Lawrence of Arabia (1962) User Reviews

a memento from the days when they made real movies

[rupie · 9/10 · 15 June 1999]

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.

A Complex Man In Epic Events

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 19 February 2007]

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.

A mixed but pretty unique experience.

[DrunkenDeGroot · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

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.

Peter O'Toole as Lawrence, what a treat!

[maureenmcqueen · 10/10 · 10 July 2018]

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.

Simultaneously personal and panoramic

[MidniteRambler · 10/10 · 23 May 2004]

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.

A Majestic Masterpiece Beyond All Other

[Le-Samourai · 1 November 2004]

Spoilers herein.

There are films that define a time. There are films that define a genre. There are films that define cinema. 'Lawrence of Arabia' defines all of the above. Within its frames 'Lawrence of Arabia' captures the essence of a man, a time and place with unparalleled cinematic magic. Though a winner of 7 Oscars and one of the Top 100 ticket sellers of all time, most people were not able to see 'Lawrence of Arabia' the way it was intended until 1989 (and I still imagine most people have only seen it during one of its annual Christmas TV viewings). Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Robert Harris deserve massive applause for their efforts to restore this film to its 2.20:1 widescreen, 220 minute glory.

I, myself (thankfully) have never seen any other version of this film. So when I first saw the film it was in its untainted glory and it's an experience I shall never forget. Never before had I seen a film that blurred the lines between storytelling and art so much. Never before had I seen a film so assured in visual storytelling. Never before had I been so transplanted into a film's world. The awesome acting, the stupendous story, the remarkable visuals, the sublime script, the fascinating dialogue and majestic music all combine to make a film like none other.

'Lawrence of Arabia' is played out in five acts, each one of them represents a different part of Lawrence's psyche. The first act is Lawrence's introduction into Arabia where he is very much an Englishman – albeit an outcast. The second act concerns his assimilation into Arabia, the taking of Aqaba and his rise to deity. The third portrays Lawrence at the peak of his military career and his growing egotism. The fourth act is his capture, torture, mental breakdown and dissertation of his troops. The fifth concerns his comeback, revenge and both his greatest and most flawed accomplishment: the slaughter of Turks and the liberation of Damascus. Every scene in these acts is essential to the development of his persona. Lean and Bolt raise the question of who Lawrence was, but they never answer the question. This is one factor that brings me back to the film time and time again – each time I watch the film I am left with a different perception of Lawrence's character.

The film contains an all star cast including Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins and Claude Rains. Only 'JFK' rivals it in my view. Of course, there was been many all star casts that haven't performed to their usual standards, but it is not the case here. Everyone is on top of there game especially Peter O'Toole who gives the greatest cinematic performance I have ever seen. From extremes of joyous extremes and heated contempt he dominates the screen with undeniable screen presence and charisma. Many an actor would be lost on screen amidst all the sand, but O'Toole never is. Watch Lawrence's scene in the mess hall near the beginning then watch his immense 'No prisoners' scene – the change is remarkable. Omar Sharif is also superb and it is easy to see why he became a big international star following his charismatic performance.

I have never been a fan of desert films and find the majority of them boring, but Freddie Young's 70mm widescreen photography brings the desert alive in such an exciting and absorbing way. The film is simply full of memorable and beautiful scenes such as Sharif's introduction, the long pan over the assault on Aqaba or the glorious reveal from a purple flag of Lawrence and Sheriff Ali leading their final army. 'Lawrence of Arabia' is a unique visual experience and one you will not forget in a hurry.

Although it comes in at over three and a half hours, 'Lawrence of Arabia' never lulls and if not for the forced DVD intermission I doubt I would move at all while watching it. The innovative editing (including some of the most famous examples of direct-cutting) keeps the film moving at a brisk pace. There are no gratuitous scenes. Every scene is a required piece of the puzzle. Maurice Jarre's phenomenal music also helps keep the film going. I'm sure some of the scenes of people crossing the desert would have been tedious without his music, but with his majestic music transplanted over the images they are simply compulsive viewing.

The epic action scenes are breath-taking in their scope and execution. But what gives them their impact is that Lean (perhaps limited by censorship laws) is not concerned with the visceral thrill of battle, but rather the effect they have on the battlers. What drives men to war and what do they get from it. And thankfully the action scenes are succinct and progressive with no blasted shaky-cam or CGI troops. Everything you see on screen is real and was performed, which just adds to the gob-smacking sense of the shots. It is this sense of realism that deepens the experience.

