User reviews

The Caretaker is a truly great play and lends itself only to minimal tinkering for the screen. Thank goodness, that's what the makers of this film decided to do, so the film is barely an adaptation. One or two short scenes are moved out of Aston's claustrophobic attic room, but for the most part we're stuck in there, just like the play. I'm too young to have seen the original cast on stage, so it is good to see how Alan Bates and Donald Pleasence must have plied their craft on the stage. Robert Shaw does an excellent job of Aston, a part that is often under-rated as it is best performed under-stated. I have seen two fine productions of this play on the stage, back in the 70's I saw Max Wall play the lead and more recently the mighty Michael Gambon supported brilliantly by Rupert Graves as Mick and Douglas Hodge as Aston. If you can get to see a great production of this play, I recommend it for the stage rather than film. In the absence of a fine cast just down the road, this film is a super second best.

Very impressive adaptation of the Harold Pinter play for the screen. Only opened up a couple of times but both turn out to be short but crucial scenes that say all the more for being set outside. The main 'set', however, is the amazingly crushed and crowded room with all its junk, or what could be considered items that might be useful in the future. A cast of three play two crazed brothers and a rather simple but aggressive 'gentleman of the road'. Pleasence plays the tramp and it is a stunning performance, at once cringing and self effacing, yet also wildly defensive and nasty. I had always wondered where the actor had managed to draw his character in Cul de Sac from, this Pinter portrayal would seem to be the answer. Robert Shaw plays the quieter of the two brothers and Alan Bates the more clearly schizoid with wild swings between what might be caring or killing. The succinct and portentous dialogue has echoes of Beckett yet even the darkest and pessimistic of the Irishman's writings resonate with a sense of kindliness towards the desperate characters, not here. However enjoyable it is to watch these three struggle for supremacy in such a forsaken situation, it is without doubt a very jaundiced view of the human psyche on display.

A film that would have been very, very boring if it had other actors in the cast. For me, Robert Shaw was the main reason to see it. Then Donald Pleasence and Alan Bates. All three did an excellent job in a confined space, just a room, no action, just dialogue, 1 hour 45 minutes, just talk. Their charm, of all three actors, make this movie easy to watch.

Worth watching just for Robert Shaw's monologue about his mental health. Spellbinding. Obviously filmed during the harsh winter of 62/63 as the snow and ice stubbornly refuses to budge.

This hard to find movie is now availible on an import DVD (with that "opened up" car scene) and it's worth seeking out. It's almost as good as the excellent

"Homecoming" film, and while Bates and Shaw shine, it is Donald Pleasance

who steals the show. How this great actor ended up in grade Z films at the end of his career must be a sort of tragic drama in itself. It's wild to remember this "kitchen sink" classic came out of England the year the Beatles took the world by storm. Those were the days.....

This three-hander piece has no plot to speak of and, given author Harold Pinter's (typically) obscure intentions, attention must be paid constantly (not an easy task, having to contend with both the heavy British accents on display and the rather low volume of the audio itself); after having gone through the various supplements on the exemplary BFI DVD, the meaning of it all is still very much open to interpretation!

The performances, however, are extremely impressive and the fact that all three actors had already appeared in the various stage versions certainly helped: Donald Pleasance and Alan Bates have showy roles that are often broadly comic, but a brooding Robert Shaw is unusually subdued for the most part - though the character's speech about his traumatic spell in hospital, where he suffered at the hands of a sadistic doctor, is as riveting as the actor's celebrated (and similarly quietly-spoken) one about the transportation of the Atom Bomb in JAWS (1975). Though making only minute concessions to cinematic conventions, Donner's handling (abetted by the stark cinematography of Nicolas Roeg and some weird ambient sounds by Ron Grainer in place of a score) ensures that the whole doesn't come across as merely a piece of filmed theatre; it still feels at odds even with the contemporaneous "Kitchen Sink" films of the British New Wave, with which style THE CARETAKER has forever been identified!

Pinter's dialogue - alternately scathing and compassionate - is remarkably adult for its time, and the project only came through with the intervention of some celebrated admirers of the play: Richard Burton, Leslie Caron, Noel Coward, Peter Hall, Peter Sellers and Elizabeth Taylor, among others! I've watched the following Pinter-scripted films: THE SERVANT (1963), THE PUMPKIN EATER (1964), THE QUILLER MEMORANDUM (1966), ACCIDENT (1967), THE BIRTHDAY PARTY (1968), THE GO-BETWEEN (1970), THE LAST TYCOON (1976) and THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN (1981); however, only THE BIRTHDAY PARTY was adapted from his own work (also featuring Shaw and largely revolving around three eccentric characters) and it's similarly intractable - if still required - viewing.

