Opiniones de usuarios

The History Boys is a very very challenging film for any audience. One of these reasons is that it is driven by extremely eloquent conversations between younger and elder intellectuals, each conversation delving aggressively deep into the corners of conventional logic and subtexts and fleshing them out in what different characters arguably believe are the most truthful ways. Many characters are quite confident and extremely extroverted and the ones who are not so confident are defensively so. Alan Bennett's remarkably clear analysis of the human condition is intimidating.

The other reason is because the story is one beyond social judgment. Perhaps this is purposeful because being written, produced, directed, and acted by English people, class-consciousness is surely existent among them. But that's what I love so much about this film. The audience, in order to understand and enjoy it, must release themselves from the scrutiny of general culture over many, mostly sexual, aspects of life. The film is not about homosexuality, but homosexual goings-on exist prevalently in the story. It's also treated very nonchalantly, and many straight boys are free of any personal sexual burdens that would inhibit them from partaking. The very talked-about homosexual element of the film exists as the most direct example and also the core of the basis of the story, which is the pressure of society's judgmental and devastatingly interfering nature with many things that, if one were truly understanding, would not judge or interfere with. This extends to greater and more complex idealism in the script, such as the philosophy and meaning of education, the satisfactory or unsatisfactory pursuit and outcome of success, the importance of art and poetry, and the point of studying history.

I believe that The History Boys is an extremely important movie, and the fact that it lasted for a single week at a small theater here in Cincinnati is despicable and glaringly, stupidly contradictory to its message.

A certain transcendence beyond ordinary language could, in one sense, said to be the goal of every artist, communicating, inspiring, or perhaps teaching us something within ourselves that goes beyond the immediate form. Music can arouse feelings and aspirations, stories might evoke similar events in our own experience and throw new light on them, and great paintings can reach out to the sublime within us, taking us beyond the mundane for a brief moment of time. There is a creative element in each of us that goes beyond reasoning; the flash of inner genius; the illumination of the soul. The question of how to awaken that in adolescents preparing for Oxford or Cambridge is one that admits of no straightforward answer, though the teachers portrayed in The History Boys approach it from a number of angles, provoking philosophical challenges to the audience about the nature of education. Add to that the theme of awakening sexuality and at least one teacher who confabulates both strands with his personal sexual desires, and you have an entertaining story, even before adding the side-splitting, intelligent humour.

The beauty - and also the shortfall - of The History Boys is that people who are steeped in theatre made it. With the modern genius of playwright Alan Bennett transferring stage to screen we can be grateful that his masterpieces will reach a wider audience. But this is Bennett-lite, and almost makes us long for the original, full-length work. There is a notable absence of cinematic flourish - use of lighting, camera-work, images and subtleties unique to the silver screen that could have lifted the spirit of The History Boys to something that is beyond the physical limitations of the original stage. There is nothing here that could not have been portrayed equally well there - which leads us to conclude that, apart from it being a more accessible medium, the film is nothing more than a shortened and only mildly adjusted copy of the play. All the actors have the same, excellent projection of voice and perfect intonation that carries well for a live performance but that lacks the sense of intimacy which the camera can bring. Facial expressions are slightly overemphasised, as befitting the stage, but lacking the subtlety usually required for good cinema. At times it sounds too much like a recitation or performance, resulting in an audience detachment that comes from not quite being able to believe in the reality of characters before us or the emotions they are going through. Director Nicholas Hytner (Center Stage, The Crucible, The Madness of King George) also has his roots firmly in theatre, yet his choice of subject matter has generally been so outstanding that he has reaped awards in spite of this clunky, stagey style (the one exception being The Object of My Affection - which was less well critically received). The History Boys is obvious BAFTA-bait but, like the Madness of King George, its pluses fortunately outshine its weaknesses, and the story, humour and intellectual substance are so engaging that you can be guaranteed lots of discussion afterwards with your fellow filmgoers.