If one's respect for 'Lawrence of Arabia' is not enamored after viewing the film, perhaps it will be when thinking that we will NEVER see a film like this again. No studio would take the risk of a project this big that excludes many of their 'key demographics' and 'film rules'. There are no talking parts for women. There is no love interest. There is no happy ending. 'Lawrence of Arabia' a product of Hollywood showing its balls, which for many a year it seems to have lost. 'Lawrence of Arabia' is an awe-inspiring Goliath of cinematic perfection. The best film I can lay claim to having seen.

Still my personal favourite

[iain_connell · 10/10 · 26 January 2005]

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.

Review-proof

[rbhagwat · 10/10 · 23 December 2004]

I first saw this movie on a scratchy VHS almost twenty years ago (I was 10). Liked it (sort of-enjoyed the battle scenes and the train blowing up), but didn't understand why my dad was so crazy about it.

The next time was on laserdisc (remember those?) almost 10 years ago and I was hooked. I finally got it - the conflict, the performances, the music, the dialogue - all mesmerising.

But it was only in 2002, when I saw the 40th-anniversary reissue on 70mm that I was completely blown away seeing the scale, the enormity of Lean's accomplishment. There were scenes that gave me goosepimples (the opening credits, the cut from the matchstick to the desert sunrise, "nothing is written" - others too numerous to mention).

The point of this rather rambling review is this - a movie that can evoke such passion in its admirers stands by itself, beyond reviews or criticism. If you haven't seen it yet I envy you, because you get to experience it for the first time.

Majesty in the Desert

[evanston_dad · 10/10 · 29 April 2005]

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+

A True Must See

[caseyt-48511 · 10/10 · 12 July 2018]

"Lawrence of Arabia" is either the greatest movie ever made, or the second greatest. The true power and scope has only been matched by few other films. It is a film that really does stand the test of time. In an age where special effect driven films are king(as much as i like those), it is great to watch a film where you truly see thousands of people charging a fort on horse, and camel, back. It's a long ride, but it is never boring. It is full of fantastic characters acted out by even better actors. Peter O'Toole should have won every acting award available to win. His performance is consistently ranked among the greatest in movie history.

It's not only a wonderful film but a symbolic one. This could have easily fallen into typical tropes but it almost always manages to subvert epic conventions and challenge us. Lawrence clearly doesn't want the English to interfere with the new Arab state. He wants them to be independent after they were conquered for so long. He genuinely cares. But unfortunately, little to no promises were kept. The English and other countries cut up the Middle East and changed everything in the name of empire... No wonder Lawrence looks so sad at the end. He knows what's about to happen to his friends and allies that he fought so hard with. There would be no true freedom for them.

Omar Sharif and Claude Rains are also deserving of much praise. The music is extraordinary and captures each scene very well. The personal journey of Lawrence is fascinating as well. He isn't your average epic hero. He's flawed, egotistical and by the end of the film he has lost his way. He started to see the revolt as being about him when it wasn't. He began to believe the legend that had evolved around him. He saw himself as a god but was brought down hard.

David Lean's direction is practically flawless and proved that he is still one of the best directors ever. All in all, David Lean's masterpiece is a timeless, must see movie that has not been diminished by time.

The grand-daddy of all biopics

[wandereramor · 7/10 · 15 October 2011]

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.

David Lean's Masterpiece is a Cinematic Treasure (now in 4K UHD!) 💯

[Instant_Palmer · 10/10 · 29 June 2019]

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.

Epic tale of revisionist history loses steam in second half

[Turfseer · 6/10 · 4 August 2021]

T. E. Lawrence, the British Army lieutenant who in the popular imagination was primarily responsible for defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I, was the perfect anti-hero for the revisionist 1960s. Iconic film director David Lean already had displayed his "anti-colonial" credentials in his 1957 portrait of an intransigent British army officer in The Bridge Over the River Kwai. But by 1962 when Lawrence of Arabia was released, he would go further in pouring gasoline on the fire to ensure that Britain's image as a noble colonial ruler was tarnished almost beyond recognition.

Lawrence of Arabia is divided into two parts, with an intermission due to its four hour length. In the first part, we're introduced to newcomer Peter O'toole as the British lieutenant tasked with trekking through the desert at the behest of Mr. Dryden (Claude Raines) of the Arab Bureau to determine whether Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) will assist in the Arab revolt against the Turks who were allied with Germany during World War I.

