User reviews

One of the most intriguing comments I've heard about this film is that it pales in comparison to the stage production. On the one hand, this is true in that the film loses much of the inventive staging that was inherent in the play (e.g., convention of having the "horses" played by actors in black with horsehead headdresses, the tight focus of the action within a small perimeter). The problem, however, isn't so much Sidney Lumet's concept of the film as it is the limitations of the medium itself -- devices which are striking on stage simply don't work on film. Indeed, those directors who have tried to make such conventions work usually end up shortchanging the material.

And it is here where Lumet's genius comes in. If there is one thing that Lumet has a feel for, it is the gritty, down-to-earth feel of everyday life. While this usually means New York life, he does a marvelous job in this film of capturing the drab sterility of Dysart's world, as well as that of the Strang home. When these are compared to the vivid, almost ethereal shots of Alan in the stables or with the horses on the field (also, compare the striking image of horse and rider on the beach with the remainder of the beachgoers), we can fully understand Dysart's frustration about "looking at pages of centaurs trampling the soil of Argos" while Alan "is trying to become one in a Hampshire field". Alan has found a way to completely escape the drabness of his world, while Dysart has become sterile trying to find ways not remind himself of it. Similarly, the tight perimeter of the stage play has been replaced by tight focused shots which, more often than not, achieve the same result through a claustrophobic effect.

Likewise, the absence of theatrical staging does nothing to dampen the power of Shaffer's text, which remains as potent as ever. Indeed, what's often overlooked about this play is that, while the visual images of the staging are striking, they are, in most instances, completely detached from the central thrust of the text, both as a mystery and as a commentary on the consequences of society's demand for "normality" at any cost.

In this regard, the performances are outstanding. Richard Burton gives one of his last great performances as Dysart, showing us the literally crumbling facade of the doctor's spirit, while at the same time giving us a complete character (contrast his cynicism throughout with the moments of tenderness, such as those shown to Alan's mother and to Alan himself after the final session). Likewise, Peter Firth presents us with a cipher, wrapped up in television jingles, who is revealed to us piece by piece through moments of vulnerability until we see in full force what has made his character commit these horrible crimes. The rest of the cast -- notably Joan Plowright, Colin Blakely and Jenny Agutter -- do wonders with the limited dialogue they have to work with.

Put simply, Equus is an astonishing film to watch, provided that you're ready to watch it as a film, rather than as a filmed stage play. For those who hold to the notion that only the stage devices can make this play work, I'd advise them not to watch any film adapted from a play, as they'll almost certainly be disappointed every time.

This is Richard Burton's most powerful performance. It his his story that gives the movie's its narration. Although this is the story of Peter Firth's character and his struggle with his love and connection with horses, it is Burton's power that makes this movie deep. Anyone in the field of psychology and / or therapy needs to watch this movie. It is a story of ones search of meaning and redemption. Somewhat hard to understand at times, this is more than a story about a young man and his confusion with life and his beliefs. Jenny Agutter is once again pure eye candy. To say she is Posh is beyond fact. Although she has a limited role, her time spent on screen is great. Each time she appears, she lights up the screen with her beauty. Still, it is the power of Burton and Firth that makes this drama somewhat of a masterpiece.

Have never seen the so talked about play but for what it´s worth, I think this film is very well done. The intesity of the main character, Alan, and the way it´s portrayed by Peter Firth, is quite disturbing and sometimes it was kind of hard to keep waching the film (the only film I can remember getting me that feeling is A Clockwork Orange, when I was a teen). Not anyone dares to script something like this, futhermore, not anyone dares to act it. The harsh opinion of some people on a work like this is expected, since most people are afraid to have their sterile brain shaken once in a while. After all, this is a very daring film and it demands a reaction from its audience since it deals mainly, I would say, with passion.

Both Peter Firth and Richard Burton give a lesson on acting that every 20 million hollywood superstar should pay atention too. So, if you want some entertaiment that have a warm feeling and makes feel you good, go see Pirates of the Caribean. Equus has the power to disturb and transfixate its audience, this is truly an art film.

