Avis des utilisateurs

It is, in a way, depressing to watch this movie today. One winds up contrasting it with the sort of technologically slick and aesthetically shallow spectacles, like "Titanic", that garner the sort of adulation that a truly great movie like "Lawrence" received in its day, and one realizes how far we have fallen.

Ignore David Lean's painterly technique, the way he fills the screen like a canvas. Ignore Freddie Young's stunning cinematography in fulfillment of Lean's vision. Ignore the fabulous score by Maurice Jarre. Ignore the stupendous cast. Ignore the topnotch script.

What we have, beyond all this, is an absolutely gripping and psychologically perplexing character study of a uniquely enigmatic individual that keeps us on the edge of our seats for the full length of the movie. "Lawrence", at over 200 minutes, goes by faster than many a movie of half its length, due to Lean's brilliant pacing and direction, and superb acting all around. To make a comparison in the world of music, this movie, like Mahler's 8th symphony, is a universe contained within itself.

Of course, it is an exercise in self-denial and philistinism to watch this movie in anything other than the wide-screen - or "letterbox" - format, due to Lean's complete use of every inch of the wide screen. To watch it otherwise is to miss half of Lean's intention.

To use a hackneyed phrase, they simply don't make 'em like this anymore.

Although having just watched Lawrence Of Arabia again though I am bowled over by the size of the epic, I still can't believe that for the entire length of the film, the word oil was not mentioned. If it were done today it sure would be.

T.E. Lawrence's story fascinates people today more than ever because he was in the center of the events that gave us the Middle East we have today. In the previous century and a half questions about that area revolved around the Ottoman Empire, the so-called sick man of Europe for that conglomerate of territory spilled into quite a bit of Europe. What's to happen if one country gets control of the place should that aging and decrepit empire falls apart. The question was postponed right up to World War I when Ottoman Turkey committed itself to the Central Powers.

It was time then for the various peoples still under Ottoman control to rise and rise they did. In Arabia a young staff officer named T.E. Lawrence gained the trust and confidence of many Arab leaders and had a lot to do with uniting them and forming an army to chase fellow Moslems, the Turks out of the area and helping the British and French win in the Eastern theater of World War I.

If going native which was the expression used by the British for one of their's who starts to identify with those he's supposed to subjugate than T.E. Lawrence went native in a big way. When his fellow countrymen did not keep pledges made to his Arabs he opted for a life of obscurity which is what he got until his death in 1935.

David Lean when he couldn't get Marlon Brando for the part, opted instead for a young Irish player named Peter O'Toole who he had seen in the Walt Disney version of Kidnapped two years earlier in a small role. It was a felicitous choice as O'Toole became the star he remains to this day as a result of Lawrence of Arabia.

It's a complex role and one you have to keep the audience interested in for over four hours. O'Toole runs the whole range of emotions here. We see him as idealistic, as arrogant, as humble, as honorable, as a stone killer, even a bit of a fathead at times. Sometimes a few of these mixed together at different points. Although David Lean got him a stellar supporting cast, if your Lawrence isn't any good, the film would flop. But Peter O'Toole was up to the challenge, he got the first of seven Oscar nominations. In this particular year he had some stiff competition with Burt Lancaster for Birdman of Alcatraz, Jack Lemmon for The Days of Wine and Roses, Marcello Mastroianni for Divorce Italian Style and the eventual winner Gregory Peck for To Kill a Mockingbird.

Omar Sharif also making his first film for a world market got an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Such Lean veterans as Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, and Anthony Quayle got plum roles. Anthony Quinn and Arthur Kennedy are the Americans in this film. Kennedy plays the fictitious Jackson Bentley who is really Lowell Thomas. Presumably Lowell Thomas did not want his name used here, but Thomas got his career started in the news field by reporting on T.E. Lawrence in this backwater theater of World War I, making his name famous and launching Thomas's own career in the process.

One thing ever so gingerly hinted at was T.E. Lawrence's homosexuality. You can see it in his relationship with the two young men Daoud and Farraj played by John Dimech and Michel Roy. There is the alleged incident of gang rape when he's taken by Turkish soldiers led by their commander at Deraa, Jose Ferrer. It too is part of Lawrence's story though if Lawrence of Arabia were made today, they would be far more explicit.