Part 1 portrays Lawrence as the heroic anti-hero (with Part 2 as more unheroic). At first in the vein of a good British colonialist he finds himself expressing contempt for Arabs following the appearance of Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) who murders Lawrence's Bedouin guide simply for drinking water from Ali's well in the middle of the desert.

But after meeting up with Prince Faisal and hatching a plan to again trek through the desert against impossible odds with the intent of taking the strategic city of Aqaba in the south, Lawrence (completely the opposite of the British colonial stance at the time), takes a liking to the men he's charged with leading and begins identifying with them.

Lawrence goes so far as adopting their dress and further earns their respect by turning around during the trek to Aqaba and saving one of the soldiers, Gasim (I. S. Johar) who falls off his camel after passing out.

Lean and his scenarists take liberties with history by having Lawrence act on his own in leading the Arabs to Aqaba and failing to inform his commanding officer General Allenby (Jack Hawkins). As it really happened, Lawrence's superiors were fully informed of his bold plan in advance. Thus at this juncture, Lawrence's reputation as a hero is still intact.

Nonetheless during Part 1, there is some foreshadowing of Lawrence's "fall from grace" to unheroic status in Part 2. That happens when Lawrence is forced to kill Gasim whose dispute with a member of another Arab tribe almost causes a civil war between the groups. Soon we see Lawrence "confessing" to General Allenby that he was troubled because he "enjoyed" killing the man.

Lean's decision to characterize Lawrence as slightly bloodthirsty after (perhaps) adopting the cruel demeanor of the men he was commanding was ill-advised and disputed by several notable critics (including Lawrence's brother) who denounced this unsympathetic view following the film's release.

Despite some slow pacing, Part 1 generally works plot-wise as Lawrence has a discernable goal (leading the men to take Aqaba). Lawrence as anti-hero is cleverly made clear when he returns to headquarters in full Arab dress and is like a fish out of water before his stodgy colleagues who are aghast when he requests that his Arab servant be put up in a first class hotel room. Nonetheless, he's given a hero's welcome after General Allenby recognizes his incredible initiative.

Part 2 unfortunately does not have the focus of Part 1 and gradually loses steam. It consists more of episodic scenes with Lean attempting to interject a lot more ambiguity in regards to Lawrence's character. In contrast to the big attack on Aqaba, we're forced to be more content watching Lawrence blowing up trains while engaging in guerilla warfare.

Then there's the scene when Lawrence shows up in the enemy-held city of Deera, arrested and summarily tortured after butting heads with the Turkish Bey (Chieftan--Jose Ferrer), Whether this incident was made up by Lawrence (appearing in his memoirs years later) is open to debate. But it's an opportunity for Lean to take down Lawrence's image another peg by implying that perhaps Lawrence intentionally wanted to be tortured-in order to atone for his sudden enjoyment of killing during warfare.

The apotheosis of Lean's ill-advised characterizations of Lawrence perhaps occurs when he has him gleefully ordering "No prisoners" which leads to the massacre of retreating Turkish soldiers by his Arab charges on the way to take the city of Damascus. The context is not made clear-just like when Lawrence was forced to shoot Gasim. Here he must allow the troops to take revenge on the Turks, since they just massacred the residents of the Arab town of Tapas.

Lean not only gets in his digs at his protagonist who is now rendered thoroughly unheroic but even worse, Lawrence's superiors (and the British Empire to boot) are held to even more severe account. Britain along with France carve up the Middle East after World War I (despite their promises to the Arabs, to the contrary), ending up completely dismembering the Ottoman Empire.

Allenby gets particular short shrift after neglecting the beleaguered residents of Damascus (excoriated by the chief medical officer for allowing horrendous conditions in the local hospital). There at least is a little balance as the Arabs don't come off very well either-as they are unable to achieve any unity following the convening of their Arab Council.

Despite the excellent cinematography, decent acting and memorable score, Lean goes a little too far in his revisionist history, unnecessarily playing down the heroic status of a confirmed anti-hero.

An Overrated Borefest

[bonafide_hippie · 3/10 · 15 July 2005]

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.

Makes a Strong Case for Best Film Ever.

