The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) User Reviews

Noble Six Hundred

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 3 March 2008]

Let's make it very clear from the outset, this version of The Charge of The Light Brigade is in no way a remake of the Errol Flynn film that Warner Brothers did in 1936. This is a factual account about how several hundred of the best of that generation in the United Kingdom met their deaths in the Crimea.

Great Britain from the end of the Napoleonic Wars until the beginning of World War I was only involved in two formally declared conflicts. Although many British folks will cite various colonial enterprises, the only two major wars the British were involved in were the Crimean War and the Boer War. And it was only the Crimean War which involved them with and against other European powers, in this case Russia.

It all was about propping up the Ottoman Empire and keeping the Russians from getting a hold of Istanbul and an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea for their fleet. The problem was all the powers were woefully unprepared for such a war, British included.

The Charge of the Light Brigade as no other film explores the incredible ineptitude of the British Army at that time. Today it beggars the imagination that field grade officers simply purchased their commissions. It's true though, it's the reason why Lord Raglan, Lord Cardigan, and Lord Lucan a group of Colonel Blimps if there ever were, got in charge of things.

It's how it was done, the high army positions were reserved for their aristocracy. The Duke of Wellington had died in 1852, three years before the Crimean War and the charge. He also purchased his commission back in the day. It was just dumb luck that he happened to be a military genius. Lord Raglan who is played by John Gielgud was an able staff officer for Wellington, but as a strategist was hopelessly out of his depth.

Howewver the main two blunderers were a pair of quarreling in-laws, Lord Cardigan and Lord Lucan played by Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews. They would rather have sent their armies against each other than the Russians.

A lot of the best of that generation died charging the heights of Balaclava that day to get to Sevastapol because of these two mutts. In any kind of system based on merit these two would never have gotten to be sergeants let alone generals.

The Crimean War which basically ended as a stalemate because the Russians were as inept as the British led eventually to reform of the army. That reform came in the first ministry of William Gladstone (1868-1874)and his very able Secretary for War Lord Edward Cardwell who finally got Parliament to abolish purchase commissions and promotions were based on merit after that. Good thing too, because it staggers the imagination to think of the British Army going into World Wars I and II and the Boer War under the old system.

The charge at Balaclava gained its enduring legend through the popular poem of Alfred Lord Tennyson who was smart enough to romanticize the Noble Six Hundred instead of their inept leadership The movie that Errol Flynn and Olivia DeHavilland starred in back in 1936 was a romantic story inspired by that poem.

What Tony Richardson and the cast he directed in 1968 bring you the real story of the charge. It's a graphically accurate account and military historians should love this film.

History Or Cinema ?

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 8 November 2004]

I first saw THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE in the late 1970s when it was broadcast on the Sunday night " Film Of The Week " slot . I liked it as a young child , then saw it several years later and wasn't quite taken with it mainly down to the fact that the first half is very slow and the second half is grim and depressing

After just seeing it again about ten minutes ago I still hold my second opinion . I will congratulate ( With reservations ) the production team for making a very British type of historical epic , this is far more accurate than say ZULU which was ironically directed and co-written by a Hollywood film maker for a Hollywood studio and in that film Cy Endfield showed that perhaps you have to rewrite history ever so slightly to make a classic epic movie based upon actual events . Unfortunately by being as accurate as possible as a history lesson THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE resembles the critically panned ZULU DAWN rather than ZULU which is in many film critics top ten movies including mine

We learn that many British officers in the Victorian British army bought themselves their rank causing serious friction with officers who were totally professional soldiers who achieved their rank through talent . We learn how calvarymen train , we learn what goes on in the officers mess , we learn that the Crimean war was the first conflict to get major press coverage but all this does tend to hold the story up . It may run for just over two hours but the movie feels much longer .