In 1998, Bennett (who graduated from Exeter College Oxford in Medieval History) refused an honorary doctorate from Oxford in protest at its links with press baron Rupert Murdoch. If anybody has the background to tell an outrageously authentic and rebellious tale of a-list history students with homo-erotic leanings it must surely be Bennett. He skilfully navigates the ground between appealing to a predominantly gay audience and a mainstream one by sublimating much of the homosexual content beneath the time-honoured stiff upper lip of English public school tradition, and then including hilarious heterosexual content that makes seducing a woman into a war-game. Gilded epigrams, quotable quotes and the most stylish of double-entendres ('gobbets') flood our ears as the boys' literary skills are augmented with the most ingenious of schoolboy deceptions. An ad-libbed enactment of a brothel scene for a French class (where one of the lads removes his trousers for added realism) is transformed seamlessly to a battle front drama when the headmaster makes a surprise appearance. Literary references leap from Thomas Hardy and Keats to Brief Encounter and Carry On films, and this mind-enhancing (if questionable) juxtaposition is faultlessly analysed. The question of 'what is history' is pursued with some vigour, from the idea of 'subjunctive history' to Rudge's down to earth if academically challenged definition - just one effing thing after another. Different intellectual approaches are personified by teachers Hector (knowledge for its own sake, whether it seems useful or not), Irwin (flashes of insight and creativeness that stand out from the usual interpretations) and Mrs Lintott (who suggests radical reinterpretation from a feminist point of view, instead of history being the story of men's inadequate responses told from the point of view of other men).

If all this sounds like an overly cerebral experience, be assured that it races past so quickly that paying attention to the academic content is an optional extra. Lighter viewing can tune in unashamedly to the in-your-face humour, a great soundtrack (The Smiths, New Order, The Clash, The Cure) and additional musical interludes as the lads leap to an old piano and acquit themselves admirably with camp song routines.

Like the similarly highbrow Dead Poets Society and The Browning Version or the more basic Dangerous Minds, The History Boys relies for its emotional ballast on the familiar themes of seeing a successful adult in a promising student, and the frailty of the teaching process, especially when the teachers need to propel students to heights that they themselves have never reached. For all its failings, that it does so with the brilliance of one of our finest contemporary playwrights is reason enough to see it. With its classic portrayal of English institutions and education system it also, perhaps less justifiably, makes one kind of proud to be British.

The English duo of Nicholas Hytner and Alan Bennett last collaborated on 1994's Oscar and BAFTA winning THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE. This 2006 collaboration abbreviates Bennett's own 2004 Royal National Theatre play into a fast- moving account of how a group of Yorkshire teenagers from a state school pass the now defunct Oxford/Cambridge entrance exam. This is England in 1983. It's the zenith of Thatcherism. It was also the year of the film EDUCATING RITA, in which a working class housewife betters herself through an Open University degree. Things have obviously changed in the country since the Victorian times of Thomas Hardy's JUDE THE OBSCURE, where university is not a thing for the working class.

But the social, political and cultural milieu of the era is kept in the background (it's much less evocative than THIS IS ENGLAND, made the same year and also set in 1983). This is as much a fantasy of education as DEAD POET'S SOCIETY. These are classes full of the expectational, bright and articulate. Bennett never really finds the authentic voice of the 18-year olds - they speak the words of older, wiser men. But the performances - Richard Griffiths, Stephen Campbell Moore and Frances De La Tour as the teachers tutoring them in various ways towards university and, amongst other a pre-stardom Domonic Cooper and James Corden as the students - are uniformly excellent. The dialogue is witty in its observations on the education system and the purpose of education. Bennett's own adaptation wisely drops the two flashes forward which opened the play's first and second acts (Campbell Moore's character as a TV historian in the present day).

The title of this film is probably an adaptation of Malcolm Bradbury's well-known university novel, "The History Man", made into an excellent TV series in the early eighties. Like Bradbury's novel, it is set in an educational institution, in this case a boys' grammar school in the Sheffield of the early eighties. It focuses on a group of history students who are preparing to take the Oxbridge entrance exams. (At this period, students who wished to apply to Cambridge or Oxford normally stayed on at school for another term after taking their A-Levels and then took a special exam in December).

