric and misanthropic in tone, the lower classes are shown to be stupid, ugly, and easily led, while the upper classes are shown to be stupid, beautiful, and utterly incapable of leading. Indeed the only decent individuals portrayed are either destroyed or trampled under foot by events and/or the arrogant stupidity of their superiors. Yet Richardson is never judgmental; rather he takes a Kubrickian detached point of view, allowing the viewers to observe the era and its foibles/morals and judge for themselves. And England of the mid-nineteenth century is beautifully recreated here. Hairstyles and uniforms and sets are rendered in exquisite detail. It takes its rightful place along side "Barry Lyndon" and "The Duelists" as among the most successful period recreations.

The film also uses a lot of period colloquialisms such as, "My cherry-bums!" and "All this swish-n-tits has made me randified!" and "You tell that stew-stick of a brother-in-law, that Brudenell to fetch off!" Wonderful, though some first time viewers may have difficulty understanding exactly what has just been expressed. And what a cast! Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and especially John Gielgud give career topping performances. Gielgud as Lord Raglan, the slightly befuddled commander-in-chief, steals every scene he is in. Aging, tired in mind and body, missing one arm, continuously mistaking the French, ("Our allies, My Lord...") for the enemy, never quite grasping the situation whether in his office or on the field of battle, ("England is pretty, babies are pretty, some table linen is very pretty!") Its a delightful comic turn. And who wouldn't feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught between Trevor Howard as the choleric Lord Cardigan, ("The melancholy truth was that his golden head had nothing in it.") and Harry Andrews as the equally bilious Lord Lucan? From the moment we see his saturnine countenance striding up the marble steps of the War Office we know this is a humorless, flint-hearted martinet. Both Lords had a long running personal feud which they quickly placed on an official level as well with unfortunate consequences for the Light Brigade.

David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave are the young romantic leads. Hemmings is Captain Lewis Nolan, a forward thinking career officer with very definite ideas how war should be conducted. He has returned to England after service in India to join Cardigan's regiment, and quickly runs afoul of the Lord in the affair of the "Black Bottle". In reality it involved another officer, who Cardigan placed under arrest for serving porter, (it was actually Moselle) when he had given strict orders that only champagne be served at the mess. Nolan the professional is unstinting in his criticisms or the three amateur Lords conduct of the war, and yet he too will play an unwitting part in the final destruction of the Brigade. A man of honor, whose honor however does not prelude having an affair with his best friends wife. Redgrave as the wife is as always, luminescent. The supporting cast sparkles as well. Mark Dignam as General Airey, Raglan's Chief of Staff, ("Speak up Nolan, he's a bit hard of hearing, and that statue doesn't help!") Howard Marion-Crawford as Lt. General Sir George Brown, Peter Bowles as Captain Henry Duberly, Norman Rossington as Sergeant Major Corbett, ("Right foot, straw foot!") and especially Jill Bennett as a lascivious Fanny Duberly all are very effective. This was also one of the last appearances of the great English classical actor, Sir Donald Wolfit, who would die later that year.

Finally enough cannot be said of Charles Wood's wonderful screenplay. With its exquisite use of the period vernacular it does a superb job of combining characters while paring history down to the essential to reconstruct the chain of events that led up to the destruction of the Light Brigade.

Britain is still basking in glow of Waterloo over 30 years before. Lord Cardigan (Trevor Howard) is a hard commander of traditions. He dislikes Captain Nolan (David Hemmings) who actually has combat experience in India which makes him inferior to those who got their rank through their class status. Waterloo veteran Lord Raglan (John Gielgud) commands the British forces but he proves to be a poor one. This chronicles the Brits in peace as they start the Crimean War and fight the Battle of Balaclava on October 25, 1854.

For a movie belittling the British military for being tradition-bound, this is an overly traditional historical drama. I don't know how important is the black bottle affair but nobody outside of Britain knows it and nobody cares. It takes an hour to start the war and that's 30 minutes too long. On the other hand, I really like the animation. It explains complex ideas in a short and simple fashion. There are lots of extras and the battles are impressively staged. The commanders are portrayed not merely incompetent but rather idiotic. It's not just the fog of war, arrogance and miscommunication. These guys are really stupid and worst of all lazy.

