Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

JohnHowardReid Producer: Teddy Baird. Made at Pinewood Studios by Javelin Films, London. Executive producer: Earl St John. Presented by J. Arthur Rank. Released in the U.K. through General Film Distributors on 16 April 1951; in Australia through B.E.F. on 22 May 1952; in the U.S.A. by Universal in October 1951. Copyright in the U.S.A. on 27 April 1951 by Javelin Films, Ltd. New York opening at the Sutton: 29 October 1951. 8,070 feet. 90 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A schoolmaster is forced to retire in penury, due to ill- health.NOTES: 5th best "foreign film" of 1951 — National Board of Review.Whilst Bosley Crowther of The New York Times did not include The Browning Version is his "Top Ten", he did give the movie a rave review and named it in his supplementary list.COMMENT: The powerful and engrossing central role comes most vividly and most effectively to life here, thanks to superlative acting by Sir Michael Redgrave. He is given solid support by Jean Kent, while Wilfrid Hyde-White has one of his most memorable roles as the hypocritical old headmaster. Ronald Howard's part, however, proves surprisingly small, whilst Nigel Patrick approaches his role on far too superficial a level.Asquith's direction has class. Production credits and production values are first-rate. However, the movie is obviously a filmed stage play. Aside from the cricket match sequence, Rattigan has done little to open up the action. The weight of dialogue tends to be a little too suffocating at times, but the pace and grip of the film could be heightened by some slight, judicious cutting.

Hotwok2013 "The Browning Version" is a 1951 movie based on a play by Terrence Rattigan & one of my all-time favourites. Michael Redgrave plays schoolmaster Arthur Crocker-Harris who teaches Greek & Latin at a public school for boys. As a young man he was an award- winning classical scholar but as a teacher he has been a failure who, as he has got older, has become an embittered, stolid & pedantic man. This is partly due to his having an unfaithful, bitchy, hard-nosed wife, Millie, played by Jean Kent. She is having an affair with the chemistry master, Frank Hunter, played by Nigel Patrick. His somewhat sour, unsmiling demeanour makes Mr. Crocker-Harris very unpopular with his pupils who refer to him as "The Croc". He has a heart condition which is forcing his imminent early retirement & it is fairly obvious that the headmaster, (Dr. Frobisher played by Wilfred Hyde-White), won't be sorry to see him go. His wife's only concern is that he gets his full pension entitlement!. His replacement schoolmaster Mr. Gilbert has been invited to look in on his last few lessons to take notes. He informs Crocker-Harris that he is also known by his pupils as "The Himmler of the lower fifth". He was unaware of this & is obviously hurt by the knowledge. One of his pupils,(Taplow played by Brian Smith) does feel sympathy for him & gives him a retirement present. It is a translation by the poet Robert Browning, (hence the title of the play), of the Greek poet Aeschylus "Agamemnon". Taplow has highlighted a quote from the text which translates as, "God from afar looks down graciously on the gentle schoolmaster". Crocker- Harris is moved to tears by this unexpected show of appreciation by one his pupils. On the last day of term he has to make a retirement speech at assembly & the headmaster hopes it will be brief & not too much of an embarrassment. In a touching speech Crocker-Harris opens his heart out about his failure as a teacher. The chemistry master is also moved by it & realises that the affair with his hard-hearted wife was a mistake & resolves to end it. "The Browning Version" is the kind of thought-provoking movie that doesn't get made any more &, probably, won't in the future. I find that rather depressing!!!.

dougdoepke Okay, you've got to hand it to the British. This is about the last word in civilized drawingroom drama. It's so restrained and riveting, the loudest noise in my TV room was me breathing. Because, no matter how intense the movie emotions, voices are never, never raised. Sure, Redgrave is great in the central role, but it's also a performance so dry it comes perilously close to caricature. What saves it is the actor's gift for nuance and the power of the screenplay itself. Between the cast and the script, even I, whose usual fare runs from Hopalong Cassidy to Gene Autry, could feel the emotional power.I really like Nigel Patrick as the guilty opportunist. His scene with the mimicking Taplow is a little gem of professional composure. He may dislike C-H (Redgrave), as he conceals here, but cuckolding him is one thing while injuring his soul is quite another. His later contrition is quite moving. However, I can't see any man snuggling up with the bitchy Jean Kent. She's not just mean, she's irritating. A scene showing her softer-- not just needful—side would have helped. Anyway, I think I'm glad I didn't go to British public school. I had enough trouble with English grammar without the deadly travails of Latin. Then again, maybe there are the kind of rewards that C-H tries to get across in his unappealing way. But, can anyone imagine a 1950's Hollywood studio making this film. One thing for sure, the Jean Kent part would go probably have gone to a studio sex-pot. But, why am I knocking Hollywood— a Gene Autry re-run is about to come on.

day-myron I was 15 and studying the play for GCE exams in the late '60s whilst at boarding school; in a place not totally disassociated in my mind's eye from the setting of the play. It evoked sympathy and attachment within me because of the parallels within it and my own situation. We were told not to watch the film if it came on television as it would or might change our perception of the play in its written form. I happened to be in Maidstone one Saturday afternoon and noticed that it was the second film on at a local flea-pit. as I was always looking for shortcuts in ways to learn (lazy) I ignored the remonstration not to see the film and went in. Having read the play six or seven times and even had an opportunity to act the play within a class setting; I established myself as a critical observer. I was not ready for the absolute impact that it had on me, here were the characters of my imagination and reality acting out this story to which I was so attached, in a manner and style to which I knew to be square and true with my own perception. I will not re-hash the plot as others have done a superb job of that, but will add that this film has a pace and acting precision seen only but a few times, and then to no greater effect than is seen here. Redgrave's performance is flawless, the supporting cast are absolutely perfect and I can think of none who could have improved it by their presence. I left the cinema in shock; returning to the school numb from the experience and the knowledge that I just had to share the fact I had seen it; I came clean and told the head English master (born in 1898), he gated me for a month, and then asked if I enjoyed it, I gushed about all of it and how it had increased my understanding of the tragedy and ultimate renaissance of Crocker Harris. Strangely the love of this play and the admission of my transgression created a strong bond between myself and this crotchety old teacher; even ironically to his lending me a copy of the "Browning Version". This is a great movie, a true work of cinematic genius. The movie is available on DVD so you have no excuse.