I loved this movie so much, I found a copy of the play online, bought it, and read it with glee. It's a beautiful, complicated film -- definitely a must see. What I especially liked was the way the movie handled religion and insanity. Is curing someone of their mental illness taking away their religion? Is psychiatry a "cult of the normal"?

Richard Burton delivers hypnotic sermons, staring straight into the camera, as we slowly zoom in on his face. He confesses that he's jealous of his patient. The boy is in pain, but passion is pain. The boy is worshiping a pagan god -- something Burton wishes he could do as well. Instead, he settles for flipping through books, looking at photographs of old artifacts. The therapist wonders if he's taking the boy's god away by curing him.

If you like Carl Jung, you'll love this film! Equus, archetypal God, we love you!

Some complain that the psychology in this film is "campy" at best. Others say the film can't possibly compare to the stage play. Well, fine. Maybe it shouldn't be used as a model for treating patients, and maybe plays are different than movies. But the film as a piece of art, on its own, is powerful, moving, and fascinating.

Richard Burton and Joan Plowright are great in this filmed version of Shaffer's play - Burton's voice alone usually is enough for any film. But Equus is sabotaged by the nonsense dialog coming out sporadically from both Firth (playing the boy accused of blinding six horses) and Burton himself (who even at one point talks to the camera, announcing '...however, I'm not making any sense').

While the much discussed nudity can be a bit uncomfortable, it is not gratuitous at least. And the overall acting from all is excellent, particularly the actor playing the boy's father, and Jenny Agutter, playing Firth's friend who aspires to be more. But all this 'equus born of nexus, son of sweatus...god of the jingle jangle' or whatever, and the other pycho-babble occasionally spouted by Burton's character, truly keeps this film from ever being called an all-time classic. All in all a film that hasn't age well.

Equus (1977)

A young man turns a troubled childhood into a bizarre affliction confusing love and worship and horses and best friends in a strange, surreal, beautiful, confounding mashup.

Is this movie about psychology? Philosophy? Fantasy?

Are we watching the younger main character, the troubled youth played by Peter Firth? Or is this a roundabout way to see the older one, a seemingly untroubled psychiatrist played by Richard Burton?

I don't think there are answers exactly here, and that's probably a good thing. It's not really a movie that sets out to explain things, but simply to reveal a fascinating situation from the inside, from the inside of their heads, even, as much as possible.

But okay. Being in love, somehow, with horses, or with the idea of horses, or both, and acting on that love, is weird, and so kind of fun in a sensationalist way. Unfortunately, the movie makes this whole condition and its meaning grandiose. When it explores the young man's passions, his entrapment at home, or his really sympathetic state of mind (never mind how he twists it cruelly), it's strong. But when it becomes this giant problem for mankind, larger than Shakespeare, a hugely disturbing and hyped up situation fraught with world rattling significance? Well, it's just indulgent and almost laughable. Yes, the way these extremes are filmed and reenacted and imagined is both beautiful, and at one point, shockingly violent. But it isn't enough.

Fortunately, Burton is one of those deeply committed, vibrant and convincing actors who can raise up a movie like this. "Equus" is a good movie, sometimes a fantastic movie, inventive and intimate and exploratory. Firth (largely a television actor) is quite a sympathetic character and he plays his role with abandonment, to his credit.

If you love horses, you might think this movie is up your alley, but beware on that score, because of the violence. If you love psychology, there is a curious pathology explored here, and that might hold water. If you love Burton, you're in for a treat. He's terrific.

Peter Firth should have won the Best Supporting Oscar, although realistically he should have been nominated as the lead because he played the main character despite having second billing. Richard Burton was less convincing as the psychiatrist.

Sidney Lumet's Equus is based on a play by Peter Shaffer, and it certainly feels like it. Normally a film feeling like a play adaptation is a negative thing, but I think it worked a lot here with the style of the people involved. For one, Shaffer adapted the play for the screen himself, which helped in keeping the strength of what made it work together without trying to adjust it too much in order to service it as a film. Secondly, the actors all make it work from Shaffer's adaptation, with Richard Burton being very large and commanding and Peter Firth played his character on stage before doing the film. Mostly though, coming from a play works tremendously when it comes to the style of Sidney Lumet.