Apart from the boys, the two main characters are two of their teachers. Hector, an elderly man approaching retirement, is the general studies teacher whose role is to give the boys some general cultural background. He has a deep love of learning and believes strongly in the value of knowledge for its own sake. He has, however, become something of a figure of fun to the boys, partly because of his portly figure and his occasionally eccentric teaching style, but mostly because he is a homosexual (although trapped in an unhappy marriage), given to fondling his pupils, especially when giving them a lift on his motorcycle.

Irwin is a young history specialist brought in by the school to coach the boys for this examination. Unlike Hector, who has a deep reverence for truth as an absolute value, Irwin takes the Pontius Pilate line, "what is truth?", and encourages the boys to question received ideas about history. Like Hector, he too is homosexual, and becomes involved with Dakin, one of the boys. Dakin, who is bisexual, is also having an affair with Fiona, the headmaster's attractive secretary; another boy, Posner, who is just realising that he is gay, has an unrequited crush on Dakin.

Bennett's play was recently used by A A Gill, the left-wing TV critic of the "Sunday Times", as a stick with which to beat conservative historians. (He was thinking of the likes of Niall Ferguson, Andrew Roberts and David Starkey). He compared their revisionist approach to history to that of Irwin which he saw as intellectually dishonest, mere contrarianism for the sake of stirring up controversy (and publicity). That seemed to me, however, to be a misinterpretation. Bennett was not criticising historians who seek to re-evaluate the past rather than simply repeating traditional received ideas. Irwin may not be interested in truth for its own sake, but his approach to history is advocated less as a method of philosophical inquiry than as an exam-passing technique, his argument being that a deliberately controversial approach is more likely to impress Oxbridge dons jaded from marking too many papers. (In any case, some of Irwin's ideas- such as the claim that the Allies as well as the Germans were to blame for the outbreak of World War One- would not have been particularly controversial among historians in the eighties).

The film has been criticised for its homosexual themes, some reviewers going so far as to attack Bennett for allegedly defending paedophilia, which strikes me as another misconception. The boys in this film would all be aged eighteen or nineteen, and therefore of the age of consent, even for homosexual acts. The issue which Bennett raises is not "Is paedophilia defensible?", but "Are sexual relationships appropriate between teachers and pupils, regardless of age?", and his answer appears to be "no". Hector's penchant for fondling his pupils has, despite his gifts as a teacher, led to his becoming a laughing-stock and diminished his authority among the boys. Bennett certainly concentrates on homosexuality (apart from the Dakin-Fiona affair, there is surprisingly little- for a film about teenage boys- mention of heterosexual relationships), but it must be remembered that he is himself gay and, like most writers, concentrates on those issues which are most important in his own life. The film would doubtless be very different, and possibly more popular with heterosexual audiences, if the scriptwriter had been heterosexual. It would, however, be unfortunate if audiences allowed themselves to be dissuaded from seeing the film.

I felt that Bennett raised some potentially interesting themes which he did not pursue, such as the female teacher's feminist comments about the role of women in history and the discussion about whether the Holocaust is a subject that can be studied by historians like any other, but it seems to me that the film was not so much a film of ideas as a study in personalities and relationships. Richard Griffiths was very good as Hector, bringing out both sides of his personality. On the surface Hector is a larger-than-life, jovial character, ever ready for a laugh with the boys, but beneath that surface he is a sensitive, often unhappy, man. I also liked Stephen Campbell Moore's cynical but also vulnerable Irwin and Clive Merrison's pompous, autocratic headmaster (even if he was a bit of a caricature). The boys mostly emerged as distinct personalities in their own right- the handsome, cocksure Dakin, the shy, tormented Posner, the hearty sportsman Rudge, and so on.

The other thing I liked about the film was that, in spite of some serious themes and a tragic denouement, it is often brilliantly funny. Like a number of other reviewers I was particularly struck by the scene, played all in French without subtitles, where Hector gets the boys to act out a scene in a brothel and then (when the headmaster unexpectedly enters) tries to pretend that they were re-enacting a scene from a wartime hospital! There are also some perceptive one-liners, from Hector Irwin and the boys, such as the paradoxical, but often true, observation that the best way to forget something is to commemorate it. This is a film with much to enjoy, quite apart from the pleasures of nostalgia. (I attended a grammar school very similar to this one in the late seventies before going to Cambridge). 7/10.