This film could and really should have a masterpiece. There is a strong sense of period enhanced by what appears to be authentic 19th century barrack room slang and music from the period. It could be argued that the film is rather slow, but to my mind a lingering on the enormous wealth of detail, adds rather than detracts from the film's appeal. There are also many strong performances, in particular, Trevor Howard is imposing as the stubborn commanding officer.

Yet I find this film unsatisfying and somewhat boring to watch. The fault, I feel, is that the film's message is hammered home over and over again. A case in point: Howard instructs an inferior officer to spy on David Hemmings. The officer is reluctant and when pressed says he would have to inform Hemmings that he was instructed to spy. He then relates a touching tale of how he has worked his way up and been sober for many years. Howard is completely contemptuous and tells him his career is now in ruins. This scene is highly memorable and moving and had it been left at that, it would have been been effective. We understand the injustice and brutality of ruling elite.

However, we immediately see this officer becoming drunk followed by him being horse whipped, something that belabours the message. In another scene an officer is seen trying to subdue a horse through aggression. Hemmings shows up and subdues the horse "through kindness" as he says. Howard immediately flares up when he sees this. And in another, an anti-war protest is violently broken up. Yes we get the message: War is bad, and the military machine is ugly and inhuman. But it need not be repeated over and over again.

Tony Richardson elects to go with Cecil Woodham Smith's historically accurate book instead of Tennyson's glorifying poem in this version of the oft filmed Charge of the Light Brigade. It is a sprawling epic richly constructed, sumptuously photographed (with some splendid animation interludes) and well acted by a prestigious cast but its lumbering pace removes the urgency from the the build-up and the film staggers.

Brigade's anti-war theme deals with the unvarnished state of the military and the disparity between officer and enlisted man leading up to the climactic battle. Officers who live comfortably are petty, vain and incompetent while the enlisted live in cramped unhealthy hovels. It is only on the parade ground or assembling on the battle field they mix as a cohesive and splendid looking unit and Richardson remains intent on getting this across.

Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews as the bickering and bumbling officers Cardigan and Lucan are magnificently and maddeningly vainglorious while John Gielguld leads with reticent senility forgetting at times what war and enemy he's fighting.

David Watkins lush photography along with David Walker's costumes captures both the romance and the squalor of the Victorian period. The folly of the charge itself is dramatized to maximum effect as it cuts back and forth from the command post and the mayhem in the valley with officers blaming each other for the catastrophe.

This version of Charge is clearly a metaphor for it's time (1968). Richardson intently lays his message on thick by portraying the entire officer corps as insensitive and imbecilic posers. The film is closer to the truth and sees the charge for the avoidable tragic waste it is but slows down too often to hammer home its point.

I'm never quite sure what this film was aiming for. Is it a critique of war or is it a telling of a real story? The performances are average at best. Jill Bennet is annoying, Peter Bowles has a silly accent and Vanessa Redgrave is pointless. David Hemings does his best with a poor script and Trevor Howard hams it up beautifully. John Gielgud as Raglan is, unsurprisingly, excellent but again suffers from a poor script. In my humble view Tony Richardson was entirely the wrong director and gives far too much screen time to Redgrave's character Clarissa. The final product is boring and has not lasted at all well whereas the 1936 Flynn version is just as inaccurate but great fun.

I do find it fascinating to come across obscure, almost forgotten films like this with familiar faces and famous actors in it. It was made ca. 1968, and in the true spirit of '68, it is strongly anti-war, anti-military, and anti-establishment, even though it is set in the Victorian era, the height of the Romantic age, when Military valor was largely celebrated. Military life is here portrayed in terms of ranks of men being bullied and brutalized by each successive rank above them, with the biggest, meanest and stupidest ones at the top.