I used to always say that you can never tell when you're watching a Lumet film, which was a compliment, because he creates something more about the characters and the story as opposed to trying to impress the audience with his technical flare. Well that has never been more true than it is here, presenting a film that focuses so intimately on it's two key characters and never tries to distract the audience from that with impressive visuals or cinematic wonders. Lumet tells the story straight and that's exactly the way it should be. The story itself is quite intriguing, as psychiatrist Martin Dysart (Burton) engages in sessions with young Alan Strang (Firth) to try and uncover the rationale for why Strang blinded six horses with a metal spike.

The film does focus on Dysart on a larger scale, with his relationships and personal demons, but it's at it's strongest when dealing with the sessions between him and Strang. These sessions are intimate, intriguing and wildly intense, the two of them pushing for power and understanding, both needing things from the other while trying to hide their own secrets. Both actors shine tremendously, with Burton commanding every moment and Firth diving full strength into his role, completely becoming his character. Strang could have been a character that would have been almost comical, but the way that Firth, Lumet and Shaffer tackle it and the story at large in such an honest and serious tone makes it work so well. There's never a doubt that this boy is genuinely feeling these emotions and with some of the themes they work with, it is very impressive that they are able to make it work in such a serious light all of the way through.

Some of the supporting actors get moments to impress as well, with Joan Plowright and Eileen Atkins doing strong work as the women who are impacted by the flaws of these men, along with Colin Blakely who is heartbreaking in his final scene. Still, the film belongs to Burton and Firth and they dominate every second. There are several scenes where Burton speaks directly to the audience, which I didn't particularly care for, but they're useful in that they dig into some strong themes about the life of a psychiatrist and the kind of lasting impact that patients can have on them. Overall it's a very strongly acted piece with impressive work from everyone involved both in front of and behind the camera. It's also pretty innovative for it's use of full-frontal male nudity, which would be controversial even by today's standards, let alone thirty five years ago.

Playwright Peter Shaffer received Oscar and BAFTA nominations for adapting his stage play about a brow-beaten, sexually repressed young British man who develops an odd and unhealthy equine obsession (not with riding or fornicating with horses, but seeing himself as one). This duality of horse and human relations has caused the boy to become shut-off from normal feelings and, after a failed sexual tryst with a woman, pent-up frustrations cause the kid to commit an unspeakable act. What many critics called a powerful story plays out like fake Greek tragedy, what with busy psychiatrist Richard Burton (who is closed-off for reasons of his own!) taking the boy's case and often addressing the camera directly while going into his obtuse arias (soliloquies which are knee-deep in psychobabble). Director Sidney Lumet gives us a psychological drama full of lofty literary prestige, but what does any of it mean? The classy look of the picture (the unobtrusive design and lack of bright color) lends the ungainly story an air of solemn importance--and there are bracing sequences set inside the horse stable where Peter Firth is employed--but Burton keeps hammering away at this case study without enlightening us. The performances are commendable, particularly from Firth (reprising his stage success, the actor's twisted-angel quality is nearly touching though milked for all its worth by Lumet). The dialogue could use more variation in tempo; these wordy passages are so ravaged and heated, they shut the audience out emotionally. Yes, these pages are prestigious terrain for the actors, but there's not much for the audience to respond to until Lumet tries out some cinematic tricks (not avoiding the nudity--nor the violence--integral to the story). "Equus" is a cold movie masquerading as a quizzical puzzle, a picture about insanity being palmed off as a human tragedy. However, the themes here are not universal, and the result is merely high-minded in place of mysterious or intriguing. Three Oscar nominations in all with no wins; five BAFTA nominations total with one win: for Jenny Agutter as Best Supporting Actress. ** from ****

I don't know what's the deal with the stage-play, I never saw it, but a film is a film and a play is a play. It's quite normal to me that the two of them should not be compared. Anyway. On the film. I have seen some of Lummet's great overall work both newer and older (Network, Serpico, Night Falls over Manhattan, Critical care, The hill a.o.) and I must say I liked them all. Lummet is one of the greatest and underrated directors of all time. Why? He extracts awesome acting from his actors and he's got a choice for stories.