It's a bit alienating and confusing at first, but "The History Boys" grows as the relationships between the film's characters do. The result is a rather different film about education and the search for success as well as identity.

About a group of young British Oxford and Cambridge hopefuls who are being trained by their teachers to achieve this goal, "History Boys" is a film portraying young people at school that is the farthest thing from American, and that's a good thing. No characters fall into obvious stereotypes and they are all highly intelligent, gifted individuals. The boys aren't being educated to be smart, they're being challenged in their thinking and subsequently being challenged as people.

The subplot and controversy of the film is an incident involving misconduct between a student and the boys' primary teacher, Hector, played by Richard Griffiths who is most famous for his role as Uncle Vernon in the Harry Potter series. Homosexuality or the questioning of sexuality and sexual drives and the desire to please others that one is fond of (in the broadest sense) is a major undertone and many times a player in the film's events. It's a bit confusing, but it adds something more material to a film that often times seems to be footage of well-read individuals discussing literature. Anyone who is turned off by scholarly behavior and thought could not possibly enjoy this film because they'd feel bored and alienated.

The actors, all men mostly, are superb in the film, but Frances De La Tour while a definite supporting character carries her own power on the screen. The acting and characters are really the most important element of this film. It takes not time to establish its characters and relationships-you have to see them develop and insinuate them based on character interactions throughout the film. Since the film is mostly talking, there is a lot of opportunity for that.

While the viewer does feel very much on the outside of the plot, the actors and characters do tend to keep the interest level up and the ending is very nice and effective. The result is something much more meaningful and not nearly as gimmicky as the title "The History Boys" suggests.

So many moments in this film struck a chord with me. As a grammar school student applying for Oxbridge, I have to disagree with the previous reviewer. The worries and pressures, as well as the arrogance, humour (and sheer smart-aleckness) that surround the boys' dialogue perfectly capture the hilarity and torture of adolescence. The dialogue is a little stage-y, but that doesn't seriously tarnish its impact. I think this film expresses the uncertainty and risk involved in life in a way that is both poignant and witty; often both at the same time. Ideas about what education should really be could not be more beautifully expressed than in this picture of young boys with their whole lives stretched out in front of them, and old teachers still unsure of what it's all about. Subtle and brilliant.

The History Boys is a charming film about modern education. Without committing itself to any particular judgment, it examines the conflict between antiquate, romantic, and specifically Classical methods of gaining and appreciating knowledge and the detached, mercenary deceit needed to sell a great mind in the modern world.

I imagine that most of the film's wit and insight owes itself to Alan Bennett's play, which I have not seen. However, it is the theatrical nature of this production that ultimately lets it down. Bennett's tendency towards improbably clever and succinct dialogue can perhaps be forgiven, but, when it includes direct and surreally retrospective commentary that might play smoothly on stage, the film suddenly seems annoyingly pretentious.

Nevertheless, The History Boys is an entertaining intellectual exercise. It might be slightly ill suited for cinema, but the film does allow the material to reach a much wider audience, and I, for one, was glad for the opportunity to see an on screen rendition of a popular play. I only wish that the audience had been granted the opportunity to do a little more of its own interpretation.

With pretensions at loftiness, this film was well-received by the Brits, less so by others, (except for those insecure people who pretend to "get it" in order to feel accepted by the "in" crowd). It has it's moments, but is unrealistic and bombastic in scope. A celebration of borderline gay pedophilia, combined with witty pubescent brainiacs offhandedly spouting obscure literary quotes make this film nearly unwatchable.

Cute in some parts, tediously precocious in others, it's lofty premise is bogged down by a fatal lack of realism, and a story that completely ignores rationality for a weird semi-homo-erotic fantasy-idealism that somehow makes impropriety and perversion ordinary, even acceptable.

And I'm a gay man!

I gave it a rating of 3 for it's beautiful cinematography, its directional excellence and yes, even its cute actors. It has its moments of hilarity, its engaging wit and even a few captivating devices.