A cast member ( I can't remember which one ) was interviewed several years ago and she mentioned the production team's eye for detail so much that many of the cast honestly thought they'd been transported back to the mid 19th century . She also mentioned packed crowds watching the film in cinemas on opening night but the crowds had totally disappeared within a couple of days . You can't help but feel the attention to historical detail had everything to do with the poor box office . I guess the audience were expecting something in the vein of ZULU

As I said I will congratulate the production team for their accuracy in fine detail but bewarned it is top heavy with social comment and if you have little interest in history you might want to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster instead

Further comments

[roger-395 · 7/10 · 8 February 2007]

This movie was made in 1968 but I never got the impression from watching it that it was anti war. The movie was made entirely with British actors and a British director and the Brits never had an antiwar movement (because their government gave up its militarism after Suez in 1955). The movie depicts the British army as it existed in 1850. This was a period when one gained advancement in the army by money or title. It was a largely decadent and unprofessional army and the movie I think characterizes it rather well. In fact, Nolan wrote a book complaining about the need to professionalize the army but it took the near disastrous Crimean War to affect any serious changes (it too the British Navy another generation or more to make similar changes). At the time, there was a debate about the effectiveness of cavalry with some believing that no defensive position could withstand the full force of a disciplined cavalry charge--a left over from the Napoleonic Wars--while others thought a charge into artillery was near suicidal. Nolan's roll in the battle remains controversial and whether he delivered inaccurate verbal orders to Acrdigan to charge to prove the effectiveness of cavalry even against artillery or warn the brigade away has not been established because Nolan was killed.

As for the Crimean War, it also depicts the drum beat to war accurately and the implication that most of the dying was done by commoners and much of the death was caused by disease. It was an ugly war. What isn't shown is that the condition of the Russian army was far worse. The poor Russian peasant soldiers were sent to fight with smoothbore Napeolonic Era muskets with an effective range of perhaps 100 meters while the British and the French was new rifled muskets with a range of over 300 meters. In some battles very small forces of British held off huge numbers of Russians killing hundreds.

The Battle of Balaclave is generally depicted accurately. It was a calamity of errors. Capt Nolan actually lost his head during the charge and witnesses indicate that his horse continued running with corpse in the saddle for some distance before the body collapsed. The charge was initiated by the heavy Brigade led by Lord Lucan. There was a rivalry between Lucan and Lord Cardigan (brothers in law) and both brigades initially made the charge but the Heavies did not enter the Valley of Death. The Light Brigade continued into the Valley and were decimated but not wiped out. In fact they were supported by the French cavalry the Chasseurs d'Afrique and the Russian positions were in fact overrun. I think the charge as depicted in this movie is one of the most exciting I have ever seen captured in the cinema.

The so called Valley of Death has changed considerably since the 1850s. By 1994, it was entirely planted in vineyards and the only way to gain some sense of the battle is to find the famous Tractir Bridge over the Tchernaya River and follow the lines of hills. As for the town of Balaclava...I have a photograph of the town in 1854 with the British fleet anchored in the harbor. I took a photograph of this village in 1994 from just about the same angle as the 1854 image and then compared the two. The place is completely unchanged with even the stone buildings remaining. Of course, the village today is the base of the Ukranian Black Sea fleet and there is a not so secret submarine base cared into the limestone cliffs inside the harbor.

We may think that the Crimean War is ancient history but the people of Crimea do not. They have sort of a living museum called the Panaorma. This is a museum devoted to the siege of Sevastopol. There is a circular path and the visitor is engulfed by the on going battles on both sides of the path. One may wander the hills above Sevastopol and many of the rifle pits and trenches from the war remain (they were reused by the Russians during the unsuccessful defense of the city in 1942). It is a wonderful museum and it exemplifies the Russian attitude that history is alive and they don't forget their past.

This is a historically accurate movie. It moves a little slow at times and it has some amusing cartoonish graphics (almost reminiscent of Monty Python graphics). All the major players obviously have a great deal of fun with their rolls.

Anecdotes: Tony Richardson's two children, Nastasha and Joely are in the film as well is his sister in law Vanessa Redgrave. I think I have these relationships correct. Anyway, they are all related.

