User Reviews

Like most dramas by Jean Anouih (1910-1987), BECKET essentially sets two larger-than-life characters against each other in a relationship fueled by widening ideological rifts. In this instance, the rift is between the holy and the secular. King Henry II of England, who--frustrated by the frequent interference of the Roman Catholic Church in his rule--manages to have friend Thomas Becket appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury. He expects Becket to act on his behalf--and is shocked when Becket undergoes a spiritual transformation and takes his office seriously.

The 1959 play was tremendous successful throughout Europe, in England, and in the United States. In 1964 it reached the screen with Richard Burton as Becket, Peter O'Toole as Henry II, such notables as John Gielgud as Louis VII of France. The film was extremely well-received and received numerous critical accolades, particularly for Burton and O'Toole. It was not, however, widely available to the home market until this 2007 MPI DVD release.

In a technical sense, BECKET looks better than ever; the transfer is very crisp and the picture likely looks better here than it did on the 1964 big screen. At the same time, however, it is very evident that this is a film that really is best seen on the big screen, where the larger than life characters and their ideological battles have the advantage of a scope to equal their nature. It also has a slightly stagey quality, most often in the script, which doesn't quite manage to shed the theatrical trappings of the original.

Even so, there's a great deal to admire, and the leading actors are most certainly chief among them. Burton and O'Toole wench, brawl, argue, and explode with invective with complete conviction; it would be hard, if not impossible, to say which gives the better performance here. Gielgud is particularly memorable in his brief appearance as Louis VII--and Sian Philips, Pamela Brown, and Martita Hunt make the most of their relatively small roles as well.

The DVD has several notable bonuses. I personally found the interviews with Richard Burton, archival footage from 1967 and 1977, slightly over rated--but the "featurettes" on editor Anne V. Coats and composer Laurence Rosenthal are excellent, and the DVD commentary by O'Toole is consistently fascinating. I personally find the film as a whole a bit dry--Coats, tellingly, makes the comment that if the producers had put just a bit more money into BECKET it would have an undeniable masterpiece--but fans of the film will find this particular package an extremely welcome one.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer

¨In the year 1066 William of Conqueror crossed from France with his Norman army and conquered the Saxons of Britain at the battle of Hastings , Henry II his great grandson continued to rule over the oppressed Saxons peasants . Backed by the swords of his Barons and by the power of his imported Norman clergy¨ . This historic picture is based on real events , a studio detail about Becket (1117-1170) who was chancellor of Henry II Plantagenet but then he opposed to sign the rules of Clarendon (1164) that established superiority of king over clergy , he was then banished France and when he returned succeeded the tragedy . Henry II (1133-1189) dominated nobles and clergy , he married Eleanor of Aquitaine that caused the confrontation with Louis VII (an eye-catching playing by the veteran John Gielgud) of France . Becket (flawless acting by Richard Burton) is named Archbishop of Canterbury and his religious mission is strictly taken with opposition to Henry II (a first-rate performance by Peter O'Toole and similar king role to 'Lion in Winter') of Plantagenet who governed England from 1154 to 1189 ; this leads to notorious and sparkling phrase by the king: 'Who will rid me of this turbulent archbishop' .

This is a splendid rendition of Jean Anouilh's play , as translated by Lucienne Hill , produced upon the New York stage by Merrick and good detailed artistic direction made at Shepperton studios -England- . It deals about the stormy friendship between Becket , appointed as Archbishop of Canterbury , and king Henry II . Although the film depicts Becket as a Saxon , he was actually a Norman like King Henry II . The closeness between King Henry and Becket is depicted as being a purely platonic one ; homosexuality was still illegal in the UK when the film was made in 1963, and any suggestion of that would have fallen foul of the censor . However it is still implied that Henry is in love with Becket . Magnificent studded-secondary-star cast , as Donald Wolfit as bishop , Paolo Stoppa as Pope Alexander III , Gino Cervi as the flamboyant Cardinal , Pamela Brown as Queen Eleanor , Martita Hunt as Queen Mother , Percy Herbert and Neal McGinnis as the Barons ; plus , Sean Phillips married to Peter O'Toole . Atmospheric , appropriate cinematography by the great Geoffrey Unsworth . Evocative musical score with religious chores by Laurence Rosenthal and usual musical conductor by Muir Mathieson . The picture obtained Academy Award , 1964 , to adapted screenplay and Golden Globes to dramatic actor for Peter O'Toole and the best film drama . The flick was stunningly directed by Peter Grenville who reflects correctly an exciting slice of history . Rating : Better than average . This is a superior and powerful historic drama to be liked by historical cinema buffs .