But to put the dialog of an educated and seasoned adult into the mouths of these "babes" is laughable. To further portray them in classes that are as randomly unrealistic as these stretches the bounds of credibility. And to further infuse a homosexual pedophilia into the mix as if it were both commonplace and ordinary, "just a bit of fun", as one character defends it, is both offensive and repulsive to me.

If you want to be perceived as smart, chic and trendy, then by all means, sit through this film and rave to your friends about how brilliant, witty and progressive it is. But if you have enough courage to be yourself, then don't bother wasting your time with it.

I had the good fortune to see a preview of this film at Picturehouse Greenwich - the best cinema in London. I had seen the play in London so was expecting to be disappointed at seeing the film of the History Boys on the screen. However,I am pleased to report it is a fantastic film. Great characters, far too many good performances to pick any one person as best actor. The boys and staff of the school were fantastic and totally believable. Not quite how life was when I was at school, but I imagine many grammar schools in the 1980's were the same.

I laughed out loud and cried and left the cinema with a smile on my face.

A must see

"The History Boys" may work as a literary exercise, full of clever witticisms and sparkling, scintillating dialog. It even offers some interesting observations about the nature of history. But, as a play and a film, "The History Boys" ultimately fails because it lacks emotional honesty and the courage of its convictions.

Literature and history are treated as a parlor game -- preparation for a college entrance exam, or shiny baubles of randomly acquired facts. As for life and love, "The History Boys" has precious little to teach us about these.

There are many wink-wink, nudge-nudge references to history's gay writers, artists, musicians, and philosophers. "The History Boys" pays lip service to the notion of homosexuality as a metaphor for living boldly. In the end, however, the film seems to dismiss being gay as amounting to no more than sex, not even sensuality, and certainly not sensitivity. Like sex without commitment, "The History Boys" is fun while it lasts, but it leaves you feeling empty when it's over and done with.

Gays and straights should see "The History Boys" to learn about love and tolerance.

I saw "The History Boys" yesterday at The Fine Arts - Popular Center in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It is excellent. If you have a closed or narrow, rigid mind, don't go. In order not to be offended by the language, you need to be a Metro Man or a Metro Woman. It is downright blunt at times. The blunt language is not to be shocking or porno, but to be brutally honest and upfront about important perceptions concerning love and tolerance.

I had a little trouble getting into the movie in the very beginning scenes. Too much was going on all at once. However, as soon as it involved the teenage boys having a one-on-one "educational" discussion with the out-of-the-closet gay teacher, the movie grabbed me and kept me until the very end.

There is one powerful scene where the teacher discusses a poem with a gay student. This gay student is also Jewish but his gayness is what makes him different. There is an outstandingly handsome black student who is accepted in the school without conditions. A Moslem who is accepted as the black student is. A young, newly hired teacher is in the closet and does not know it. This new teacher can be completely honest with his teaching history but not with his own life. There are many very British types who are the complete opposite of American homophobes. There was no spiritually sick prejudice of diversity among these eight teenagers. They got along beautifully with each other. They had a wonderful respect for each person's uniqueness.

Gays and straights should see "The History Boys." It is not a gay movie per se. It is more a movie about being a loving and caring human being. It is about being true to one's self. I hope the day will come when more people in Puerto Rico and the states, especially the anti-gay bigots and religious zealots, will have the tolerant perceptions of these eight teenage boys in Yorkshire, England, in 1983.

This film had such great potential and reminded me in many ways of my own schooldays, and did have some very funny and touching scenes (Brief Encounter!), but also failed on so many levels: 1. Wrongly marketed. Not a criticism of the film as such, but it was marketed in the trailers as a knock-about comedy, along the lines of an English 'American Pie'. I suspect this is the reason why so many dimwits walked out in horror when confronted instead by 'long words'.

2. Little or no analysis of the social and class implications of a bunch of middle/lower middle class state school boys going to Oxbridge. It was just taken as read. To be fair, Alan Bennett does say in 'Untold Stories' that an analysis of the Oxbridge experience is the subject for another film, but it would have made a better one, in my opinion. It was also extremely unrealistic in that all the boys got places - In my school only about half did.