What is the point of anything ? Weary, stale, flat, unprofitable.Three aspects of one persona. That is the point and message of this play and movie. If we could get down to Sidcup, get our papers, discover our identity, it would help. We could then finish the shed, and get all the rooms in the house decorated, and then rent them out. But it doesn't seem likely. We go round in circles in our dingy little car. Our current situation is just not our bag. End of story. Gripping masterpiece, not equalled by anything else from Pinter, nor by the actors. In fact, an acting masterclass, provided by the script. Once seen, never forgotten. No sex, no drugs, and any violence is merely virtual. Wonderful. But dated. Like Hamlet.

Like the other commenter I too am wondering why this isn't available on DVD. Luckily I video-taped a PBS broadcast years ago but Pinter deserves to be immortalized in a DVD collection with all the supplementary material available. (Perhaps now that he's won the Nobel) This movie was my introduction to Pinter and while I have to acknowledge the acting it was the script that hypnotized me when I happened upon it channel surfing one evening. So brilliantly absurd that you may join it as I first did from any point in the play and be instantly compelled by Pinter's bizarre reality. Bates, Shaw and Pleasance are perfectly cast but Donald Pleasance reveals a brilliance pitifully missing in his many supporting Hollywood roles. One wonders if the actors felt the magic their collaboration conveys and if so they must have been ecstatic.

Sorry I have to disagree with most folks here. This is a disagreeable movie from the get go. Donald Pleasance's character never shuts up and he's not likeable at all, if I were Robert Shaw's character I would have given him a fiver for a drink and sent him on his way, under no circumstances would I allow him in my house. Alan Bates' character is completely repugnant and completely wacko. All the talk talk talk might have worked well for a stage play but for a film version it was painful. If they were going to film an original stage play why not do a musical at least, it would have been wonderful if they had recorded the original casts of My Fair Lady, Fiddler On The Roof, The Sound Of Music, etc. and not this annoying dusty old thing with cantankerous characters you yourself wouldn't take a shine to if you met them in person. Pass.

If you like films that focus on characters and superb acting skill, here is one not to be missed. It's hard to imagine any other actors (Robert, Alan, and Donald) playing these parts. Each seems completely suited for the role. Finding the film can be difficult however. I have an old copy on tape but I suspect there may be longer versions out there as I recall once seeing a scene (Alan Bates offers to drive Donald Pleasance to Luten to pick up his papers. The car drives in a circle and immediately returns to the starting point) which is missing from my copy. I've watched this movie many times, but only when I'm home alone. It's important not to be interrupted.

Does this film have any substance? That's the question I kept asking myself all the way through, giving it chance after chance. The acting is good, the lighting is good, the story holds the interest. But what purpose does it serve? Is there some deep meaning that I missed? Is it just a very peculiar piece of entertainment? Pinter has a reputation, and I've enjoyed other plays of his before, particularly The Birthday Party, The Dumb Waiter, and One for the Road. The fist two of those are a bit abstract as well. He even won the Nobel prize. To be completely honest, I don't think this movie is about anything. It was more or less enjoyable, but pointless. It takes it's self seriously, and consequently had a sense of self-importance about it. But it's worth a watch to know what all the fuss is about.

This is an extraordinary film and I have been looking for a tape or DVD for some time. Bates is perfectly cast, Pleasance is ideal and utterly memorable, and Shaw is simply brilliant. It is one of the finest films I've ever seen of it's type. Does anyone know if it's maybe hung up in some sort of litigation or has a property rights thing going? It's a real shame that people who weren't around in the 60's can't see it. I think that in some ways this finds each of the actors and even Pinter at their very best. I recommend this to anyone exploring Schopenhauer, Sartre, Beckett, or Genet. It's in my top 100 films ever made. --tatkhj

Clive Donner's film version of Harold Pinter's play was made under such modest circumstances that financing was raised on the basis of a whip-round among friends and colleagues, the contributors duly acknowledged in the credits.