Ah, words. To paraphrase Henry Higgins, they are the pillars of society. Language is the means by which emotions are expressed, wars and love affairs are started and ended, and friendships are struck -- and melted down. "Becket" is a movie in love with words, their eloquence and, in some cases, majesty. It's a movie about friendship and loyalty, God and country, and the dynamics that occur when one tries to mix them together. I cannot think of movie so in love with words in recent memory; the only one that comes close (perhaps even superseding it) is "A Man for All Seasons." This is the proverbial film to sink your mental teeth into. It is cerebral, challenging, controversial, and tragic. If you've ever had a friend grow more and more distant no matter how hard you tried to keep things right -- this is for you.

And that is all I have to say about that...

My comments here tend to be Misremembrances of things past. I know I saw "Becket" decades ago while I must have been suffering from a periodic bout of reviling Richard Burton. Having recently seen "Cleopatra" again, I will forgive myself. Still, there are movies that I've enjoyed - "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" and "The Night of the Iguana", to name 2 - so I thought I'd give "Becket" another try.

Historical movies are among my favorites, although the IMDB parameter of not spoiling restricts me from discussing plot. But this is a movie that made me click on here to see who directed it...since directing Burton and O'Toole must have been like being a meterologist tracking a tornado and a hurricane. Their synergy is astounding...but whereas O'Toole launches himself on occassion into a thespian stratosphere it is Burton's performance that is incandescent. There are scenes..."inner monologues" - queries to God, where the ribald Burton is transformed into a man illuminated by a spiritual puzzle - he cannot believe that he is becoming who he is becoming - and it is Burton's challenge to share that bewilderment with us.

Well, I'm comforted that I can now stretch the glory days of historical film-making at least to "Becket." Any film in which John Gielgud, Martita Hunt, Felix Aylmer and Pamela Brown are "supporting" - how do I put it, "supporting" performances such as these are most other actors' triumphs. The costumes and sets are sumptous. Finis.

The tale of Thomas Becket has had many incarnations over time. T.S. Eliot's 'Murder in the Cathedral' is but the most recent acclaimed literary treatment; each revisitation seems to draw new elements forth from the story. Edward Anhalt won the Oscar for best screenplay (adapted from other material) for this film. This film shows Henry and Thomas Becket roughly equal in age (at variance from history, for in this time the age difference of 15 years is practically a generational difference). Becket is shown as being a guide to Henry, but less from a master/pupil standpoint as it is a clever diplomatic with a utilitarian and almost Machiavellian sense about him. Henry is presented as coarse and unrefined, uneducated and in need of assistance, but historically this is unlikely.

Becket is played admirably by Richard Burton; Henry II is portrayed by Peter O'Toole. Both were nominated for the best actor Oscar, but neither won. In addition to these nominations and the best screenplay award, the film was nominated for nine other Oscars, running the list from costumes, music, directing, best picture, and a best supporting actor nod for John Gielgud, whose cameo as the King of France is rather interestingly presented.

Indeed, the movie has a remarkable realistic feel to it, particularly for a film from the 1960s, when cinema was as likely to portray stylised and idealistic images of the past. The sets are in bare stone with a minimum of ornamentation, as would have been the case in Plantagenet times; likewise, the ceremony around the royal person is much less grand, and the church rather grand, which is both accurate and serves to highlight the underlying conflict of the story in the film.

Becket is portrayed as a man of ambiguous loyalties -- a man of principle who has yet to find principles worthy of loyalty. Finally, in the role of archbishop, he finds a calling from the honour of God (and in so doing is not unlikely many priests who see their path to ordination as the means of spiritual grace; indeed, many are disappointed that the faith does not come with the office). Whether Thomas Becket actually experienced a spiritual conversion that made him a strong champion of the church, or in fact saw the power of the church as a means to an end of dominating the country, we will perhaps never know.

In the film, Becket is often disparaged as being a Saxon; this is perhaps overstated, given his Norman lineage, which is never hinted at in the film. While he does not come from Norman nobility, he is far from being a simple Saxon. Burton's portrayal of Becket shows the change from worldly chancellor to spiritual archbishop in unsubtle terms. Even so, there is an ambiguity that plays out marvelously in both his performance, and the reactions of the other characters who constantly question his sincerity.

O'Toole's performance is not as polished as Burton's; when he plays an older, wiser Henry II in 'The Lion in Winter' four years later, the acting is much more dramatic and effective. It perhaps goes without saying that Pamela Brown does not make the same impression on the screen as Eleanor of Aquitaine as Katherine Hepburn does in the later film, but Eleanor is an incidental character in Becket in any case.

Music in this film is not a prominent feature -- various trumpet and brass flourishes announce events or major scene changes in parts; a lot of chant (long before Gregorian chant achieved popular status) accompanies church scenes -- indeed, I credit this film for giving me my first real taste of Gregorian chant. The scene with Sian Phillips as Becket's love Gwendolyen is accompanied by period string instruments -- again, Phillips is a remarkable actress who is under-utilised in this performance.