3. The unrealistic treatment of homosexuality. I hesitate to use the term 'gay agenda' as it is generally the preserve of American fundamentalists, but the whole Dakin/Posner/Hector/etc love triangle (or should that be love square) did not ring true.

I went to an almost identical school at around the same time and I can assure you that there was NEVER any overt talk of same sex relationships, and boys I have know from other grammar and minor public schools have confirmed this. You simply would have been ostracised or beaten up if you had.

Yes of course there were boys who we knew or suspected were gay, and masters too, but the scene where Dakin hugs Posner and Posner says 'is that it' would just not have happened. Also, Dakin revealing himself as a predatory bisexual was a bit unlikely for someone of his age and experience - he hadn't even got to 'second base' with the school secretary so why would he have the confidence to attempt the seduction of a male teacher? Much as I admire Alan Bennett, this all seems to me purely the fantasy of an elderly homosexual playwright, which brings me onto my next point:

4. The unrealistic dialogue. The boys were simply TOO precocious. 17 and 18 year olds, even Oxbridge candidate geniuses, in my experience just don't talk like that or have that depth of interest in history and literature, or universal knowledge of films like 'Now, Voyager' and 'Brief Encounter'. Again, this was the dialogue of a 72 year old playwright being put into the mouths of the boys.

5. I got the impression that the black and Asian boy were put in as a gesture, and this is confirmed by the fact that they have little dialogue or character development, in fact pretty much the only lines they got were racially charged ones. This strikes me as the somewhat heavy-handed stamp of liberal/left guilt and tokenism.

I think Mr Bennett was basing the characters on his memories of grammar school boys in the early fifties, who probably were more erudite, but since the cultural revolution of the sixties (of which Mr Bennett no doubt heartily approves) adolescents mainly don't think or act like that any more, as popular culture has dumbed down immensely. The boys all spoke and acted far more like third year undergraduates than sixth formers. How many 18 year olds have a wry, sarcastic take on Christianity like the religious boy? How many 18 year old boys, however good looking, would act like Dakin?

I think the main problem is that The History Boys is a somewhat expressionist play ('a poem, not an essay' as Pinter would put it) which has been rather clumsily translated into a naturalist film and given a populist gloss. Whilst it has a lot of great scenes, overall it just doesn't work as well as it could. Sign me up for the Dead Poets' Society instead!

Fair at best, and very far from what Alan Bennett is capable of: "Sunset Across The Bay" (1975), his portrait of a retired couple from Leeds winding up in Morecambe (surely an inspiration for Morrissey's 'Every Day is Like Sunday'), or his sublime Six Plays series for LWT (1978-9). "The History Boys" is likely more suited to stage than to the big screen.

You get some of Alan Bennett's dry humour, but in watered down fashion. It lacks the veracity of most of his other work: it seems very odd to set this in 1983 Sheffield, and yet the story is autobiographical: Bennett delineating the progress of working-class boys to Oxbridge, via the grammar school system. This film relates the experiences of that 1930s born generation - which also included Dennis Potter - rather than those born in the 1960s. The use of period soundtrack seems a desperate attempt to conflate Alan Bennett with Morrissey, but sadly winds up feeling distinctly out of time. Bennett clearly had the sense to set the play in the 1950s; a shame that Hytner and himself opted for the 1980s: seemingly a misguided pitch at a nostalgia market that they cannot quite grasp. While I cannot imagine a fifties version being great, one can imagine the typical Bennett authenticity - think of the lovely, melancholy "A Day Out", set in the Edwardian era - shining through.

"The History Boys" has garnered some acclaim as a stage play. Perhaps the creators and performers of the play are better suited for the stage. Each work of art is deserving of its own medium, "The History Boys" is clearly proof. As a film, it simply falls flat.

First, the film really has a problem figuring out its center. All quality films depend on a center, or, with complex films, multiple centers. "The History Boys" lacks a true center, a theme or character upon which the center revolves. Is it Richard Griffith's character, Hector? He would be worthy, as Hector is an interesting character. But no, the film makes you think the students are the center. Or are they? For the students don't get much attention, or character development, either. The film can't make up its mind: is it about Hector, the closeted homosexual teacher with a penchant for his students; or the school boys, all vying for spots at Cambridge or Oxford? The filmmakers really needed to pick a center of the story and focus on that (my choice would have been on the students with Hector's issues as an obstacle and/or emotional core).