They would also be more explicit about oil instead of these unnamed 'British interests' that Lawrence is supposed to be really concerned with. You do get the idea that all they're interested in is the right of transit in the Suez Canal and the right to say who has the right of transit.

Still Lawrence of Arabia is one sweeping epic both capturing the grandeur of the Arabian desert with the complexity of the issues and the man surrounding the desert campaign in World War I.

Everything about this film is bold, clean, striking, vivid -- most apparent in the magnificent visuals. The landscape might as well have been Mars. Desert scenes convey a wonderful sense of sterile beauty, pristine and natural: blowing sands, the sun, the sky, and not much else, uncluttered by modern techno-jumble that renders cities ugly by comparison. The presence of a few humans on camels magnifies the grandeur of this spiritual place.

So spectacular are the desert scenes, they almost swallow up the story, about an eccentric, quirky Englishman named T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole), on a mission to help Arab tribes come together against the Turks in the early part of the twentieth century. Although not entirely factual, the film at least offers viewers a sense of real-life historical figures including not only Lawrence but also Prince Feisal (Alec Guinness), among others. All of the major characters are interesting in their own ways. All convey a sense of intelligence and enlightened vision, even as their cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds clash.

The script's dialogue is rendered potent due to its sparseness. Visuals carry the story effectively; minimal dialogue needed. And when it is present, it's sharp, crisp, striking. At one point a character asks Lawrence: "What is it ... that attracts you personally to the desert?" To which Lawrence responds in two words: "It's clean." Yes indeed. And so is the film's plot: simple, straightforward, bold, uncluttered.

Costumes and prod design are detailed. The score is pleasantly haunting, though it does get repeated a bit too often. Casting and acting are acceptable. I especially liked the camels; they are fun to observe. Color cinematography is brilliant, especially outdoors. The use of day-for-night camera filters is obvious in some scenes, giving the production an antiquated look, at times.

My major complaint is the runtime. I could have wished for a shorter film by about one hour. Some scenes are not really necessary; other scenes could have been shortened, all without losing character development or status as epic. It's a serious problem for this film, in that the resulting impression is one of pretension. I have no doubt that Lawrence and his Arab adventures are film worthy. But his story is hardly so earth-shaking as to merit nearly four hours, complete with "Intermission."

"Lawrence Of Arabia" was much better than I had expected, owing mostly to the visual grandeur. It's a very well put-together film, runtime notwithstanding. The film gives us historical and cultural perspective, and does so in a way that makes the desert landscape as much a character as the film's protagonist.

Did you know that Cary Grant had been approached to play it? Yes, as well as Albert Finney and that made a lot more sense but it was Albert Finney who said, have you considered Peter O'Toole? Who? - Yes, I love that story. It goes to prove that certain things are meant to happen. I'm sorry if I'm going on about it. But I saw Lawrence Of Arabia for the nth time in a 70mm print in a crowded theater and what came across as the one major reason this film will be relevant forever is Peter O'Toole. His performance is timeless because it is unique. Cinematic and theatrical but always true. David Lean brilliantly created a sense of intimacy in O'Toole's eyes within the vast, arid landscape. I know the film has its detractors. I heard once director Michael Apted call it a "silly movie" Wow, I had Michael Apted's quote in my mind when I saw the film last and for the life of me, I don't know what he meant. I love this film.

Sweeping, epic and literate version of British adventurer and soldier T E Lawrence's experiences in Arabia during the First World War. Lawrence, miraculously well played by Peter O'Toole, "went native" when sent into the desert to find Alec Guinness's Prince Feisal. Before long he was striking out himself against the Turkish Ottoman Empire, which still held sway in the region at the beginning of the last century. Lawrence's efforts to unify the various Arab factions are particularly prescient.

Lawrence became an inspirational warlord whose neutral presence amongst the Arab tribes, lead by Omar Sharif and Anthony Quinn, amongst others, served to glue together shifting and uneasy alliances. As well as wrestling with himself, with his own demons, and with the cruel desert environment, the Englishman was also faced with culture clashes which pitted not only the imperialists against the indigenous populations, but also the mercenary practices of the Arab guerillas against the discipline of the British army. In the end, Lawrence himself does not know which side he is on, nor which party he belongs to. Set against a backdrop of the Arabian desert, the nomadic allies under Lawrence's direction, attack and disrupt the Turks' efforts to maintain control of the territory, whilst the elephant - the British army and its heavy guns under General Jack Hawkins - pushes ever deeper into the area: not until his job is done does Lawrence learn that the French and British governments have carved up the middle-east between them and that the battle-lines for the 21st century are already being drawn.