Superb period details

[vaughan-birbeck · 3 November 2004]

We have to wait nearly two hours for the eponymous event which climaxes this film. Prior to this we see a series of apparently unconnected episodes which give the viewer an insight into the workings of Victorian society, including anti-intellectuallism and idleness among the 'upper' classes, and brutality and theft among the 'scum' recruited in the slums.

While almost plot less this section of the film does follow a core of characters whose lives are connected by army service. The main character is Captain Louis Nolan, an idealistic professional in an army of amateurs. "England is looking well" he says in the first scene of the film. The irony is that the country that looks so good is a cruel and mismanaged place. Unlike his fellow officers, who have bought their posts, he has worked his way up the ranks of the Indian Army by merit. He despises them and they feel he isn't a 'gentleman'.

Nolan has very definite views on how war should be fought. Faced with the reality of battle and the inadequacies of the commanders (the senile Raglan and the childish Lucan and Cardigan) his impatience and temper have tragic consequences as he impetuously points the Light Brigade ("There, my Lord, is your enemy, there are your guns!") towards the bloody fiasco of which he is the first victim. The man who seems to know best makes the biggest blunder of all. Eye-witnesses said the hideous scream Nolan gave when he was hit stayed with them all their lives and the film re-creates it in a truly chilling way.

Although the film does reflect 1960's attitudes to war and politics (and I actually prefer these to the attitudes of the 21st Century) its setting is so perfectly realized that it hasn't dated as a '60s film'. In fact it seems better with the passage of time. If you can free yourself from the idea of a narrative history and give yourself up to a series of impressions which add new layers of understanding 'Charge of the Light Brigade' makes a fine historical film.

Ready When You Are, Raglan.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 29 April 2012]

A bloody war, the reasons for which seem almost to have been made up after the decision to wage it. There were lies, rumors, and bickering at the top. The Russians might come south and take Turkey, which would threaten the British passage to India somehow. No one seems to have been very clear about the causes. Perhaps it had to do more with national honor during the Victorian period. (This is 1859.) Maybe it had something to do with promotion in the officer corps, with combat experience playing a part. The populace was stirred up by the media and generally seems to have been enthusiastic about the prospect of great battles and great victories. Such a calamity could never happen today.

Every movie about war reflects the period in which it was made, and it's interesting to compare this film, made in 1968, with the 1936 version starring Errol Flynn and directed by Michael Curtiz. The earlier film is much more exciting and far less ambiguous. We are good and they are evil. And the evil ones aren't the Russians (who are hardly mentioned) but some fictional tribe of Islamic terrorists. In the 1930s, the Russians had not yet become our enemies and were about to become our Allies.

In 1968, the movie was a comment on the widespread anti-war sentiment that was generated by a war in Vietnam whose means and objectives no one seemed able to clarify. Was it really all about "body counts"? Were we really trying to kill more "communists" than they were able to kill our own troops? The controversy continues.

The apparently sensible hero of this tale is Nolan, played by David Hemmings, recently arrived from India, where he has known battle, and held in contempt by many of his fellow officers because the Indian Army is a caste subordinate to the British Army.

At the top, among the generals and Lords who are running this business, there is rivalry, bitterness, an adherence to ritual, and sloth in making decisions. The three cretins are Lords Lucan, Raglan, and Cardigan. (Two of them are sweaters, aren't they?) The Light Brigade, headed by Cardigan, Trevor Howard, is either given the wrong order or misinterprets the order as received. In any case, he leads the charge up the wrong valley. The causes of this disastrous error are never made explicit. And in fact there is so much confusion that I, at least, was often unaware of who was where and what they were doing.

I don't know how closely the film follows the historical record. The story includes a correspondent but it might well have given a small role to George McLellan, an American observer, who later led Lincoln's Army of the Potomac to one defeat after another. Nor do we meet Florence Nightingale on her first trip to a battlefield.

Somebody like Nightingale was needed too. Medical practices were appalling. Men died left and right of 19th-century infectious diseases like cholera. The germ theory of disease was not even a theory yet, so surgeons wouldn't wash their bloody hands between amputations.