I found it quite interesting to see the famous charge, celebrated in the romantic verses of Tennyson, portrayed in such a matter-of-fact manner as a series of tactical blunders due to bad communication and incompatible personalities among the commanders. These events were supposedly well-researched, and though I am not informed on the subject, I found this version of events very credible. Even with the high level of weapons and communications technology we have today, this sort of thing still happens. It must have been very common in centuries past.

To me, the dialog of this film and its delivery by the actors is its most remarkable feature. Seeing films that depict distant eras, I've often thought that these eras must have not just looked different from what we are used to, but sounded very different as well. If we were suddenly dropped into Victorian England, we wouldn't always understand what was being said or inferred to us. Words, phrases, gestures, facial expressions or body language that would have obvious meaning in that time and place would be strange to us. The language and syntax would, of course, be different, but so would the rhythm, pace, expressive color and accenting of the way people spoke. `Charge of the Light Brigade' does a remarkable job of not just looking, but sounding like a distant place and time. For a viewer who is not educated in antique British expressions and military jargon, as I am not, it makes watching this film a bit challenging, but it's like spending 130 minutes in the Victorian age as a so-called `fly-on-the-wall,' as the British put it. There was more than one line spoken after which I thought `say what?' But that's OK. It doesn't kill you, just encourages you to think a bit. This aspect of the film looks to be well-researched as well, a superb example of a somewhat talky script in which great care is taken with the language and its use by the actors. The script doesn't serve the purpose of an exposition device for the dumbest members of the audience, a very common vice in films, particularly big-money films engineered to alienate as few people as possible. It's an integral part of a design to recreate an unfamiliar time and place, and as such, a bit uncompromising.

"When the legend becomes fact," John Ford famously stated, "print the legend."

In the late 1960s, director Tony Richardson opted to film the facts (and lecture the audience) when MGM handed him the then-stupendous sum of $6.5 million for a new version of Charge of the Light Brigade. Ignoring Ford's advice, his film about a Crimean War catastrophe became a box office catastrophe that almost destroyed a major studio.

Entering the project, it was understandable Richardson wanted to present a more credible version of the infamous charge than the preposterous fantasy of Errol Flynn's 1936 film. The Hollywoodized story features the "noble 600" throwing their lives away in revenge against a treacherous (and fictional) Raja lurking with the Russian army. The plot line was historically ridiculous - but it did fit the Colonial Raj motifs in fashion at that time (in films like Gunga Din and Lives of a Bengal Lancer).

As well, the alternate history allowed Hollywood a heroic storyline instead of a reality packed with arrogance, hubris and blunders.

Filming at the height of anti-war sentiments during Vietnam (and being married to peace advocate and female lead Vanessa Redgrave at the time), Richardson's vision immerses itself in the hubris and blunders - both in Victorian society and its decrepit military leadership.

The film is lavish and drips with expensive period costumes and detail (the director showed he could bring historical eras alive in his popular Tom Jones) - and Charge does a laudable job of showing Victorian life, warts and all. Some criticism was warranted, of course. By the Crimean War, the fighting leadership of the British Army was far removed from the force that triumphed over Napoleon decades earlier. This is painfully illustrated as befuddled commander Lord Raglan sits under the very shadow of the Duke of Wellington's statue - the Iron Duke having recently died.

But the movie can't walk the tight rope of showing ills without becoming obvious and preachy. It repeatedly hammers home social criticism with juxtapositions between spoiled upper class officers and regular soldiers facing harsh conditions and discipline.

The critical tone is further amplified by the film's period-flavour animations, satirizing Victoria's Empire - and John Addison's melancholic musical score which distances us from the action.

Now despite all this - 1968's The Charge of the Light Brigade does offer fine characterizations and performances as well as thought-provoking views of history. The problem was that the public simply wasn't prepared for a large-scale costume epic with such an unrelenting negative tone (about the same time, Richard Lester was making the same error with his black comedy How I Won the War). The film's title promised colorful escapism, instead the movie provided blood, floggings and headless horses.