Done in a flash-back manner, there is a resolution in the film -- Becket is dead, made a saint, honour is satisfied as the King does penance, and the people are happy. We know what is going to happen, but then, anyone with knowledge of history would likely know the story already. In fact, Henry's reign was rarely without challenge, but he was always powerful, and much more effective after Becket's death than before. Reigning for nearly twenty years after Becket's death, he left a very powerful Western European coalition of lands that soon fell apart, and embroiled England and France in war for centuries later. The tensions between church and state carry forward to this day; while the specifics of the challenges faces Becket and Henry II are very different from issues today, the principle of the relationship between church and state is far from definitively resolved.

Also, the side-line issue of class warfare and racial prejudice (teased out with subtle nuance between the Normans and Saxons, who, ironically, look exactly the same on the screen) are addressed in an interesting, pre-civil rights sort of manner. This issue is never resolved in the film, as indeed it wasn't in the 1960s, either.

This is an intriguing film, with great acting and great production values, and an interesting story that, even if not completely historically accurate, does not alter the history so much that it becomes a parody of the subject.

Richard Burton is "Becket" in this 1964 film starring Peter O'Toole as Henry II and John Gielgud in a small role as the King of France. King Henry creates a Frankenstein monster when he makes his best friend, Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, believing this will solve all of his problems with the Church. It's a decision he lives to regret. Becket finds that he loves serving God and is in his rightful place, living a life of prayer, retreat, and helping the poor and the needy. When he comes up against the King, his response is not what Henry expects. Becket now serves another master - God.

This is such a beautiful film, not only the sweeping landscapes and muted colors but the stunning, sometimes stark images throughout of the two men, the scene on the beach toward the end in particular.

"Becket" is a clash of two titan actors and historical figures. O'Toole and Burton, so different in their acting approaches, are a match made in heaven, with O'Toole playing Henry as a childish, selfish rogue in a very overt performance and Burton playing Becket with an internalized quiet strength and resolve. They are both magnificent. Both deserved the Oscars for which they were nominated; they didn't receive them. O'Toole would go on to play Henry II again in Lion in Winter, giving him an interesting place in cinematic history - he's the only actor to play the same character in two completely different films, neither one of which was a sequel or prequel (before you invoke the name of Al Pacino).

Much is made in these films of historical inaccuracies. What makes these period movies so wonderful is whether or not you watch them knowing much of the history, after you've seen them, you rush to the Internet to read more. I was most interested in the homoerotic aspects of the relationship between Becket and Henry - but none was mentioned in anything I read. It was, however, very apparent on the screen.

The '60s was really a time of these great historical dramas, similar to that period later on when Merchant-Ivory produced their many sweeping films. In a time of Spiderman and Transformers, these wonderful character-driven films are sorely missed. This is a particularly fabulous one.

'Becket' examines the rather intricate relationship between the headstrong 11th-century King Henry II of England (O'Toole) and his lifelong friend, Thomas Becket (Burton). On the surface, the two appear to be really close chums who spend their time wenching and drinking - king and servant, but friends foremost. However, there are layers below this, as Henry clearly revels in his lust for living and more than a little affection for his servant Becket. Unable to consummate his love for his fellow man, he drowns his desires in women. Becket is much more of an enigma, and his motivations are somewhat elusive. He clearly relishes the company of his king, but is not entirely comfortable with his attentions. He is a Saxon, one of the conquered, requiring him to straddle the gulf between honor and collaboration, serving his Norman King in several capacities – as a valet, a bodyguard and a military adviser. He wears his compromises poorly, and longs for a simpler, honorable way of living.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury dies, with view to subjugate the mighty Church, Henry picks Becket to be the successor, despite not even being an ordained priest, which proves to be his undoing. As soon as the miter is upon his head and the silver cross in his hand, Becket becomes a thorn in the king's side, opposing him on a point of principle, straining their friendship and putting Becket's life in peril. Henry loves Becket, as he adores no other human being in his life, and it hurts him to the core that Becket chooses honor over their friendship. 'Becket' soon moves from power play to power struggle, a struggle that Henry is not ready to lose.

On the surface, Becket appears to be a humdrum king versus a dignified politician war. But, here, the primary conflict is between the throne of England in its debauchery, and the Church, with its compromised morality. The characters, even while wearing robes of power, stink to highest heaven in every sense. While protected by their power, they freely admit the moral sewer they occupy, and serve their gluttonous appetites with aplomb. Absolute power allows the veneer of quality to drip away, and we can be most thankful for this lack of varnish. Just as the characters' loyalties to one another are called into question, so, too are ours: 'Becket' enters a moral gray area from which it never fully emerges.

Becket crackles with whip-smart dialogue and is anchored by a sharp screenplay that finds resonance even today. Peter Glenville directs with a flamboyant hand, but mostly he lets his two leads have free rein, and the results are glorious. Richard Burton is always at his best when reserved, and this is no exception. Peter O'Toole rips into the script as if he invented the art of acting, and belts out some of the best lines. He has a slithery charm that suddenly erupts into volcanic expulsions of blind fury. His chemistry with Burton is ripe with homo-erotic undercurrents, which O'Toole mines with relish in a hysterical performance, full of cunning, eloquence and mad outbursts.