Equus, is my best Lummet film I have seen so far - I always had a tendency to take interest on and see subtext in extreme, weird, negative situations on film. You have much to take from negative stuff, if they're handled properly. Here, there are so much stated for the viewer to think. Questions on the point of psychotherapy, on the nature of perversion (and its possible causes), importance of religion combined with lack of knowledge, isolation, lust for life and so much more I don't want to refer to here.

Beware! The film features strong material - both visuals and texts - this is no easy film for Hollywood audience. But its not uneasy in a way that it's slow, or 'arty' or anything. Far from that, it's original, deeply involving, with gripping atmosphere... Its subject matter though, might force the more coward or less open-minded viewers to trash it or mock it, for fear of what it could unleash or because they simply couldn't understand it. But intelligent film lovers, take a little tolerance and SEE this. It is worth the search. This is film is a masterpiece of film-making!

On the one hand, this contains too much philosophy and ornate monologues than is considered acceptable for a decent movie. In other words, it seems it wants to play at being a novel. It might have worked better in the play, who knows - I've never seen it.

The character of the psychiatrist is compelling. He's struggling with many existential questions in both his personal and professional life, greatly exacerbated by his meeting with highly disturbed Alan Strang. Through him we come to think about religion, love, passion, and purpose in life.

Alan Strand is a bit more inscrutable. In many scenes he's just staring vacantly with his mouth half open or behaving erratically. What's more, I don't think the psychologist really gets at the crux of his problems by the end, but it seems that many striking and conflicting incidents of his life just caved in on him and he never figured out what he truly ought to believe.

It's a slow boil. Only near the end of the film do we get very powerful dramatic scenes that make the whole movie worthwhile.

It's too unfocused and experimental to be one of cinema's greats and also too long for what it is, but it does have its redeeming qualities.

Honourable Mentions: Batman: The Animated Series (1992). Introduces the character of Harley Quinn. She's a psychiatrist who meets the Joker and becomes obsessed with him, soon choosing to leave her life of professionalism and drudgery to become a madwoman at his side, where she suffers in an abusive relationship with him. Really one of the great and most compelling relationships in media and surprising it came from a children's TV show.

I want people watch this film with an open mind but they have to be mature and understanding. Alan Strang is disturbed young man who has a disturbed fascination with horses. He places them in the godlike category. His relationship only gets worse when he works at a stable barn. There, he has almost a bestial relationship with the animals there. When he finally confronts a relationship with a fellow stable girl played nicely by Jenny Agutter. When he feels watched and betrays his god, he commits the most disturbing crime. Warning, this film is not for children or some adults with weak stomachs. There is full nudity of both Firth and Agutter in the movie. There also wonderful performances by Dame Eileen Atkins and Dame Joan Plowright in this film.

What maybe came across as powerful on stage comes across as rather silly in this screen adaptation of the Peter Schaffer drama. Richard Burton plays a psychiatrist who is assigned the task of probing into the mind of a young man who mutilated (by blinding) a stable of horses. As he delves further and further into the mind of this troubled youth, we begin to realize that perhaps the lunatics are running the asylum.

Credit is due to Richard Burton for restraining himself nicely in the role of the doctor. Dangling a role like this in front of a notorious hammy overactor like Burton is like throwing a bleeding whale into a tank full of hungry sharks. I was just waiting for the acting frenzy to begin. But Burton retains control of himself and does manage to deliver a fairly haunting performance.

The most applause must go to Peter Firth in the role of the crazy young man, which he originated in the stage version. He's got a tough role, and not just because he must spend about half of his time buck naked, and some of THAT time riding a horse (ouch!). For those of you who complain that there's not enough male frontal nudity in films, "Equus" is the movie for you (though it may not be the kind of nudity you're hoping for). Nevertheless, Firth gives a powerful performance that almost makes sense of the obtuse and psycho-babblish screenplay.