Scripted by the inimitable Robert Bolt and directed by David Lean, Lawrence of Arabia is one of those films without a weakness, despite drawing complaints for its near four hour length. The dialogue, cinematography, soundtrack and especially direction are superlative; likewise the supporting actors. But it is O'Toole at his charismatic best who steals the show in his starring debut; he never looked back. It may take an effort to watch this movie, but is well worth the ride and will, by the bye, provide some insight into the fractious and volatile world of Arab politics.

One of the best films ever made.

I first saw this film on its release, aged 13, and it forms an important part of my transition towards adulthood. I am pleased to see that it consistently rates 20something in the IMDb listings, even from others (whom I envy, for I can't see it with fresh eyes) who are seeing it for the first time. Pleasing too is that some of those are also teenagers, for whom a forty-three year old film must itself seem part of the past. As for the minority who are bored by intentionally slow pacing (and for whom punctuation, paragraphing and grammar are a lost art), I suggest they learn a little about the history of film-making (from which it may become apparent that much of today's fast editing techniques were invented in the 1920s: try Eisenstein's October, for example).

From the universally admired cinematography of Freddie Young, the long shot of Omar Sharif's floating mirage entry, the pre-CGI battles and pan-up scene changes, to O'Toole's florid but career-defining performance and the (then) novel time-shift narrative, this film set standards not matched even by Lean himself, and, as many reviewers have commented, financially and practically unlikely to be attempted today. I too have rarely seen such clarity of image outside of Imax, and in my view the script by Robert Bolt (and I now have learnt, an uncredited Michael Wilson) is the finest in cinema. Maurice Jarre's music and some of the acting style now seem a little excessive, but repeated viewing (around 35 times in my case) does not diminish the impact and quality, and the restoration and now DVD release still, after all these years, approaches the effect of that first 1962 viewing.

It is rare that repeated watching of a film (as opposed to a live performance) does this, and the reasons go beyond the photography, performances and editing. In my opinion, it is because the characterisation and storytelling encourage an appreciation of the ambiguity and inconsistency behind our motives and behaviour, and, in a wartime scenario, in the contrast between political expedience and personal morality. For a 13-year old, this opened a window into the adult world, and it explains why the story has resonance far beyond its setting. The film doesn't require an understanding of middle-east politics (though it does have some very current relevance), but it does require an ability to look, listen and understand. The fact that so many people rate it so highly says everything about its wider impact. When The Matrix and even Lord of the Rings have slipped out of the ratings (and the adolescents who inhabit these pages have grown up), I believe this film will still be in the 20s or 30s, perhaps enabling young people to once again see the world through adult eyes.

Like Ali, I fear Lawrence. I fear the power of art to change us, to challenge our preconceptions. Every time I see this film I learn a little more, discover something new. When I was 13 I didn't understand much, but this film helped me to see that I wanted more, knew more, than my peers. I can't rate it more highly than that.

The moment David Lean makes you aware you are in the hands of a master comes early on in "Lawrence of Arabia." Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) holds a lit match close to his lips and with one quick puff of air blows it out. Before the action is even completed, however, Lean has cut to a shot of a desert vista, with the sun slowly rising over the lip of the horizon. It's one of the most famous elliptical edits in cinema history, second maybe only to the bone/spaceship cut in "2001: A Space Odyssey." And it's only the first of countless memorable moments in "Lawrence of Arabia." The appeal of David Lean epics has always been his ability as a director to maintain an equilibrium between the scope of his films and the characters in them. Character development is never sacrificed to massive set pieces or knock-your-socks-off action sequences. "Lawrence of Arabia" has these elements too, but at heart it's a character study of one remarkable man. Lean seemed to understand that impressive landscapes alone are not inherently interesting; but if you place a fascinating character among those impressive landscapes, you can have movie magic.