Years later, Becket remains just as incandescent and relevant!

Made in 1964 as the screen adaptation of the play by Jean Anouilh "Beckett or the Honor of God" written in 1959, the film takes place in the 12th Century's England but never for a second it feels outdated or old-fashioned. The subjects it explores, the passion and artistry it presents in every scene, its sunning beauty, the use of medieval music, and especially, the incredible craft and chemistry between two great acting legends in their finest performances make the film an outstanding cinematic event and one of the best history/biopics ever made. Magnificent in every sense, "Becket" examines the complex relationship between Henry II (Peter O'Toole), by the words of Sir Winston Churchill, one of the ablest and most remarkable of the English kings, and his best friend from the days if his youth, his trusted confident, his mentor, whom he loved, respected, and appointed his Chancellor, Thomas Beckett (Richard Burton). As Chancellor, Becket was involved in the important acts as the distribution of royal charters, writs and letters. Becket carried out many tasks for Henry II including leading the English army into battle. After Archbishop of Canterbury dies, Henry offers the post to Beckett counting on his unbending loyalty and support in religious questions. To his utmost surprise and anger, Beckett openly defies Henry on the matter of clergymen found guilty of serious crimes. Henry decided that they should be handed over to his courts. Thomas Becket insisted that the church should retain control of punishing its own clergy. The king believed that Becket betrayed him and was determined to obtain revenge which he finally expressed in front of his four knights, "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?"

It's been several days since I saw the film but I still can't (and I don't think I ever will) decide whose performance was more powerful and remarkable. Both, O'Toole and Burton are simply outstanding and carry the film effortlessly. They both were nominated by the Academy for best leading roles. I will always remember the last Burton's words just before his Becket dies hacked with the knights' swords, "Poor Henry"...In the last moment of his life, he feels sorry for his murderer, his former friend whom he loved but would not betray his principles and beliefs even for him. Another scene is also imprinted in my memory - Henry invites his family for the reunion where he is expected to name his successor. Surrounded by his closest relatives, his mother, his estranged wife, Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, his three sons, whom he never loved nor they loved him. All they want - the throne of England. All he wants - his friend Beckett next to him, but he lost him to God... I'd like to add that the scene of reunion is the source of another film featuring Peter O'Toole as Henry II. In 1968, O'Toole reprised the role of Henry in "The Lion in Winter" where his partner was Katherine Hepburn as Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. O'Toole was nominated for the Oscar for both films and lost both times.

For the first time since 1964, "Beckett" is available on DVD with many bonus features that include Peter O'Toole's commentary, two archival interviews with Richard Burton from 1967 and 1977 where he does not speak about "Beckett" but we learned a lot about Richard Burton, the actor and the man, and interviews with editor Anne V. Coats and composer Laurence Rosenthal. Nominated for 12 Academy Awards, "Beckett" won for Best Adapted Screenplay. It should have won much more. It deserves every one of its nominations even now, after all these years.

This movie definitely has some positive attributes, but also some annoying flaws.

It is visually enjoyable, with very nice cinematography and superb costume design. And there is some fine acting, especially by Richard Burton, as well as John Gielgud.

But there are many historical inaccuracies, most of them entirely unnecessary to the story.

For example, Henry may have been harsh with his sons and with his wife, but was kind to his mother Matilda, who had always been very loving and devoted to him. The lack of respect between the two added nothing to the movie.

Thomas Becket was not a Saxon, he was born in London but was the son of a couple from Normandy. Henry was less Norman than Becket, he was the son of an Angevin father, and his mother was a mix of Norman, Scottish, and Anglo-Saxon royalty. Her grandparents were William I, Matilda of Flanders, Margaret of Wessex (a descendant of Alfred the Great, she became St Margaret of Scotland), and Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. So Henry II had more Anglo-Saxon heritage (1/8) than Thomas Becket (none).

The conflict between Henry and Becket actually went on for years, and there were many differences between them, not just the decision to execute a priest.

Henry was almost certainly not a homosexual. He considered Becket a good friend and supporter at one time, but the movie makes him out to be madly in love with Becket while having no liking or respect for anyone else.

The actress who played Eleanor of Aquitaine was nothing like her. In reality, Eleanor was an elegant and exceptionally strong woman. The makers of The Lion in Winter made a wiser choice by casting Katharine Hepburn.

Becket is one of my favorite movies. It is possibly the most underrated movie of all time and I consider it one of the top five greatest movies. It has everything for everyone and is done at such a high level too. The center point of this movie is definitely its writing.