Sidney Lumet is a fine director; he's one of those film directors whose movies don't always necessarily work, but who you can be sure will at least make his movies interesting. "Equus" is no exception. Oh it's interesting all right, but it's also turgid and overheated. And be warned---if you don't like seeing harm come to animals in movies, the scene where Peter Firth's character blinds the horses leaves nothing to the imagination.

Grade: B-

"All right! The normal is the good smile in a child's eyes. There's also the dead stare in a million adults. It both sustains and kills, like a god. It is the ordinary made beautiful, it is also the average made lethal. Normal is the indispensable murderous god of health and I am his priest."

Richard Burton's last truly great performance came in Sidney Lumet's screen adaption of Paul Shaffer's play; reprising the celebrated role that he himself had already wowed critics with on stage.

When a disturbed young man, Alan Strang (Peter Firth), blinds six horses with a metal spike he is referred by the magistrates to the care of psychiatrist Dr. Martin Dysart (Burton). Determined to unravel the mind of his patient and discover the trigger for this most brutal act, Dysart slowly forges a bond with the youth; unearthing, fragment by fragment, a childhood shaped of sexual repression, religious confusion, maternal overload and, of course, a burning equine obsession. However, as Dysart plunges deeper and deeper into Strangs psyche, he not only begins to question his own professional merit but begins to envy the World of passion and fantasy that the youth has retreated into.

Highly regarded for his character driven films, Equus is up there amongst Sidney Lumets very best. The script is extremely intelligent whilst there are a handful of small but eye-catching supporting roles that help Dysart slot the pieces of his puzzle together; most notably from Colin Blakely and Joan Plowright as Strangs parents and Jenny Agutter as the young girl who introduces Alan to the stables where his madness finally spirals into violence. There are also some evocative flashback sequences throughout that are impressively disturbing and yet, at the same time, succeed in capturing the wonder and beauty of Strangs obsession.

However, the film really stands as a two hander between the brooding Burton and the revelatory Peter Firth; a relationship that is light years more nuanced and evolved than the somewhat soft-centred dynamic between Robin Williams and Matt Damon in the similarly themed Good Will Hunting. Firth turns in a wonderfully sensitive performance as the shy, deeply damaged youth who is overwhelmed by his adolescence, repressed yearnings and befuddled sexuality whilst Burton is absolutely terrific as Dysart; his disillusionment with his own sterile existence and unhappy marriage diffusing slowly through his (sexually muted) conversations with his friend (Eileen Atkins) and spilling out in a string of acidic monologues that both narrate events and serve as vents to the emotional conflicts of a man whose career is devoted to unravelling them.

It's a most eloquent and rewarding performance in an eloquent and rewarding film. Equus is a film that asks no easy questions and offers no easy moral judgements. It is a mature, articulate and bruising character study that demands to be seen.

i admit that this is a fine adaptation of a phenomenal play. The only qualm i have with it, however, is that a lot of the more subtle metaphors behind the text are lost when the symbolic horses of the play (men with horses heads that you can still see their faces through) are replaced by real horses. Somehow a lot of the religious and mythical undertones are lost by this-we see the horses as everyone bar Alan sees them; rather than seeing a representation of how they are within his mind in the flashback sequences. So much of the power is lost through the 'hollywoodization' of the play, and its attempts strive towards naturalism. In my opinion, if you enjoyed the film-you will ~LOVE the play-when directed and performed well, it has an intimacy and unnerving quality that is not quite captured by the cameras

Equus is based on a play by Peter Shaffer and focuses on a psychological investigation into a heinous crime committed by a young boy at a stable in Hampshire. The film handles themes that wont go down well with many audiences; there are clear bestiality scenes (made more shocking by the human participant's young age) and some very shocking violence directed towards animals; yet in spite of this, the film still managed to get nominated for a few Oscars, and that is testament to the great work put into it by the two central actors who do a brilliant job of bringing Peter Shaffer's story to life. The film begins with a description of the boy's crimes; in a fit of rage he blinded a group of horses inside a stable. Psychiatrist Martin Dysart hears the story and decides to take on the case. Through talking to the boy as well as his family and other people that knew him, the psychiatrist begins to build up a picture both of the boy's character and development, as well as the events leading up to the atrocious crimes that he went on to commit.