"Lawrence" feels unlike other historical epics of its time. In most "big" films--I'm thinking of movies like "Ben-Hur," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra," all movies that premiered roughly around the same time as "Lawrence"--one gets the sense that directors framed compositions based on how much they were able to fit into their widescreen lenses. One rarely sees characters filmed from anything closer than a medium shot, and usually the background is stuffed to overflowing with garish art direction. Everything feels static and wooden. But in "Lawrence," Lean keeps his frames constantly alive by juxtaposing huge landscape shots with extreme close-ups of actor faces. In one especially brutal scene, after a battle that results in the slaughter of many people, the action cuts to a close-up of O'Toole, looking panicked and crazed, gripping a bloody knife in his hand as if he's reluctant to drop it, obviously both disturbed and titillated by the carnage he just witnessed. It's moments like that---not just an impressive battle scene but a character's reactions to the results of that scene---that set "Lawrence" apart from other standard epics.

And of course, I have to reserve space in my review for the performance of Mr. O'Toole. He is perhaps my favorite actor, not one of the most prolific, but certainly one of the most unpredictable. He has a flair for choosing eccentric characters that give him almost unlimited room in which to perform. He carries "Lawrence of Arabia" almost singlehandedly on his slim shoulders. That's not to say the supporting cast isn't great, but O'Toole towers above them all. O'Toole understands that the most influential figures in history could also be the most difficult and ruthless when they needed to be, and he gives Lawrence an incredibly complex characterization, leaving his audience in doubt as to whether he should be worshiped or feared, or perhaps both.

Lean would never direct an equal to "Lawrence of Arabia" again. His later films are certainly more than watchable, and "A Passage to India" is even quite remarkable in its own way, but we would never get another "Lawrence." Even more reason to appreciate it now.

My Grade: A+

The film that inspired Steven Spielberg to pursue a career as a film maker for good reason - 'Lawrence of Arabia' is a cinematic treasure - the greatest "Epic" movie, and one of the 5 greatest films ever made by almost everyone's standard.

The spectacularly gorgeous and awe inspiring cinematography of Freddie Young tips the scale for me in favor of 'Lawrence Of Arabia' as Film's greatest work of art in the Epic genre, surpassing 'Citizen Kane', and The 'Shawshank Redemption', landing at #2 on my lMDb "Top 5 Greatest Films" ever made list (see herein), topped only by 'The Godfather' (#1).

The immensity and scale of the desert creates the perfect canvas on which Lean paints his masterpiece - We shall never again see authentic location shoots on this truly epic scale, as granted permission for such is virtually impossible today.

Restoration efforts in 1988 led by Spielberg and Scorsese saved most of what would have been a tragic loss.

Now available in 4K UHD, the film has never looked better.

My grandmother took me to see 'Lawrence Of Arabia' at a beautifully restored baroque theatre when I was 12, as the film was periodically shown in such art film houses for years after its release - It is an event I will never forget.

I recently watched Lawrence of Arabia for the first time, as it certainly has a reputation as a classic. The film was genuinely moving and thought-provoking in parts, but altogether it's an experience akin to many movies like it: It probably watches better now if you'd already seen it decades earlier.

There's an element of stage acting in many of these classics - a manner (or even volume) of conversation, dramatic, unnatural turns toward or away from an argument - that, to me, has not aged well.

The pacing is slow and deliberate. There's maybe an hour of dialogue in this 3 hr, 42 minute movie, a runtime which is used mostly to explore the grandness of the scenery, though admittedly, at times, I wondered if the film was buffering when it wasn't. I don't think criticisms that it's a bit boring are unwarranted.

The scale of the film, even by today's standards, is pretty outstanding. Scenes of charging camels riding to battle, the music & landscapes of the desert - all of this is as advertised. The main character? I'm not sure what we're supposed to think of T.E. Lawrence. He sort of alternated between humble solider & self-appointed deity, between altruistic and self-serving. The lack of consistency never gets us to truly understand his motives or desires, and again, like movies of old, the overacting (theatrical falls to the ground, dramatic glances, contrived shouting matches) pulled those opposing themes farther apart.

Again, I feel like you just had to be there. I don't think it's unfair to suggest that Hollywood's top filmmakers have found new and innovative ways to tell great stories in the last 60 years, at least for today's audiences. If classic films aren't your cup of tea, this one may be tough to sit through.