Next, the film has another key problem: it fails to connect with much of the audience. There are huge swaths of the play/film where the characters speak French/debate philosophy/quote poetry/discuss literature. The problem is, at least in America, is most people are simply not that well read. So you've abandoned large populations of your prospective audience. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to show off their literary prowess and higher learning. Frankly, it's a large turn-off. You can tell an intelligent story without thumbing your noses at the poor, middle-class schlubs who haven't read Walden or Kierkegaard or whatever else you're quoting. Clearly this film has comparisons to "Dead Poet's Society", but that film was never condescending to the audience, unlike "History Boys". I found it maddening, as if the writers were rubbing our noses in our "poor learning".

The funny thing is, even with their "higher learning", at least one of the actors was simply awful in his role. I'm speaking of Stephen Campbell Moore as Irwin. He is a key figure in the film, the embodiment of falsehood, educating the boys in fabrication as a means of advancement. Anyone who works in Corporate America knows of fabrication as a means of advancement, but Moore is so lifeless, so wooden in this pivotal role, it makes the film fall flat. There is a great point to this character, (that fraudulence begets fraudulence, both in results and in character), but the acting is so poor there is no punctuation to the point. It's like watching a drone from Office Cubicle 17 talk about his life. Banal and lifeless, a terrible job.

Finally, I have to mention the overreaching homo erotic theme of this film. Ya know, I'm sick and tire of stereotypical gay playwrights/screenwriters throwing their sexual preferences on the screen. Get over yourselves, already. Yes, a key element of the plot is Hector's slightly uncontrolled preference for teen-aged boys. But then you have to throw in the overly gay student. Then you have to make the new teacher gay. Then you have to make the charming, handsome student "bi-coastal". You've lost me, and I suspect much of the non-gay audience. Not because we're homophobic, but because you've lost the core, central theme of this film. This film has two cores: the indiscretion of the outstanding teacher, Hector; and the notion that advancement comes through fraudulence (in this case, making up fancy essays to ensure one enters Oxford). With all this gay innuendo (which actually isn't accurate, for homosexually is anything but covert here), you're overwhelming the true story that "The History Boys" should be telling.

I give this 6 out of 10. Some horrible acting by Moore, and a script that fails to find its center.

Barky

We find many British films to be layered and realistic with humor woven in. This does not disappoint! The boys are fun and trying to find their way into Cambridge. They are accepting of each other without bullying which is refreshing. Most of the boys went on to act in blockbusters like Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit, and Harry Potter series...fun to see them so young here. Just a nice way to spend a couple of hours enjoying a great movie from the U.K.

A very good film - not setting black against white but looking at flawed people and complex arguments. Also brilliantly funny.

Not quite as good as the play because some balance was lost - I think this was due to pressure of time, A lot of the classroom debate and argument was shortened, the glimpses into the present were omitted so that Irwin's descent into pure spin was not seen and a couple of the boys characters weren't fleshed out enough. This combined to throw the obviously shocking scenes, such as Hector's behaviour, too much into the centre of the film. The classroom performances also jarred as a bit too theatrical, whereas on stage they were believable, apt and very funny.

Worryingly realistic sets – I thought I'd put the smell of school classrooms well behind me - and memorable performances from the entire cast. Jamie Parker, Andrew Knott, Samuel Barnett and Frances de la Tour were the standouts for me, but I still can't decide whether it was their performances or the characters they played.

It was too scripted and somewhat different to what I expected. Didn't know the play but hadn't really realised what it was about. It was a bit too 'niche' and art-housey! It was a bit second-rate, it could have been so much better. The headmaster was a caricature. It was good in parts (and had some good-looking stars!), but overall it just didn't try hard enough. I would give it a C-Minus! It just wasn't marketed right - from adverts I had the wrong impression of the film. But some parts were good, the discussions on history for example. But it's not a really good brit-flick, because it's just not funny enough. Maybe the theatre play is better.