The impression we get is that this is pretty realistic. In most such films, for instance, the horses are taken for granted. Here, without any sentiment whatever, we realize the importance of their care and training.

There is little in the way of preaching. Nolan has a couple of pithy apothegms but no speeches about the futility of war. If a war is to be fought, it should be fought by professionals to the death. Lord Raglan, John Gielgud, describes the still unstained battlefield as "pretty" for a visiting lady who happens to be the main squeeze of Lord Cardigan, Trevor Howard. There is a ludicrous scene in which, before having sex, they undo each others' corsets.

Humor isn't entirely absent, as far as that goes. Cardigan and Lucan muttering curses at each other under their breath. And Raglan complaining that the statue of the Duke of Wellington that has been temporarily placed outside his office window is blocking the light at his desk. People speak to him of urgent matters but he stands at the window, preoccupied with the presence of that damned heroic statue of the Duke. Howard is a stereotypical blustering, red-faced British officer with mutton-chop whiskers. All the officers appear to shout at the top of their lungs, like DIs at Parris Island. A few ridiculous animated sequences, a la Monty Python, illustrate collective experiences and actually contribute to our understanding of what's up, rather than being a distraction.

Violence in its political forms of warfare and terrorism seem so hard-wired into human nature that I fear the solution lies not so much in some vague willful desire for peace but in biology itself. The people who will finally wean us of the desire to kill each other will be not preachers but neurosurgeons.

A spectacular 'Charge' in the 'Wrong Trousers': have 'Flashman' to hand...

[DrMMGilchrist · 7/10 · 16 June 2002]

****Some spoilers, but only if you don't know the history**** Tony Richardson's 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' made a strong impression on me on TV in my adolescence, attached as I was to my 1854 volume of 'The Illustrated London News', and with an incipient h/c complex regarding dashing young men in gold-lace. I still have a soft spot for the film, despite its historical flaws and dated style.

'The Charge of the Light Brigade' filters the Crimean War through the sensibilities of the Vietnam era. While there is much that deserves satirising in the failings of Lords Raglan, Lucan, Cardigan, & co., the film takes a scattergun approach. Before the action moves to the Crimea, events are freely altered and distorted. The famous 'Black Bottle' incident of 1840, involving Captain John Reynolds, is dragged forward to c. 1853-4 to illuminate Cardigan's absurdity, and Louis Nolan is made the protagonist. In fact, Nolan never served in Cardigan's regiment, and had little, if any, contact with him before the Crimean War. In terms of establishing the relationships between the main characters, and their influence on the plot, this is a significant alteration. The narrative is also fragmented - a series of vignettes, linked by animated Punch cartoons, as if it is trying to be 'Monty Python's Crimean War'. The flashy, black-comedy approach shows its limitations in real-life stories of life-and-death: while taking pot-shots at the top brass is effective, genuine heroism gets lost in gimmickry, and the humour can seem heartless. The makers also decided to dress all the light cavalry in red overalls, thereby losing the point of the uniqueness of the 11th Hussars, as outfitted by Cardigan...

The one part of the film that really takes passionate wing is the charge itself. Here the fictionalisations are minimal. We see Nolan taking the fatal order from Raglan and Airey, down to Lucan; the altercation between them, the famous misunderstanding, "There is the enemy, there are your guns!"; Cardigan's fatalistic "Here goes the last of the Brudenells!"; Nolan's desperate attempt to overtake Cardigan; his death from chest-wounds (the bloody horror of which is toned down - pre-'Bonnie & Clyde', main characters were generally spared on-screen mutilation); the courage, the savagery, the failure to send in support... A stunning re-creation of Elizabeth Thompson Butler's famous painting of the return of the Brigade's broken remnants... The recriminations and bickering beginning while the dead are still warm. This is all so brilliantly and heart-breakingly realised that it is a pity the earlier parts of the film were not so powerful, losing their way in trying to be too funny and self-consciously trendy.