In the final analysis it might have been useful if Richardson had put some of his strong personal views aside and learn from David Lean's approach in epics such as Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai. Both films dealt with complex characters under the strain of warfare - yet both films were critical and box office successes. Charge of the Light Brigade was neither - it crippled MGM and helped herald the decline of the major historical epic.

The story of one of Britain's most famous military disasters. The film follows 2 very different levels of class which practically dictated everything. Firstly there was the lives of the nobility who lead the armed forces against the Russians and who had no discernible talent for warfare and instead bought their commissions. These are personified by Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and John Gielgud who are outrageous, annoying and great fun. Then there are the working soldiers, seemingly content to die for their commanding officers and accept their word as law. Sitting sort of between the 2 classes and the nominal 'star' of the film is captain David Hemings.

Almost comedic look at the appallingly short sighted class obsessed characters who were responsible for the massacre. Whilst the final battle is impressive enough, it's the pompous banter and indifference to their slavish men that makes this so enjoyable and indeed frustrating. Britain at its most arrogant - nicely done by Tony Richardson.

This overlooked masterwork of director Tony Richardson seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth until resurfacing on video a few years back. Seeing it again after a quarter century only made it seem even better.

It's a strong anti-war film but not strident or unfair. David Hemmings as Captain Nolan has his own definite ideas about fighting wars and improving the army. He is revolted by the brutality and stupidity of the officers towards the men, but he has a tragic fatal flaw. He believes that war, the main reason for a soldier's existence, is a proud undertaking that is best fought aggressively. This leads to disaster for him and his regiment.

Shining brightest among a stellar cast is Trevor Howard as Lord Cardigan, who despite his high social position and the finery he surrounds himself with is a brute and a boor. Howard's portrayal is classic. Harry Andrews is also excellent as Lord Lucan, Cardigan's brother-in-law and fierce rival. Of course John Gielgud also excels as Lord Raglan, the tired old soldier who leads the brigade. One weak spot in the movie is that the role played by Vanessa Redgrave seems rather tacked-on without great purpose. The only significant female role is handled well by Jill Bennett.

The charge occurs during the last part of the film and you'll want to watch it again to determine what really went wrong and who was at fault; though let me warn you, those answers aren't at all clear. What is abundantly clear is that this is a superb motion picture that deserves to be more widely seen.

Acceptable film inspired by a poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson and concerning the Crimean War, a defeat for the English army, not only in strategy but in morale and military intelligence. This drama deals with the chronicle of events that led to the British involvement in the Crimean War against Russia. In Balaklava is the Allied Headquarters , Army of the Crimea , and the new post of the 27th Lancers. Later on , there occurs the siege of Sevastopol and the fierce ¨Battle of Balaklava¨ on October 25, 1854 which climaxed with the heroic, but near-disastrous cavalry charge made by the British Light Brigade against a Russian artillery battery in a small valley which resulted in the near-destruction of the brigade . As military minds blunder and six hundred Britishers , sabers flashing , ride to their deaths . It is based on Lord Tennyson's famous poem : Half a league , half a league onward , all in the valley of death rode the six hundred. Cannon to right of them , cannon to left of them , cannon in front of them volley'd and thunder'd . ¨Forward , the Light Brigade ¡ Charge of the guns¨ he said , into the valley of death rode the six hundred . When can their glory fade ? O the wild charge they made ¡ All the world'd . Honor the charge they made ¡ Honor the Light Brigade , Noble Six Hundred ¡ . "Theirs not to reason why..."