[tfrizzell · 6 August 2002]

The definitive epic of the cinema's history. "Lawrence of Arabia" is hands-down the finest production of the 1960s and makes a strong case as the best movie ever made. The titled character (Oscar-nominee Peter O'Toole in his career-defining role) dies in a freak motorcycle accident in the early-1930s in his homeland of England. In spite of being honored by the nation, many knew nothing of him. Some loved him, others despised him, but no one seemed to know the man at all. Flashbacks immediately start as we meet the character during World War I. He is a lieutenant assigned to mundane duties, but suddenly he is thrust into a greater role in North Africa. He is to assist a Saudi Arabian prince (Alec Guinness). The goal is to fight off the dreaded Turkish regime that poses a threat to the Arabs. If the Turks take over this land in Africa, what will it mean for the English? This concern leads to those in charge (most notably Claude Rains) wanting the titled character to help the Arabs to win their freedom back from the Turks. With the help of allies Omar Sharif (Oscar-nominated) and Anthony Quinn, among a whole host of others, O'Toole starts to assist the Arabs in their all-or-nothing task. An ambitious American journalist (Arthur Kennedy) wants to tell O'Toole's story in the hopes of getting the U.S. interested in the war (basically trying to get his nation involved in World War I by presenting them with a larger-than-life hero). During the venture O'Toole becomes a bit war-crazed and looks at himself as a sort of Christ-like figure who thinks of himself as immortal. O'Toole proves to be someone who is very at home in combat and when the combat is over, will he be able to function properly? Franklin J. Schaffner's "Patton" benefited greatly from David Lean's (Oscar-winning for directing) masterpiece. This Best Picture Oscar winner from 1962 just grows in importance as the years pass by. "Lawrence of Arabia" is a thinking person's film that is much, much deeper than it appears on the surface (and it appears deep on the surface to start with). The film deals with a slice of history that really did not seem that important back during World War I, but the situations in the Middle East now are greatly due to T.E. Lawrence's acts nearly a century ago. Did leading the Arabs to freedom make the world a safer place? This is the main question that Lean's film raises. Guinness' character is someone who changes almost immediately near the end of the production and it is a somewhat frightening foreshadower of things to come. A monumental milestone in film-making that stands so tall against all the other great productions of all eras. 5 stars out of 5.

The best movie of all motion picture history

[nisitpav · 10/10 · 24 August 2005]

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.

I am totally gobsmacked!

[poofta1970 · 10/10 · 3 October 2004]

I am totally amazed by some of the negative responses to this film. Yes it is a long film; a very long film. Perhaps this is a symptom of the short attention spans of people today. But you know what? I wish it was 3 or 4 times longer. Every time this film finishes I compare it to the badly acted special effects laden rubbish that passes for 'epic' cinema these days and wish that T.E Lawrence had his motorcycle accident at 93 (rather than 47 as he did in 1935) so I could have had more of Peter O' Toole's electrifying performance.

The cinematography is acknowledged as being some of the the best in any film ever. When Mr Lean wanted to capture a sun rise, he stood in the dark (in a REAL desert) and waited for the sun to REALLY rise (No computerized nonsense in this film). As for the reviewer who thought Lawrence looked like a homosexual because he had a 'effeminate' walk, well ... I can only hope that one day he joins the 21st century; hero's aren't all musclebound apes, leaders aren't all fluffy paragons of virtue, and so what if he did turn out to be homosexual?

If you and you dad like watching a man being whipped before being violated there is, I believe, a wealth of material available to cater for your taste at your local pornography shop.

In my opinion its one of the best films ever made and certainly the best film I've seen based on real events.

Forget the length feel the quality.

possibly one of the greatest films ever made

[amostom · 10/10 · 5 November 2005]

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.

Heroism brilliantly shown

[bleakeye · 10/10 · 2 March 2001]

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!

One of the greatest films of all time.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 10/10 · 25 December 2022]

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.

The Very Best Scene of All Time

[rsartisttouch-1 · 10/10 · 30 September 2005]

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, released in 1962, is one of the best motion pictures ever made. Be that as it may, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA contains one particular scene that is my favorite out of all the thousands of movies I have viewed over the past 50 years. To my mind, this scene is the most beautiful, most joyous and wonderful cinematic experience.

So I would like for you to experience this scene from LAWRENCE OF ARABIA as well, but you must do the following. Watch it on the biggest and best screen available to you, turning up the sound to movie theater volume. Additionally, the scene won't be appreciated unless you watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA from the very beginning, including "The Overture".