As to the cast: David Hemmings, then at the height of his popularity, works hard to play Captain Louis Edward Nolan, the nearest thing this deliberately anti-heroic film has to a hero. Unfortunately, he lacks the physical presence and maturity for the rôle. Louis was nearly 37, tall, lean, harsh-featured (more like the young Basil Rathbone); half-Irish, half-English, born in Canada, raised in Scotland and Italy; a gifted professional soldier and author on cavalry with some 20 years service in the Austrian and British armies behind him. One can understand such a man not suffering fools: a mature expert frustrated by the amateurism of his superiors. By contrast, Hemmings - about 10 years too young, slight, pretty, and boyish - comes across more as a rebellious 1960s student. Doubtless that is what 1968 audiences wanted to see, but it's not Lou Nolan. (I recommend Moyse-Bartlett's biography, 'Louis Edward Nolan & His Influence on the British Cavalry' to anyone interested in the real man.) Trevor Howard's Cardigan and Harry Andrews' Lucan, the brothers-in-law from Hell, are better cast in terms of appearance, and are closer to their historical counterparts in characterisation. It is difficult to exaggerate Cardigan - 'Jim the Bear' was a genuinely bizarre character, a martinet, playboy, and eccentric - and Howard scores on most of the salient features. Lucan is a less flamboyant figure, but was actually the more culpable and malign. Raglan (John Gielgud) is overdone: indecisive as he could be, he was less the senile ninny here depicted than simply a man out of his depth after too many years behind a desk.

The portrayal of Fanny Duberly (Jill Bennett) is frankly libellous. E. E. Tisdall's book 'Mrs. Duberly's Campaigns' (1963), based on her letters and diaries, was available when the film was made, but the scriptwriters apparently ignored it. If they wanted to demonstrate Cardigan's womanising, they should have invented a fictional doxy, not co-opted Fanny. Had she been depicted as she really was, with her protective attitude to her husband, her courage and vitality, she would have made an engagingly spirited female lead: but the characterisation we are given - an empty-headed Cardigan-groupie - is gratuitously offensive. The other main female character, Clarissa (the real Mrs Morris was named Amelia) seems to have been invented solely to give the director's ex-wife (Vanessa Redgrave) a chance to flit around vapidly in a crinoline. Her affair with Louis is a two-dimensional fictitious sub-plot, which seems as if it has been inserted under the mistaken assumption that women won't watch a war film unless there's some 'romance' thrown in.

So, the film is pretty much a curate's egg. One could do worse than to read George Macdonald Fraser's 'Flashman at the Charge' for a more consistently witty (and well-researched) version of the same story. (The film's depiction of Fanny Duberly is much more like Elspeth Flashman!) But do watch the climactic battle!

Spectacular, but not history!

[chaucer-1 · 6/10 · 3 March 2005]

Anyone who is looking for an historically accurate depiction of the charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava, and the events that preceded it, had best leave this one on the video store shelf. Visually, the movie is well done and the cavalry action scenes are nearly as good as those portrayed in Sergei Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" - despite the fact that Bondarchuk had most of the Russian Army as extras. Unfortunately, director Tony Richardson couldn't make up his mind whether he was making a movie or a social commentary and his indecision pervades the story line from beginning to end. I notice that some other commentators here have praised the film for its accuracy. In reality it was anything but - most of the sub-plots were fabricated and some of the actual battle scenes are either gross distortions of what actually happened or improbable speculations. Captain William Morris (17th. Lancers), for example, was not foppish dilettante soldier portrayed - rather he was a tough, seasoned professional who had attended the Royal Military College, served in three previous campaigns and had taken part in the charge against the Sikh guns at Aliwal, India. Nor did he ride back wounded to the British lines after the charge as the movie would have it - in fact he was so badly wounded that he was left on the battlefield and was rescued much later by two of his comrades, both of whom received the Victoria Cross. And Captain Louis Nolan certainly didn't have an affair with Morris' wife (Vanessa Redgrave) as the plot implies - Nolan had never met Morris before they were both sent to the Crimea.