Political indictment of imperialistic England but in the film only stands out the impressive charge of the Light Brigade into the valley of death and the excellent animation sequences by Richard Williams. A revisionist and spectacular recounting see the strategic bungling that doomed the Light Brigade as an emblem of Victorian England's moral inadequacy. Good film but no notable with lavish production values dealing with events leading up to British involvement in Crimean war with stunning final battle sequence . Chief sins are an extraneous love story subplot and flaccid pacing early on, but the climatic carnage is chilling indeed. This epic movie contains social and military criticism of the time with attention to the period detail, feats , romance, thundering action , thrills , historical events and nice performances from a gallery of British acting talent . Balaclava battle scenes are secondary to this look at the stupidity of war. The Michael Curtiz/Errol Flynn/Olivia de Havilland version of the notorious suicidal charge was an almost impossible act to follow but Richardson adaptation of the deeds is an engrossing, if not vigorously thrilling movie. The historical facts are tinged by Richardson's inevitable critique at British imperialism and the arrogance of the upper classes, but given the period this seems fair comment. It displays fine cast with plenty of the greatest Brit actors at the time such as: Trevor Howard, Vanessa Redgrave, John Gielgud, Harry Andrews, Jill Bennett, Mark Burns and David Hemmings. All of them give uniformly adequate interpretations.

The movie benefits tremendously from David Watkin's frequently ravishing cinematography . It contains a sensitive and rousing musical score by John Addison. This film about the famous British defeat by The Russians was well directed by Tony Richardson , but failed at the boxoffice , containing some shortfalls , flaws and gaps . Richardson was a Brit craftsman who made a lot of films in all kinds of genres , getting successes and flops . Richardson was a good writer and director who married Vanessa Redgrave and Jeanne Moreau , known for The Hotel New Hampshire (1984) , A taste of honey (1961), Tom Jones (1963), The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962), among others. Rating : 6/10 . It is never quite the movie it ought to have bee. The flick will appeal to historical genre fans.

My favourite subject is history (especially the Victorian era)and I was very pleased that Tony Richardson made this excellent film historically accurate.No Hollywood style poetic license.Some of the quotes that Capt.Nolan said were apparently excerpts from a book he wrote on cavalry warfare (which I have never found).I wondered how he (Richardson) would handle the fact that no one actually knows whether Cardigan reached the Russian guns or not and at what stage (if any) he turned back,but he seems to have glossed over that issue.I can only give this film 10 out of 10 because it is simply brilliant.The casting was superb with what I think was Trevor Howards best ever role,and Harry Andrews as Lord Lucan was perfect.I watched the Errol Flynn version of the events the other day and they seemed to have gone out of their way to make it as far from the truth as possible,right down to the uniforms and regiments involved.So well done to Tony Richardson etc.for making what is so far my favourite war film.Since writing my earlier comments I have discovered that Capt.Nolans book is still available "CAVALRY,ITS HISTORY AND TACTICS"and I would dearly love to read it but it costs £80!.I have also been told that the scene where Cardigan does actually reach the Russian guns was in fact edited from the final version.I thank other people for the comments and my learning more about a fascinating event in military history

Marvelously filmed but uncomfortably poised between historical drama and antiwar satire. The performances, direction, and cinematography are all first-rate, but the script, which emphasizes the stupidity of nearly everyone involved--with the possible exception of Nolan--leaves one wondering where satire ends and history begins. The portrayals are by no means slapstick, though, just heavy-handed: Cardigan is a dimwitted, pompous bully. Lucan is nearly as bad, and the muddled Raglan may be described as a nonentity who's far beyond his depth.

Visually the movie leaves little to be desired as a recreation of time and place, but it all comes across as unsatisfyingly cold and aloof.

OK - I have NO idea what film the reviewer was watching that so highly praised the merits of this film...maybe he meant to opine upon the one made earlier with Flynn and DeHavilland.

I'll keep this short and to the point - something that unfortunately was somewhat of a lesson lost to the crew that put this tripe together - and just list the points individually.

-Dialogue works MUCH better when portrayed in a normal fashion by actors who give a fig about what they're spouting (I swear I saw John Gielgud flinch out of character once or twice)

-I get it, you think that the class system of England was tyrannical - that was conveyed IN THE OPENING CREDITS! You DON'T need a sledgehammer to convey a point.

-Military ineptitude - see above vis a vis class struggle.

I'm sorry,but this, for sheer ineptitude and incompetence in production, has as its only rival (shudder) Gigli. I fall back to what the actual Russian commander remarked shortly after the doomed charge depicted in the this film - "Perhaps they were all drunk"