The writing by Edward Anhalt is the best I have ever seen and that is no exaggeration. Line after line I was just in awe. Every line had so much meaning and just made more and more anxious on what would happen next. It was funny, witty, intelligent and serious all at the same time. I have never seen such an amazing blend of so many different themes and working so greatly. This is usually how movies falter not succeed but this movie was like five movies mixed into one yet very enjoyable mostly in part of the writing. Many people like to memorize lines from the Godfather series, but I believe this movie contains so much more than even the Godfather. The Godfather is more like one of those quote pamphlets with 10-15 pages. Becket is not just like but really seems to be a quote book with a couple of 100 pages filled with quotes. Still this movie was not done to impress with just good lines it has a real story to it. The story was so amazingly strung together along with its amazing quotes this script seems to be absolutely perfect.

The acting was at its best. Peter O'Toole gave a performance only second to his performance in Lawrence of Arabia. He displayed everything that a king has especially that of Henry II. He displayed the immaturity, the constant swaying of opinion according to how he feels and at the same the stubbornness that a king has not accepting what anyone else has to say, except for his close friend Thomas Becket, at least for a while. He portrayed such a complex and just down right strange character. Then there is Richard Burton who was nothing short of greatness either giving one of his best performances as well. He of course plays Thomas Becket who reluctantly stands up to his friend and his king, Henry II in the name of equality and for basic civil and human rights. His performance was the most inspiring performance I have seen from Richard Burton. In the movie he has surprised at his own transformation but yet proud of what he was doing because it is the right thing to do. Yet there is still more. John Gieglud gave a great supporting performance as King Louis the VII of France. He just added to the laughs and provided a much needed extra character and voice to add something a little different and gave some diversity as well. I believe he was very much overlooked for such a great performance, this not too shocking though when you are playing next to Burton and O'toole. As they say in sports he was the X-factor.

The directing and editing was also add its height. The directing by Peter Glenville was just spectacular when it came to art direction and costumes to the camera shots of the castles and ceremonies all the way back around to the cinematography. I have read that nobody knows how good a movie was edited except for the editor and director. In this case you can clearly see that this movie was edited together perfectly, with its great music and sound effects to stringing together all the scenes together to near perfection.

It is so clear that this movie was worked on very carefully and precisely and was not made just to make money but to provide a message and a purpose. It is just a sham that this movie lost best picture to My Fair Lady in a year that had so many great movies including Zorba the Greek, Dr. Strangelove, Fail-Safe, The Pawnbroker to even Mary Poppins. Yet Becket seems to have everything that undoubtedly what those great movies have in every technical aspect but most importantly in the multiple messages and themes that it has making it one of the best to have ever been conceived.

BECKET is a film that seeks to explore the friendship and eventual enmity that existed between Henry II and Thomas Becket, two of the most famous characters in British history. Based on a play and filmed with an exemplary cast, it's a fine example of the kind of serious, old-fashioned, historical drama they don't make much of anymore.

The film is inevitably dominated by the presence of two acting heavyweights in the form of Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton. O'Toole is very good as the fey, fun-loving king, but Burton is even better as the religious man suffering a crisis of conscience.

The film is slow-moving and long-winded, but somehow it still works. The history is interesting, the scene-setting helps to add a real air of authenticity, and it's great seeing familiar faces (Gielgud, Phillips, Wolfit) fleshing out the cast.

Watch for the final encounter between king and subject on the beach. Possibly the most beautifully filmed moment of cinema I've seen - check out the sky and the sea, the costumes and the hollow faces of O'Toole and Burton. Cinema really doesn't get any better than this...

In 1066, William the Conqueror crossed from France with his Norman Army and conquered the Saxons of Britain. His grandson King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) recalls his friendship with the minion Saxon Thomas Becket (Richard Burton), a man without honor that prioritizes the pleasure life and is his adviser and companion in promiscuity and bender. Henry II has a troubled relationship with the Catholic Church and when the Archbishop of Canterbury dies, the king decides to appoint Becket to the position to dominate the Church. However, Becket finds his honor in the faith for God and takes seriously his position, defending the interests of the Church. Henry II develops an ambiguous love and hate feeling for his former friend and in hatred he decides the fate of Becket.

"Becket" is a great biographical movie that won an Oscar (Best Writing), had eleven nominations to the Oscar among several awards and nominations in other film festivals. Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton have top- notch performances and deserve their nominations. I believe people that have studied this historical period of England would appreciate it more since they certainly know how faithful the biographies of King Henry II and Thomas Becket are. This DVD has been recently released in Brazil by Cine Art Distributor and has many Extras including and interview with Richard Burton. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Becket"

In college I had the good fortune to play Henry II in the Lion In Winter. The next year, they were producing Becket. The director had already decided to cast another fellow as Henry (who was a younger character here), and he asked me to play Becket, and I agreed. I ended up hating it. Becket's speeches are tedious and kind of stupid in places, and really the whole play is. O'Toole and Burton and all the actors give it their best efforts, and the production is lavish, but the material of the play itself is simply unsatisfying. It is a translation of what was originally in French. Maybe something was lost there.

"Becket" is a Biography - Drama movie in which we watch King Henry II of England giving power to his best friend Thomas Becket. As time passes Becket finds his true honor and wants to be correct since he now believes more to God than to his own King.