It was much in vogue to make iconoclastic war movies in the late '60s - "Oh! What a Lovely War", was another - probably because of Vietnam. It's a great pity that Richardson choose 'The Charge of the Light Brigade' as his protest vehicle since it leaves an enduring stain on the memory of 700 very gallant men. Yes, there were 700, not 600 - Tennyson got it wrong.

A Lost Opportunity

[rjm-geo · 6/10 · 31 March 2013]

So much of the hard part of making a movie about the Crimean War and those who fought there they got right, it's a shame the film-makers couldn't nail the last 30%.

The reenactment of Victorian society is impeccable. In dress, manner, and speech. The battle scenes, too, are remarkably faithful to the original locations and deployments, given the obvious limitations in budget and pre-CGI effects.

The actors playing they major characters, Raglan (Gielgud), Lucan (Andrews), and Cardigan (Howard) all do an excellent job.

And I actually likes the Punch-style animated cut scenes. There was, after all, no way they could show a fleet of several hundred war ships sailing into the Black Sea. Best not try.

So, the problems:

The charge, a comparatively minor screw-up book-ended by major Allied victories at the battles of the Alma and at Inkerman, was the result of a combination of small oversights, fog of war, and bad luck. So while there is a story to tell here there are no clear cut heroes except for the soldiers themselves, and certainly no villains.

So, to make a movie, you can choose either to change history and make larger than life, cartoon characters based on the exaggerated media reports of the day, and the 1950's book which was something of a anti- Cardigan hit piece, ... or you can play it straight, say "this is what it was like" and try to relate the experience, the esprit-de-corps, and yes, the interpersonal tensions, as raw as possible from the top of the command chain to the bottom.

This movie tries to have it both ways, it's cartoony but only for the intention of scoring cheap anti-war satire (all generals are imbeciles!), rather than to actually make the movie more enjoyable or engaging. When the war gets close and personal, it reverts back to just showing events... realistically, but with little or no emotional investment. The mechanics of the charge itself are done well, though.

And then the movie just ends, way too suddenly.

Now maybe, just maybe, Captain Nolan was supposed to be the "hero", the romantic sub-plot (distracting and totally irrelevant to the movie) seems to suggest it, but instead he just comes across as an impatient, vain, inexperienced know-it-all, a thin and unflattering caricature.

So, worth watching, but in better hands it could have been so much more.

These three stooges thoroughly deserve the censure of history.

[GulyJimson · 10/10 · 30 March 2004]

First, it should be noted that Tony Richardson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade (1968) is not a remake of the Errol Flynn classic adventure film of 1936; rather it is based on the Cecil Woodham-Smith work of military history, "The Reason Why". Both book and film are a debunking of the Tennyson poem. And hard as it is to believe, Richardson's film actually tones down the absurdities of the three principle figures responsible for the debacle at Balaclava. And these three stooges thoroughly deserve the censure of history, for never were the lives of six hundred brave men thrown away more senselessly than with the charge of the Light Brigade.

Richardson depicts the insanity of the Crimean War and Victorian society's glorification of militarism with a death's head sense of humor which makes the horrors of the conflict all the more potent. And he is unsparing in his condemnation of the culture that could glorify so unmitigated a disaster as Balaclava. The film was made at the height of America's involvement in the Vietnam War and it is an implicit critique of that conflict and war in general in that all countries regardless of time and place indulge in the pastime of National Lying. The greater the calamity, the greater the need to lie or glorify, for always the dead must count for something. In that sense the film is universal as well as timeless.

Using animation in the style of the Victorian newspaper caricaturists, during the opening credits, the film quickly details the events that led up to the war. This is also one of the few films to hold the media, in this case the English newspapers of the time, accountable for their actions. Instead of calling for deliberations and a halt to the madness that must inevitably lead to war, the press is shown whipping the British nation into war frenzy. These animated sequences which appear throughout the film to forward the exposition are both wonderfully inventive and wickedly delicious.