The scene begins at night, just before sunrise. Lawrence and his "army" have succeeded in crossing the "sun's anvil" portion of the Nefud desert. Lawrence then notices there is a camel with no rider. It is Gassim's camel; perhaps Gassim fell asleep and fell off the camel and could not catch the camel in time to remount? Lawrence decides to turn back and rescue Gassim if that is the case.

This is where the scene begins. It ends when Lawrence, completely exhausted, looks at the ground and falls onto a mat into a deep sleep. Everything that happens in between is the most enjoyable piece of cinematic art I've ever seen and is now there for you to discover and enjoy. This is all I will reveal.

Deserves spot among its era, but best ever? I guess you had to be there.

[mattloveless · 6/10 · 15 September 2020]

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.

A sweeping epic with many layers of complexity

[AlsExGal · 10/10 · 21 November 2009]

It's hard for the small screen to do justice to such a sweeping cinematographic epic, but there is much more to this film than its visual majesty. The film has one of the most beautiful and recognized scores in the history of cinema, a fascinating subject in the person of T.E. Lawrence himself, one of the most literate screenplays ever written, and a wonderful supporting cast nearing perfection. It is a shame that unless you take the time to buy the DVD and invest the almost four hours it takes to watch it, you are likely to miss out on one of the best films ever made. It is precisely because of its length that it is seldom seen on TV anymore. The backdrop of the film is that the British, in the midst of fighting World War I, are aiding the Arab struggle for independence from the Turks since anything that ties up the Turks accomplishes the British goal of destroying the Ottoman Empire and thus aids in the war effort. T. E. Lawrence is first enlisted to help advise the Arabs in their military goals, but goes on to lead them in a series of stunning military victories that goes way beyond what the British expected of the Arabs, and quite frankly, way beyond what the British wanted. You see, the British had designs on claiming Arabia for themselves after the war ends, years before it was discovered that Arabia was sitting on the world's richest oil supply.

However, this is really an oversimplification of a very complex film. This movie is so multi-faceted that you could tackle reviewing it from several angles. To me one of the most fascinating aspects of the film is the complex relationship and contrast between Sheriff Ali (Omar Sharif), fellow tribesman and counsel to Prince Feisal, and T.E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole). When the two first meet Ali shoots down Lawrence's Arab companion who is taking him to first meet Feisel because the man is drinking from Ali's well and does not have permission to do so. An outraged Lawrence chastises Ali citing that Arabia will never be great as long as they war amongst themselves and that he is "barborous and cruel". Towards the end of the film, though, there is a reversal of roles as Ali tries to stop a massacre that Lawrence is not only allowing his troops to participate in, but seems to be genuinely enjoying. Ali is a man who has a good bead on who he is and what he believes. Not having this quality is Lawrence's greatest shortcoming. Lawrence either believes he is much less than he is or much more, depending on his latest exploits and who has talked to him last. Ali clearly sees this problem, and by the end of the film Ali is Lawrence's fast friend - in fact his only true friend. You see, Lawrence is being used by both the Arabs and the British. This becomes immensely clear when at the end of the film Prince Feisel, who has always seemed to be genuine towards Lawrence, says during negotiations with the British "Lawrence is a double-edged sword - We are equally glad to be rid of him, are we not?". By the way, the role of Ali has to be Sharif's finest hour as an actor. I always thought Dr. Zhivago was that finest role, and it is still a great performance, but this one is even better.

There are so many other themes going on in this film - the thin line between madness and heroism, the worth of a single human life versus the welfare of an entire army or a nation, the sometimes less than honorable motives behind those fighting for the honorable goal independence, the contrast between western and Arab values - that you could go on forever. That is why I strongly recommend this film. You'll probably come away with something a little different on each viewing.

Not what I expected

[nen-414-175541 · 7/10 · 21 January 2019]

Having read the book "Dr. Zhivago" many times and also having watched the movie of the same name many times, I obtained a DVD of "Lawrence of Arabia" and proceeded to watch it. I figured that since this movie had received many good reviews, it would be an excellent movie.

After watching the first hour of the movie, I was not all that impressed with it. I did finish watching the movie and probably will never watch it again. The actors did a good job but the movie reinforces my belief that ALL WARS are not about establishing peoples' freedom but are instead about making rich individuals richer and furthering the economic and political interests of the participating (winning) countries.