The interaction between the two central characters is the main focus of the film and this is also its central element. The film really needs two great actors to carry this off and it gets them in the form of Richard Burton and Peter Firth. Both of them fit into their characters very well and convince throughout; Firth especially as he has to act out some rather uncomfortable scenes. At 138 minutes, Equus seems like it might turn out to be a little bit too long, but it actually makes very good use of it's time, which flies by and the film doesn't become boring at all despite it's slow pace. I have not read the literature that this film is based on, but unfortunately I got the impression that some things were left out of this one as it feels like the film has some defining point to make; but one is never really made. The film also has holes regarding the reasoning behind the boy's strange development; the religious and sexual themes come through but certain things are left unexplained. It all boils down to a shocking conclusion that will shock and offend many viewers. However, despite some problems; Equus is still an excellent film and one well worth spending time on.

This movie is never boring, that must be said. Although it runs 138 minutes, it feels more like 98. BUT....its "message" is dubious at best (there is a difference between non-conformity and sheer paranoia; the boy's actions are never condemned, and almost justified by the movie) and the "devices" used by Lumet to transfer the play to the screen (like flashbacks with an older Firth playing the six-year-old Firth, or Burton's madman-like monologues) create an extra feeling of artificiality. Also, it would help if we could study the gradual disintegration of the boy's mind, but there is no "gradual" - he is deranged from the start. (**)

I have heard complaints about Equus not measuring up to the stage play, because the play/ story demands the manner in which the play is presented, the arrangement of the props, the production, etc. I've never seen the play, however, and consider the film a piece on its own, as I think it should be viewed anyway. And on its own, it is superb. The acting is first rate, particularly Burton and Firth. All the actors though contribute their best or close to their best work. Sidney Lumet works his magic as always and perfectly weaves the present and the flashbacks and Burton's narration into a powerful, psychological detective story. The questions posed by it strike at the foundations of western civilization and individual existence. Pretty heavy stuff and Burton, Lumet, et al. pull it off with wonderful precision. Anyone who questions what the heck they are ultimately doing in or with their lives should find this film worth watching.

Busy psychiatrist Martin Dysart (Richard Burton) reluctantly takes on the case of young stable boy Alan Strang (Peter Firth). He's on trial for the brutal blinding of six horses. He communicates by singing and is obsessed with horses.

I don't know much about the play other than that Daniel Radcliffe had a stint on Broadway with it and that it has some nudity. I certainly don't know enough to compare it to the film. I can assume the difference simply by having real horses on the screen. It can come off as a bit comical or the reality could be jarring. It seems to me that the movie needs to have more time with Alan Strang interacting with other people in the institute. With Burton as the lead, it's very enticing to let him all the time in the world to pontificate. There is really nothing to complain about in these two performances. Quite frankly, I don't see any way to top the visual of the naked horse riding which seems more fitting for the denouement. It's an interesting subject matter but the movie is rather long.

Stable boy Alan Strang (Peter Firth) has blinded a number of horses and no one can figure out why. Psychiatrist Martin Dysart (Richard Burton) tries to find out why.

I've never seen the stage play so I can't compare it to that but, on its own, this is a pretty dull movie. For starters the main character Alan was an incredibly unlikable jerk. I couldn't have cared less about what happened to him. I thought it was laughably obvious--I had figured out what was going on long before they actually tell us. The pacing in this one is leaden--every scene seems to be dragged out as much as possible. Also the symbolism and "meaning" of this film is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. I actually started to get insulted that everything was being spelled out for us--and in an incredibly slow manner too. It seems the filmmakers thought the audience was composed of a bunch of idiots. It also has a sequence of truly horrifying violence at the end that really didn't need to have been shown. Also there's plenty of nudity in this mostly by Peter Firth.

The only thing saving this from being a total disaster was the acting. Joan Plowright is good as Strang's mother and Firth was also good in a very difficult role. But this is Burton's film all the way. He's just superb in his role and manages to single-handedly save this from totally unwatchable. Still, his great acting can't save this film from being a total bore. A 4--and that's just for Burton. This was a critical bomb when it came out--it's easy to see why.