Throughout the film which is satiric and misanthropic in tone, the lower classes are shown to be stupid, ugly, and easily led, while the upper classes are shown to be stupid, beautiful, and utterly incapable of leading. Indeed the only decent individuals portrayed are either destroyed or trampled under foot by events and/or the arrogant stupidity of their superiors. Yet Richardson is never judgmental; rather he takes a Kubrickian detached point of view, allowing the viewers to observe the era and its foibles/morals and judge for themselves. And England of the mid-nineteenth century is beautifully recreated here. Hairstyles and uniforms and sets are rendered in exquisite detail. It takes its rightful place along side "Barry Lyndon" and "The Duelists" as among the most successful period recreations.

The film also uses a lot of period colloquialisms such as, "My cherry-bums!" and "All this swish-n-tits has made me randified!" and "You tell that stew-stick of a brother-in-law, that Brudenell to fetch off!" Wonderful, though some first time viewers may have difficulty understanding exactly what has just been expressed. And what a cast! Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and especially John Gielgud give career topping performances. Gielgud as Lord Raglan, the slightly befuddled commander-in-chief, steals every scene he is in. Aging, tired in mind and body, missing one arm, continuously mistaking the French, ("Our allies, My Lord...") for the enemy, never quite grasping the situation whether in his office or on the field of battle, ("England is pretty, babies are pretty, some table linen is very pretty!") Its a delightful comic turn. And who wouldn't feel sorry for anyone unfortunate enough to be caught between Trevor Howard as the choleric Lord Cardigan, ("The melancholy truth was that his golden head had nothing in it.") and Harry Andrews as the equally bilious Lord Lucan? From the moment we see his saturnine countenance striding up the marble steps of the War Office we know this is a humorless, flint-hearted martinet. Both Lords had a long running personal feud which they quickly placed on an official level as well with unfortunate consequences for the Light Brigade.

David Hemmings and Vanessa Redgrave are the young romantic leads. Hemmings is Captain Lewis Nolan, a forward thinking career officer with very definite ideas how war should be conducted. He has returned to England after service in India to join Cardigan's regiment, and quickly runs afoul of the Lord in the affair of the "Black Bottle". In reality it involved another officer, who Cardigan placed under arrest for serving porter, (it was actually Moselle) when he had given strict orders that only champagne be served at the mess. Nolan the professional is unstinting in his criticisms or the three amateur Lords conduct of the war, and yet he too will play an unwitting part in the final destruction of the Brigade. A man of honor, whose honor however does not prelude having an affair with his best friends wife. Redgrave as the wife is as always, luminescent. The supporting cast sparkles as well. Mark Dignam as General Airey, Raglan's Chief of Staff, ("Speak up Nolan, he's a bit hard of hearing, and that statue doesn't help!") Howard Marion-Crawford as Lt. General Sir George Brown, Peter Bowles as Captain Henry Duberly, Norman Rossington as Sergeant Major Corbett, ("Right foot, straw foot!") and especially Jill Bennett as a lascivious Fanny Duberly all are very effective. This was also one of the last appearances of the great English classical actor, Sir Donald Wolfit, who would die later that year.

Finally enough cannot be said of Charles Wood's wonderful screenplay. With its exquisite use of the period vernacular it does a superb job of combining characters while paring history down to the essential to reconstruct the chain of events that led up to the destruction of the Light Brigade.

first half too long

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 5 July 2015]

Britain is still basking in glow of Waterloo over 30 years before. Lord Cardigan (Trevor Howard) is a hard commander of traditions. He dislikes Captain Nolan (David Hemmings) who actually has combat experience in India which makes him inferior to those who got their rank through their class status. Waterloo veteran Lord Raglan (John Gielgud) commands the British forces but he proves to be a poor one. This chronicles the Brits in peace as they start the Crimean War and fight the Battle of Balaclava on October 25, 1854.

For a movie belittling the British military for being tradition-bound, this is an overly traditional historical drama. I don't know how important is the black bottle affair but nobody outside of Britain knows it and nobody cares. It takes an hour to start the war and that's 30 minutes too long. On the other hand, I really like the animation. It explains complex ideas in a short and simple fashion. There are lots of extras and the battles are impressively staged. The commanders are portrayed not merely incompetent but rather idiotic. It's not just the fog of war, arrogance and miscommunication. These guys are really stupid and worst of all lazy.