I liked this movie because it is based on true events, Peter O'Toole makes one his best interpretations and the direction is also very good. Despite that, I have to say that "Becket" is a bit tiring movie since it's almost two and a half hours and in some points it was boring. Regarding the interpretations, I have to admit that the interpretations of both Richard Burton's who played as Becket / Thomas Becket and Peter O'Toole's who played as King Henry II were simply amazing and they were both outstanding. Lastly, I recommend everyone to watch this movie because it is good, interesting, a bit overrated but it's fine by me and it worth's your time since you are going to watch an amazing interpretation by Peter O'Toole.

This movie is a classic. It is so wonderful, my praises can't do it justice. The acting is second to none. The dialogue is incredible. The story magnificent. It's truly a masterpiece. I have seen this movie at the very least 25 times. It is one of those movies you can watch again and again. This movie has so many memorable scenes. Only Casablanca can be compared in that way. And it stands up over time, some great old flicks get outdated, this one has not. It's a rare movie. You can read the other posts about the storyline. If this movie was released today, it would win every academy award. DO NOT MISS THIS MOVIE. You will never see 2 actors this great starring together ever again. One of the all time best films.

If this movie had won all that Academy Awards that it was deservedly nominated for it would be a well-remembered film today but it seems like a forgotten classic. I haven't seen it shown on TV in years and seldom hear people talk about or reference this film. It won a best screenplay Oscar but was basically shut out. Best Picture, Best Director, two Lead Actor, one Supporting Actor, Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Score and Sound nominations that all came up short. Two great Actors Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole during the peak or prime of their careers with the great John Gielgud as a bonus. Wow! What an acting duel between Burton and O'Toole. A great script and great direction. This film has a lot going for it and deserved and should have won most of it's nominations but any other two actors in the lead and I may not have given it a 10 but this is a 10 and I highly recommend it.

It's hard to write a review of an old, classic movie. Films are crafted in the context of their times. This can be cultural context, political context, technological context, or the context of craft. So it's unfair to write a movie review of a film 50 years old.

Having said that, I think it's still fair to criticize "Becket" on one very important point that applies to all films, regardless of their era. That point is this:

-- It is important to tell the story using elements appropriate to the tone & timbre of the story. --

A corollary would be this:

-- Telling a story using elements not appropriate to the story will distract the viewer from the story. --

And thus we have "Becket".

"Becket" is a tale of political intrigue, set in 12th century England. It involves two very powerful and intense personalities: the Archbishop of Canterbury and the English king, Henry II. By extension, it also involves two very powerful and grandiose institutions: the Catholic Church and the English Crown. These are strong elements, indeed, and it would seem entirely appropriate to make this film as they did: as an epic, with extravagant set pieces, wide vistas, and extreme acting. But that's the wrong answer.

The story "Becket" tells is really the story of two friends who grow apart and eventually oppose each other on a philosophical & spiritual level. This is really an intimate character piece (albeit one with elaborate costumes), and not an epic movie! It should be driven by dialog, subtlety, tight camera angles, a soft score, and strong performance; and not by grandeur. Unfortunately, the filmmakers did not see this. Their eyes were clouded by other considerations.

This film was made in 1964. What were some of the biggest movies in the early 60s? Big, epic ones. "Spartacus". "Cleopatra". "The Magnificent Seven". "Dr. Zhivago". And, of course, "Lawrence of Arabia", one of the best movies ever created (in my not-so-humble opinion). Unfortunately, the brilliance of "Lawrence" is what actually doomed "Becket". "Lawrence" is a story that demands epicness. It is a vast, sweeping tale of two larger-than-life characters: T. E. Lawrence himself and the vast, desert expanses of the Middle East. It required grandiose sets, spectacular vistas, and a brilliant, over-the-top Peter O'Toole performance. "Becket", on the other hand, is a story that demands subtlety. It's a tragic tale of two friends torn apart by forces larger than they are. It required dialog and subtlety, not bombast and brass. But the filmmakers took the "Lawrence" route with "Becket", and as a result, the former is a masterpiece, and the latter is anachronistic and nearly unwatchable by today's audience.

"Becket" is a story that should be given another go. It's actually a fascinating story. I think it's ripe for a remake, based on the success of other period-piece dramas on TV and in film. Maybe a new filmmaker could create the proper blend of magnificence appropriate to the characters and institutions with the subtlety required by the story.

BECKET (4 outta 5 stars)

Classic historical drama with excellent performances from the two leads... Peter O'Toole as King Henry II and Richard Burton as his best friend turned nemesis, Thomas Becket. From the start Henry II is not the most benevolent of kings... he steals young girls from their families for his own carnal pleasures... and even tricks Becket into sending the woman he loves to the King's bed. King Henry gets the idea that it might end his problems with the church if he names his best friend Archbishop... but he underestimates Becket's faith (as does Becket himself). Eventually Becket has to choose between his duty to the King and his duty to God... an unenviable choice that bodes ill no matter which choice he makes. Obvious homoerotic undertones to the relationship between the two strong-willed individuals... hard to imagine that this sort of material was palatable to audiences in the early 60s. Great script, great actors, great sets and costumes... a must see!