I first watched "Lawrence of Arabia" when I was about 11 years old. Being a big fan of Steven Spielberg at that time, I was sort of awed by the fact that this was his personal favorite (check the "conversation with Steven Spielberg" featurette in the special features disk and you'll really see Spielberg's affection for that film)

Over the years, Lawrence remained among my DVD collection, and I can't say I actually watched it since that first time, when, by the way, I didn't really like it. But "time does things to movies", and when I watched it again last year, I found my eyes to be weeping at the end. It instantly became one of my favorite movies.

Since then I learned a lot about the history of cinema, and I also learned a great deal about the movies of Sir David Lean. I found my self watching films like "Brief Encounter", "The Bridge on the River Kwai", "Doctor Zhivago", "Ryan's Daughter", and the underrated, "A passage to India". Lean became one of my favorite directors, and, just a few months ago, I decided to watch Lawrence with some friends. Although I had seen it a couple of times before, this time it was a different experience altogether: from the starting credits, to the blowing of the match, the crossing of the Nefud dessert, finding Gassim and bringing him back to the camp, the invasion of Aqaba, his torture and rape (?), Lawrence's laugh after the slap by the "outrageaous" guy, his being left alone, to the final gaze to the motorcycle. I sensed something when I watched that film, which leaves my with the undoubted feeling that "Lawrence of Arabia" is the greatest film ever made. For me, this is it. Ever since '62, it's been a downfall. No other film has managed to reach Lawrence in its poetic greatness. Few do come very close (Vertigo for instance).

If we are to classify the two complete different cinematic styles, it would be those of Hitchcock and Ford. Hitch was a very "confined" director. He captured his movies from the point of view of one character. His movies took place, most of the time, in closed spaces. In a sense, Hitchcock's films were a journey in people's emotions and a study in people's characters. On the other hand, Ford was an open director. He wasn't confined to one character, or one location, his films where actual journeys. His basis was mostly on theme, and his main ability was to amaze with his imagery. Thus, these are the two different shooting styles....Well, Lean combines both.

Which is basically why his best film, Lawrence, is the best film of all times. But not only in terms of style. Also, in terms of content. The intelligent script written by Robert Bolt, the powerhouse performances by O'Toole and Shariff (a shame they didn't get the statuette), but also, the ultimately heroic yet tragic figure of T.E. Lawrence, contribute in making this the most visually and emotionally sweeping film of the last 111 years.

Such a shame that Lean retired for 14 years after "Ryan's Daughter", there's no way to know where he would have gotten.

A perfect 100 on Metascore would indicate that this is indeed a perfect movie, and while I'd call a few aspects perfect, it has undeniable issues.

The georgeous cinematography makes the 4 hour runtime much less unbearable, compared with the well used music compositions. All the performances are amazing, especially the main 4.

All the action sequences are really well done along with the practical effects.

The 4k remaster added a lot of depth. The sunburn scene was really powerful with the image of the sun and that irritating music, and the dialogue generally was witty, and playful, and mostly cleverly written.

The runtime itself is a choice that I feel like was really intentional and purposeful, this movie had to be big and monumental so that it could really make you understand the psychology of Lawrence, and I don't have a problem with that, but some scenes could've cut down. Some sequences are too long, while others are too short. And the intentions of the director aren't always clear, and sometimes it can feel like a mess. And while I think it's a completely unique, and masterful movie that I won't forget anytime soon, but the enormous runtime, sometimes unclear intentions, and cheap and really boringly done death scenes kind of bring it down for me. If you are going to do something that's 4 hours long, every single scene in it should be perfect, to keep me completely interested, but it's really not perfect.

I'll watch it again 20 years from now.

I've heard about Lawrence of Arabia for years, but not really knowing what it was about. One day, while I was on the internet, I came across information about the film. I've learned that it won best picture in 1962; I've learned about how it influenced filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg; and I learned about how it adapted the memoirs of T.E. Lawrence and made them into a feature length film. This interested me so much that I decided to head down to blockbuster and rent it. Now that I've watched it, what do I think of it? Well, to be honest, I thought it was just plain out boring. The problem I had with this movie is that not once I cared about Lawrence or his conflict. I did not see any depth in his character and I did not for once care for what he was fighting for. To me, this felt more like a boring history lecture than an actual film. There is a plot in this movie, but it doesn't really surface in an interesting way and the viewing of this film just becomes tedious.