The austerity of the circumstances of the film's production actually enhanced the claustrophobia of the situation, while the snow that then shrouded the British Isles complemented the silence of Robert Shaw as the deceptively passive Aston.

Donald Pleasance and Alan Bates may have originated the parts and are given the most to say but it's Shaw whose stillness provides the film its core.

The great Harold Pinter was a pioneer in modern drama. Along with Ionesco, Samuel Beckett, and others of the theater of the absurd, he mastered the art of the pause. He looked into the sadness of people's interactions and their hopeless prospects in life. Here a man invites an old tramp into his home and what transpires is a masterful use of human language.

Apart from the scenery and huge cast, this has all the ingredients of a Cecil B De Mille epic. Three men, (two of which are brothers and a cunning almost invited guest) struggle for power and dominance in their dingy little house. In my opinion it says something about the predicament of human behaviour what ever their surroundings.Its dark, sometimes funny and you can almost smell the decay.

Almost needless to say, this is an adaptation of Harold Pinter's play "the Caretaker." The play is a great one -- combining cryptically poetic language with impeccably-tuned character tension. This film hews very close to the play and its contributions do nothing but do justice to its very special material.

Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance create their characters beautifully and completely, such that the sparks (sometimes overt, sometimes right beneath the surface) fly rivetingly when they interact. Everything about how the film is shot compliments the atmosphere of oppressive desperation, such that this tight film about - essentially - three in and out of a cluttering room involved in invested discussion about shoes, interior decorating, and getting down to Sidcup becomes hypnotically compelling.

I have also been searching for this film on DVD or video but I can't find it either. I've seen it 3 or 4 times on PBS in the last twenty years or so and its a tough one to locate. I think it's Robert Shaw's best performance. So emotional without being emotional! The silence in this film is like a constant scream of pain. Low budget but I think that helps the film by enhancing the performances. If anyone finds a copy let me know. I guess I'll wait for PBS to show it again sometime and I have a blank tape ready!

I could not belief how good this movie is having seen many years ago on the big screen, and now on a BFI DVD. The sets suit the play so well, and the cast is very believable in every thing they do. The transfer from stage to screen is first class, and the pauses, delivery of the said lines is just right for the play. My only sadness is that WE "the British Film Industry" are just not producing things of this type nowadays rather than just a sad pap of work which demands no merit. Long live Pinter, and long live the Caretaker, see and died!!! The black and white photography is perfect and does not inter fear with the telling of the story. It must have been a very cold, cold, set on which to work.

Someone said in a comment that this is "barely an adaptation" and I have to second that. Though the cast list has names of characters other than the main three, that's because there's a minute or two where the film is outside so there were a few extras who got credit.

If you like the play (seeing it or reading it, whichever) you will love this interpretation of it. I can't believe this was made in 1963-the acting is passable even by today's standards and amazing for back then.

There are a few lines that are switched around, very very few that are removed altogether, and certain parts of scenes are set outside of the attic-otherwise it stays true to the original version.

I suppose if you know nothing of the play then this could still suit you, however, it has a strange premise, and is generally a bizarre movie altogether. The focus is mostly on character development and unusual dialogue, with monologues every three minutes, one of which is easily one of the best absurdist monologues of all time (Aston's bit at the end of act 2).

Personally I would buy it just for Aston's monologue, but the movie has many other virtues, and for the standards of its day I'd feel uncomfortable giving it anything other than a 10/10

Three damaged people, two brothers (Alan Bates, Robert Shaw) and a visiting tramp (Donald Pleasance) have several uninteresting interactions. The dialogue tends to suggest two have been mental patients and the third should be. But I won't spoil it by revealing who should be behind door #3.

Disclaimer: my late brother was a Pinter fan and loved this movie and could quote chunks of it. Frankly, I never saw much point in it.

The cast is remarkable, but so is the list of people who shelled out good money to make sure this movie got made (including but not limited to Richard Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter Hall, Leslie Caron and Peter Sellers). Frankly, I'd rather have seen a movie with them that has some sort of plot. Though it would have been interesting to see what Sellers could do with Jenkins. Maybe make him the least bit interesting?

Pinter is not a writer readily accessible to common audiences but who commands they come to him. Unless the whole thing is a leg-pull?

This is a plotless movie about three characters who talk a lot but don't seem to have much to say. I loved my brother but I wonder if people who want to be perceived as sophisticated glom onto pointless material for feelings of superiority over the rest of us shlubs.