A Man for All Seasons

The 1966 film starring Scofield was a throwback to film-making of ten or fifteen years earlier.

Heston was brilliant as More and Redgrave was outstanding as Mistress More. The teleplay had much more of the sense of the original stage play than the hacked-up Hollywood flick the OP speaks of.

Guess it's a matter of taste, but Heston has NEVER been wooden, EVER. One of the greatest actors of our age. In my opinion only Richard Burton could probably have been a better casting choice than Heston--and he was dead by this time.

Heston was also remarkably gracious and effusive about Miss Redgrave's talent, even though they would never see eye-to-eye politically. He is a gracious man, a talented actor, and a wonderful husband and father. Would there were many more like him out of the dreck of Hollywood.

This made-for-TV version of "A Man for All Seasons" both wins and loses when compared to the more famous movie version of the show, which stars Paul Scofield as Thomas More. It wins, because it stays faithful to Mr. Bolt's original theatrical script, and so keeps much of the play's impact that was lost to "production values" in the big-budget movie release. It loses, in that the main characters, especially Mr. Heston's Thomas More, are weaker than those of the movie version. For example, Mr. Heston completely misses nuances of language that Mr. Scofield caught and used to great advantage; but the supporting actors in this version (Vanessa Redgrave as More's wife comes especially to mind) are far stronger than in the movie version. On the whole, though, I highly recommend that you see this version, mainly to watch Mr. Bolt's craftsmanship that was totally lost in the movie version.

I think most of the comments on IMDb (or Amazon) for this film are rather unfair. Unfair to the actor Charlton Heston and unfair to the film itself. Please let me explain:

It seems to me a sort of "England, England!" thing is standing in the way of a fair and objective comment on this film (as if I could give one...). Even though Charlton Heston has sunk very much in my esteem since "Bowling for Columbine" I feel I need to set the record straight (for my own peace of mind): This film is great, and believe you me, I am a Scofield fan (I simply adored him in the 1966 version of this film as well as in the 1994 Martin Chuzzlewit television film/mini-series).

But to do away with this 1988 version of Heston as a failed attempt to improve on Fred Zinneman is not only an unfair comparison but also a foolish one. To begin with: Heston's version is far closer and more true to Robert Bolt's play than is the Fred Zinneman version. In addition, Heston's performance, although more obviously dramatical than that of Scofield, is more passionate. The scene in which he thrashes Roper and stands for his daughter Meg is simply the greatest ("They put about too nimbly!!!"), as is his performance with the Duke of Norfolk when they discuss water spaniels. Next to Heston, the performance of his fellow actors should not be discarded.

Roy Kinnear, bless his soul, is brilliant as the common man (a Robert Bolt invention that stayed alive in this version but was left out of the 1966 Zinneman production)

In addition, the role of the king is played simply brilliantly by Martin Chamberlain. The scene in More's garden is a scene that will never be mastered.

Vanessa Redgrave gives one of her finest performances as More's wife. The scene in the Tower where they part for the last time is always tearing me apart! (Oh God, all these plain simple men!)

And of course the roles of the "two ugly ladies" Benjamin Withrow and Jonathan Hackett are delicious and not to be found anywhere so great in the 1966 Zinneman version.

So I beg you: Please be fair, enjoy the Zinneman version, but also take the time to (learn to) appreciate Heston's version. The man has his faults, but just appreciate that what he has done right!

While this television remake of "A Man For All Seasons' is closer to the script of the play,it falls far below the masterpiece original film version. The main problem is the miscasting of Charlton Heston as Thomas More. His performace ranges from Bombast to boredom. Never a strong actor all his flaws show here,especially when compared to Paul Scofield's masterfully poignant performance in the original film.Roy Kinear as Common Man holds best of show honors. He is a delightfully sly narrator and covers the role of Matthew with ease. Vanessa Redgrave is as strong as Wendy Hiller as More's wife Alice but Adrianne Thomas' Lady Margaret falls far short of Susanna York's memorable portayal.Even the great Sir John Gielgud is miscast here. As Cardinal Wolsey his voice is indeed imposing but his slight frame in no way conveys the "full fed prince of the church" that Wolsey was. Over all it is a good effort at preserving the play, but for emotional power,well developed relationships and emotional passion...see the original film.

I watched this film with some trepidation as the 1966 version has long been a favourite of mine. I could not imagine an American actor portraying my hero, Thomas More. However, I enjoyed it very much. Charlton Heston's performance was a revelation. I thought he did a really good job of showing More's famous wit but at times, his anguish too. Vanessa Redgrave's Dame Alice seemed at times almost a caricature ('A printed boook!') Yes I know Alice was from Yorkshire but Redgrave's 'common touch' was a bit overdone! Ben Whitrow as Cromwell was wonderful. Genial yet sinister, loved it! As for Roy Kinnear, he was just perfect as the common man, I always thought it a shame that this part was left out of the 1966 film. Having seen the play a few times, this is truer to the stage version but I wouldn't compare the two films, they are both very good.