This film certainly added credence to my opinion of WARS that much more. I do NOT watch TV and if I was to go into any movie rental business, I would not recognize 99% of the titles because I have never watched them or even heard of them.

I am a 67 year-old retired industrial electrician and I like watching movies that are "believable" or possibly "could have happened." Obviously, I am not a movie "critic" by any means.

I was right the first time

[basilisksamuk · 1/10 · 20 May 2012]

I had a bad experience with Lawrence of Arabia when I was a lad (the film that is, not the person). I still have vivid memories of sitting through this interminable film and over forty years later still remembered it as the distilled essence of boredom. It can't possibly be as bad as I remember, I told myself. I must have been too young to appreciate it at the time. Still somehow I never got around to trying it again.

Recently I acquired a box set of David Lean films running from his first as director, In Which We Serve, through to Hobson's Choice in 1954. All the films had some restoration work done to them and they all looked good. In fact I wasn't prepared for just how good some of the films were. Of course, I was familiar with Brief Encounter and Great Expectations, both as good as ever but I wasn't prepared for just how good all the rest were. Passionate Friends is similar in some ways to Brief Encounter to my eyes a much more adult treatment of the issues than the rather soppy, though irresistible, Brief Encounter. Oliver Twist quite took my breath away with its cinematography and Robert Newton's portrayal of Bill Sykes, a singularly chilling performance which is far more disturbing than the anaemic serial killers we see in more recent films. It was all looking promising then for a reappraisal of Lawrence of Arabia. Even so the DVD sat unwatched on a shelf for several months, so bad was my memory of the original experience of seeing it. Eventually the fateful day arrived (well two days to tell the truth as I stopped at the original intermission and resumed the next day).

So, was it any better than my memories suggested? Not much. At least I knew a little more about the history than I did before and could find something interesting from that point of view. But otherwise it was every bit as bombastic, boring and ennui-inducing as I had found it originally. On IMDb I see that the average score is 8.6 and it ranks at number 42 in the top 250 so someone clearly likes it. Here's why all those people are wrong:

1 The film has been praised for its cinematography, particularly the desert photography. I'll agree that there are some good shots but they aren't that great. If I want desert shots I can see much better by buying the box set of "Life" and watching the episode on deserts. In fact I can find a dozen BBC series, usually in High Definition and usually narrated by David Attenborough which outstrip anything in Lawrence. If you like desert shots my advice would be get the documentaries instead and turn off the sound so you aren't disturbed by Attenborough droning on and on. In fact play some good desert music like Tinarewen in the background, turn the central heating up and refuse to drink water for 24 hours for a really good effect.

2 The majority of the film is taken up by Lawrence seemingly crossing deserts in real time. This is both boring and pointless as a filmic experience. An alternative would be to try (1) above.

3 The theme tune – you know, the one you can't get out of your head even if you try, occurs exactly when and where you think it will, usually signalling another real time trek across another bloody desert (or back again). At least you can enliven your viewing experience by predicting when the theme tune will come back in – I guarantee you'll get it right every time.

4 The action scenes all run left to right (or is it right to left, I forget). There's a reason for this which I also forget but bores on IMDb can explain it to you. Despite the huge numbers of extras, camels etc employed it generates some really unimpressive battle scenes when you start to notice the left-to-rightness of the action.

5 I've not read any of T.E. Lawrence's original writing but I'd be very surprised to learn he was such a crashing, pompous bore and bigot as the portrayal in this film suggests. The character in the film is so deeply unlikable as to immediately nullify my suspension of disbelief. My mind keeps interrupting my concentration as it asks how anyone can be inspired to follow this idiot.

6 Many say that Peter O'Toole's portrayal is magnetic, compelling, heroic and so on in this film. I say his acting suggests that he is completely bewildered by what the character is supposed to be like so he's just settled for acting mad and unpleasant whilst staring distractedly into space.

7 Goggles on a bush. How much more obvious and clichéd can you get?

8 So that's where Alec Guinness got his inspiration for Obi-Wan Kenobi?

9 Coming in at just under 47 hours in length this film is just too long. Simply taking out Omar Sharif's entrance scene would trim 24 hours from the running time. Ideally a ninety minute cut would be just about watchable.

It wouldn't be cricket to not mention the good points of the film as well and they can be summarised in just two words – Claude Rains.