I do admit that this film was very well made, but it's only icing covering a bland, tasteless cake. There are some good scenes in this film, but why couldn't the filmmakers make Lawrence or his conflict more interesting. At least in Seven Samurai, the conflict was simple enough and the characters were well developed to keep me interested, but Lawrence doesn't have that.

I can't recommend the film, but I know other film buffs will want to see it. If you want to see, by all means go ahead. I hope you enjoy it. I sure know I didn't.

This film requires no introduction. It's one of the greatest movies ever made if not the best. Truly inspiring. It leaves me with the feeling that I would have liked to have met Lawrence but being born 37 years after his death regrettably this will never happen! I went to see the movie in the National Film Theatre, London in order to see the panorama on the big screen. Well worth the trip even if you have seen the movie on DVD. He was arguably one of the greatest englishmen to walk the earth. Why doesn't anyone make films like this anymore?! Thank God for David Lean's work. Looking forward to viewing this film again and again on DVD.

Disobedient Army officer Lawrence attempts to unite several Arab tribes in a battle against The Turks during The Great War.

Why has it taken me into my 40's to watch this masterpiece?

Is it the greatest movie of all time, personally for me it isn't, but it can certainly make a claim to be, and I totally understand and appreciate why for so many, this is the ultimate movie.

Not that I claim to be a historian, or even know the story or events that took placed, but based on what I just watched, this truly is a masterpiece. The story is captivating, it holds your attention, for what is let's be fair is a very, very long running time.

I'm something of a novice when it comes to the great historical epics, from those I've seen, this is the standout.

Peter O'Toole delivers possibly his greatest ever performance, his on screen presence is nothing short of enchanting, he is truly phenomenal here, I can think of no finer performance.

I bet many fans went weak at the knees at the sight of Omar Sharif here, what an absolutely brilliant actor, what a vision.

The scale of this film is incredible, and where modern films rely on CGI and special effects, this had none of that, relying only on people and animals, the sheers size, the stunts, the extras, it's a quite breathtaking feast for the eyes. The camera work is magical.

What cinema goers in 1962 must have thought when they watched this.

10/10.

When it come to making epics, David Lean is the master and what better proof than this masterpiece. "Lawrence Of Arabia" was first shown in 1962 and after almost 40 years later, it is still beautiful. The story of T. E. Lawrence is wonderfully brought to us by David Lean, director of another masterpiece called "The Bridge On The River Kwai".

David Lean has shown us a man's long, yet never boring (at least for me) journey into the deserts of Arabia. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) is an ordinary man that becomes a hero (at least in my eyes) during his extensive tenure in Arabia. He becomes a traveler, a great man, and a leader to the people that he has associated with. Only director David Lean could have given us a movie experience like this.

An assortment of phenomenal actors are collected for this movie and what a cast! Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Alec Guiness and so much more portray their characters with intensity and believability. Never have I been so impressed. As Lawrence, Peter O'Toole plays the role of which his name is most associated with and is surprising for me that he made the role his own because before I got a chance to see this movie I imagined a man opposite from someone like Peter O'Toole. Omar Sharif as Ali is one of the most charismatic characters in film history. I will not say anymore about the cast because I'm allowed only 1,000 words to use in my comment.

Will all do respect to classics such as "Gone With The Wind" and even "Bridge on the River Kwai"this is without a doubt the most exciting epic of all time. I highly recommend it!

David Lean's LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, a 4-hour desert epic telling the true story of T. E. Lawrence, a man who united the Arab tribes against their Turkish enemies, is considered an epic for a reason. It has wonderful vistas and backdrops brought to life by some splendid widescreen cinematography; it boasts a stirring score and stunning production values in which everything is catered for. It's the kind of film that makes modern movie-makers, with their green screens and CGI armies, look lazy.

The story itself is both intriguing and compelling, working on both the individual and the expansive level. There's action here: desert crossings, battles, sabotage and war, and yet it's much more complex than that. The script carefully draws out the nuances of the various Arab tribes and the tribal complexities preventing peace in the region, as well as providing a fitting introduction to the modern-day Middle East.