It's a strange experience re-viewing a movie half a century (or almost) after the first viewing. When ' Becket ' appeared on the Romanian screens the year must have been 1964 (the year the film production ) or 1965. My emotional and selective memory kept the character of Becket and the image of Richard Burton about whose career I was already fully aware that time. I did not know Peter O'Toole well yet, or in any case I was not aware enough of his stature. For reasons that only censorship in Romania at that time knows that film about pious Saint Thomas Becket was brought to screens, but the one about the hero dedicated to the Arab national cause 'Lawrence of Arabia' was not. It's probably only after I saw ' Man of La Mancha ' that I understood what a huge actor O'Toole was. The main lines of the conflict between King Henry II and the Bishop of Canterbury were clear to me, and I remembered them when half a life later we visited Canterbury and I stepped onto the tiles once stained with the blood of St. Thomas.

Based on a play by Jean Anouilh 'Becket' was first a hit on Broadway (with Lawrence Olivier and Anthony Quinn in the lead roles) and then in the West End where Eric Porter and Christopher Plummer played directed by Peter Hall. Peter Grenville, the director of the American version assumed the task of directing the film produced at the legendary Shepperton Studios in England. 'Becket' is a historical drama that largely follows the tradition of the great Shakespearean adaptation, however, the text of Jean Anhouilh balances the historical conflict with the story of a passionate friendship between two great men who have shared the stage history of the period in which they lived.

Almost a hundred years after the invasion of England, the Norman ruling class continues to be in conflict with the invaded Saxons. For Anhouilh the political dimension of the text is clear, the play was written and first staged in Paris 15 years of the liberation of France and the end of the collaboration with the German occupiers. Does Thomas Becket 's vision represents an absolution carried by Anhouil of the act of collaboration with the occupiers, in a situation when they know that violent resistance can lead to nothing but a heroic death? This dilemma is present mainly in the first part of the play and the film gradually shits its focus to the religious and personal conflicts between the two main characters. Becket's character seems to be made ​​of the material of which martyrs are made, but historical righteousness is actually on King Henry's side. Centralization of state and the principles of equality in face of the law of all citizens are historical phenomena that will prevail in the coming decades and will form the basis of the first written constitution in European history. Blood spilled in Canterbury , reconciliation and penance undertaken by king will cement the English nation and will define the balance of powers between the Kingdom and the Church of England.

Like many historical blockbusters of the time 'Becket' touches today in places other than the ones that resonated with the audiences half a century ago. The accuracy of the historical reconstruction has been perfected in many other productions that followed, on the other hand none brought on the same screen two great actors in film history at their maximum intensity. Burton was at the peak of his career, this was one of his last major roles before entering the descending slope (in roles on screen and in life). I dare say though that besides the fact that Burton's eyes are more blue, Peter O'Toole surpasses him in almost all aspects and King Henry survives better than 50 years of life on the screen added to the 800 years of history. While Becket's character evolves from Saxon nationalism to predictable holiness, King Henry is torn between blind faith in friendship, disappointment in the face of what he perceives to be betrayal, misunderstanding of the reasons and motivation of the actions of his friend, Machiavellianism and Pharisaism . O'Toole created with passion and cruelty a character whose cynicism includes all the psychological motivations for the acts they commit. The final scene includes the premises of reconciliation between state and church, by the King act of apparent penance and hypocrite sanctification of the man whose death King Henry ordered, leading to the subordination of the Church of England to the Crown. The balance of power between the two characters turned upside down in history.

Peter O'Toole played king Henry II in both Peter Glenville's "Becket" and Anthony Harvey's "Lion in Winter" and while he was marvelous in both, getting Oscar nominations for each role, I guess there's a reason why the latter's performance is more celebrated than the former. Be patient, I'll get to it.

To begin, it has nothing to do with the film's looks, I won't insist too long on the costumes, the ominous ambiance of cathedrals enhanced by the Gregorian composition of Laurence Rosenthal and the realistic though variously accurate historical set-designs, they all contribute to great rendition of the medieval age in such an early time that Normans saw Saxons as minority groups.

And if the mid-60s look elevates the material above the colorful artifices of swashbucklers, it's still undermined by a little something that is too staged. Indeed, you get the feeling that each scene is an excuse for a great soliloquy from King Henry, an occasion for O'Toole to demonstrate his turbulent side after his so laconic Lawrence of Arabia. As Henry, O'Toole is larger than life, chewing the scenery with great tantrums and a psychological predisposition from swinging back and forth between anger and tenderness like a tennis ball. The film has the look of the century but the theatrical directing of its decade.