The only thing that really dates the movie is the acting, as these are the kind of stiff, mannered performances have long since gone out of fashion; Alec Guinness for example acts in a way long out of fashion. But the calibre of the cast is epic in itself and there are lots of supporting actors giving decent turns, such as Omar Sharif and Anthony Quayle. Peter O'Toole and his role both stay an enigma throughout, but that's no bad thing; instead, it only adds to the wonder of the piece.

At 17, I love David Lean, his films are filled with beautiful images and he also directs with real flair. Lawrence of Arabia is a perfect example of movie-making at its finest, the whole film is absolutely phenomenal in every aspect:

Whether it is the film's visual style. Lawrence of Arabia is filled with absolutely beautiful images, such as the mirage that introduced us to Omar Sharif. I don't think this could be possible without the astounding cinematography, or the stunning, picturesque Morrocan, Saudi Arabian, Spanish and English locations. The shots of the desert were visually jaw dropping and the battle scenes are unforgettable. But that is the thing with Lean, all of the films I have seen of his are visually stunning, Passage to India, Oliver Twist, Great Expectations, Brief Encounter and Bridge on the River Kwai all but to name a few.

Whether it is the film's music score. I used to listen with real enthusiasm to Classic FM at the Movies every Saturday (on the radio that is), and along with the main theme of Gone With the Wind, the score's main theme was one of the main themes that stuck out most. Maurice Jarre's score is nothing short of outstanding, swift, sweeping, epic and even iconic. I could very well say it is probably one of my all time favourite movie scores.

Whether it is the film's screenplay. The screenplay is intelligent and is like a withering satire on the mentality of Lawrence's superiors, who go by the book. Like the screenplays for Casablanca, Shawshank Redemption, It's a Wonderful Life and All About Eve, the screenplay here has lines that are a) quotable and that b)linger long into the memory, just like the story the film tells.

Whether it is the film's acting. Peter O'Toole is the easiest starting point, for he gives one of the best performances I have ever seen on film. His performance is so flamboyant and brilliant, it just highlights what a great actor he is. He nails Lawrence's complex character like a fitted glove, he is enigmatic and charismatic like TE Lawrence was like in real life. Supporting him all the way like iron are Alec Guiness, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins and Jose Ferrer. Their characters aren't as complex as Lawrence's but they are still fully fleshed out and intriguing.

The film is very long, but thanks to the quality of the visuals, direction, screenplay, music and acting there is no time whatsoever wasted. Quite simply one of the best movies ever made, movie-making on the grandest scale. 10/10 Bethany Cox

If we're in the mood to do film genealogies, and I am, then Lawrence of Arabia is probably the inventor of the modern biopic, the perennial awards-bait genre. (You could maybe posit Citizen Kane as the originator, but that's really a different kettle of fish.) It examines a fairly recent historical figure at the prime of their life, dedicating numerous scenes and most of the dialogue to hammering home that the central character is a Very Special Person Unlike His Short-Sighted Bosses, and in this way the film spends a good amount of time justifying itself. This genre obviously has strengths and flaws, and they're apparent in Lawrence: the striking personal power as well as the kind of historical oversimplification and tourism that goes along with it.

Lawrence of Arabia's main claims to being a great film are David Lean's gorgeous cinematography, stopping the action at several points simply to capture the desert in all its cold grandeur, and the film's final hour, in which Peter O'Toole turns his larger-than-life hero into a desperate, wild-eyed man who can no longer control the violence he's created. The biggest points against it are its indulgent four-hour running time and its unavoidable racism (having two of its major Arab characters played by white actors in brownface is really one of the lesser offences.) With this in mind, it's hard to say whether a contemporary viewer will really enjoy this film. I found it fitfully interesting but ultimately had trouble engaging with it, and felt kind of exhausted by the film. On the other hand, I've been told that it needs to be seen on a big screen for true appreciation, and not my modest laptop monitor, so I don't want to say anything definitive. Whether or not it "holds up", Lawrence of Arabia is a pioneering movie that manages, despite everything, to capture a kind of beauty, and that makes it worth slogging through for anyone genuinely interested in film.