As Thomas Becket, the Saxon lackey for which Henry devotes the lion share of his admiration, Burton plays him as the counterpart to Henry's exuberance. He is a man who thinks a lot, who always has a parable under his sleeve, a contemplative pragmatic resigned to his fate as a traitor. When he's attacked by one of his brothers, he simply lets him go. He's not romantic enough to embrace death when it comes. He loves Henry, I guess, and when asked why he traded his Saxon honor for his position as a court facilitator, he dryly replied that honor only matters to the death, and his dishonor allowed him to live. Henry admires his sincerity and names him councelor much to the Church's reluctance. His idea is to force them to finance their campaigns agains the King of France Charles IX (John Gielgud) and Becket has now a foot in two worlds. The question is where is he going to stand?

The most dramatic episode in Becket's evolution is the death of a woman, whom Henry took after a sordid bargain involving a female peasant found in an abandoned hut. Becket realizes the price of his frivolity. The irony is that the very soiler of his soul will offer him his last chance for redemption. Out of pure political calculation, Henry names Becket Archbishop of Canterbury. He thinks he's got his good friend in his pocket but that time, Becket will find his true calling, pulling before Sir Thomas More, the faith in God before the King. The film opens with Henry II visiting Thomas' casket so we're aware of the friendship's doom. And it's on that edifice that depended the whole film. The problem is that there's so much build-up that the collapse feels rather anticlimactic, apart from a magnificent reunion to the beach, and a visit to the king of France that promises a lot without really paying-off.

As Henry, O'Toole seems like a man so obsessed with Becket that there's no ambiguity anymore, there must be something more than friendship. We're probably reading too much but O'Toole seems to play his Henry as if he was in love with Becket and having him as a friend, an advisor and a political ally was the closest to intimacy he could get him. "Becket" ironically turns into a spectacle with more psychoanalytical undertones, and Henry an infantile character who can't grew up, because he can't handle rejection. Meanwhile Becket is the man who grew up and found his destiny, his eagerness to die for his cause can only prove how indirectly miserable he is, and by mirror effect, how Henry was. The result of that is that Henry strikes as a villain and Becket as a noble martyr and while it looks good on the paper and each actor does play the role perfectly, it gives the edge to O'Toole who's obviously got the more entertaining role.

Once the two break their seal, something is lost in the film, not because they should have stayed together but because the film hasn't much to offer. It was adapted from Jean Anouilh's play and there's a line about dishonor that might have been inspired by memories of the French occupation. But the film tries to cover so many grounds that we never know on what basis to judge it, the anglo-saxon wars, the church vs the throne or the broken friendship. I chose to regard it as a great product of its time with two solid actors and a hysterical performance of O'Toole as a hurt child who accepts being whipped as a punishment like a kid lets himself getting spanked because he did something naughty. The catch of that is that O'Toole was way too good, it made Burton's scenes less interesting retrospectively and when he was alone, even his 'intensity' couldn't hook us to a plot that was less interesting to his driver.

How ironic that the character you despise the most is still the most fun to watch. But ultimately, that's why "Lion in Winter" is better known (and received) than Becket, O'Toole had Katharine Hepburn and his Eleanor of Aquitain wouldn't be treated the way Pamela Brown was, Henry II had found his match. Becket was good but his arc, while noble and inspiring, was so obvious it became transparent. Both actors would be nominated for the Oscar, Burton got the title role but still, Henry II was too present in the film that there wasn't room for another lead.

I was so impressed by the high marks this film received on IMDb that I decided to chance it. I don't normally care for films from the '60s, but the combination of O'Toole, Burton, Gielgud, and the IMDb recommendations gave me hope that this would be an exception along the lines of "The Lion in Winter" (in which O'Toole gives a different, brilliant, more historically accurate portrayal of Henry II).

The acting in this film cannot be faulted, except perhaps for the minor roles which quickly fade from memory. What kills this picture is its time period. It is the quintessential 1960s Historic Epic -- bombastic overkill!

Minute after mind-numbing minute of people entering, exiting, lining up, drawing back -- at least it looks a little like Busby Berkeley when put on fast-forward. All to the backdrop of that 1960s staple, blatting trumpets and bombastic tympanies.

The sets and costumes are meant to overwhelm us but, sadly, pale in comparison to contemporary Epics like "Lord of the Rings."

The pacing is horrendous. Watch "The Lion in Winter" to see how the same 1960s bombast combined with phenomenal talent could be put to brilliant use. There the pacing, twists, dialogue, and character development overcome the occasional too-long/too-over-the-top histrionics and create compelling, unforgettable cinema.

"Becket" takes one of the most complex, conflict-ridden, dramatic episodes in English history, adds in some of the finest actors of all time, and wastes it all on a sloppy (historically inaccurate) script, watered-down characters (Becket & Henry II were far more complex in real life than in this film), and unforgivably self-indulgent direction that seems to find a courier's entrance as dramatically compelling as the final unraveling of a friendship two men don't want to end.

Completely disappointing. Such a waste.