A Major (or perhaps General) disappointment

[son_of_cheese_messiah · 5/10 · 15 December 2017]

This film could and really should have a masterpiece. There is a strong sense of period enhanced by what appears to be authentic 19th century barrack room slang and music from the period. It could be argued that the film is rather slow, but to my mind a lingering on the enormous wealth of detail, adds rather than detracts from the film's appeal. There are also many strong performances, in particular, Trevor Howard is imposing as the stubborn commanding officer.

Yet I find this film unsatisfying and somewhat boring to watch. The fault, I feel, is that the film's message is hammered home over and over again. A case in point: Howard instructs an inferior officer to spy on David Hemmings. The officer is reluctant and when pressed says he would have to inform Hemmings that he was instructed to spy. He then relates a touching tale of how he has worked his way up and been sober for many years. Howard is completely contemptuous and tells him his career is now in ruins. This scene is highly memorable and moving and had it been left at that, it would have been been effective. We understand the injustice and brutality of ruling elite.

However, we immediately see this officer becoming drunk followed by him being horse whipped, something that belabours the message. In another scene an officer is seen trying to subdue a horse through aggression. Hemmings shows up and subdues the horse "through kindness" as he says. Howard immediately flares up when he sees this. And in another, an anti-war protest is violently broken up. Yes we get the message: War is bad, and the military machine is ugly and inhuman. But it need not be repeated over and over again.

Sometimes Mush History is more acceptable than reality

[theowinthrop · 10/10 · 17 July 2006]

In 1936 Errol Flynn appeared in a film called THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE, directed (at Warner Brothers) by Michael Curtiz. It was a box office smash, guaranteeing the greatness of Warners adventure star Flynn in a series of swashbuckling films that would last until 1941, and would remain imprinted on his career until he began to age too much from drink and debauchery. But the history presented about the most infamous blunder in British military annals during the Crimean War was mushed up. Elements of the Sepoy Revolt were tacked on, to build up an understandable motive for the Russian - English confrontation in the Crimea.

Yet for all it's mush, most people in 1936, or even today, enjoy THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE with Flynn. It holds a kind of stately dignity to most people because Flynn represents a type of bizarre honor at all costs type that we admire. The film is, of course, named for Tennyson's poem about the Charge. Yet the Tennyson poem is not totally quoted, and only pops up on screen during the last seven minutes, inter-cut in the background of shots of the charging British cavalrymen. For a poetry lover the effect is not what one could wish.*

(*Lord Tennyson was criticized about twenty years after writing this poem by a member of the larger unit, "the Heavy Brigade" that was also at the battles of the Alva and Balaclava in October 1854, but followed the correct orders, lost few members, and successfully carried out it's assignment. Tennyson took it to heart, and wrote - believe it or not - a poem called THE CHARGE OF THE HEAVY BRIGADE. If you get his complete poems you can find it. It is a competent poem (one can hardly expect an incompetent poem by Tennyson), but it is totally without any merit in comparison to the earlier work. It is not quotable. I have put a copy of this poem down separately on the thread.)

In the meantime, Cecil Woodham - Smith wrote THE REASON WHY, a book (whose title is lifted from Tennyson's line, "Their's not to reason why. Their's but to do or die.") that documented the generally bad leadership of the Light Brigade and the British Army in the 1840s and 1850s, leading to the debacle at Sebastopol. The villains were James Brudenell, Seventh Earl of Cardigan, his hated cousin George Bingham, Earl of Lucan (great grandfather of the missing Earl/murderer from the 1970s), Lord Raglan (the General-in-Chief), Lord Airey (Raglan's second in command), and Captain Louis Nolan. Between these five geniuses the blunder occurred.

Woodham - Smith pointed out that Cardigan was an insufferable perfectionist and snob. He made the Light Brigade a crack fighting and riding group. But he sneered at non-aristocratic officers from India like Louis Nolan. Ironically Errol Flynn's character would have not risen far in the Light Brigade under Cardigan! There were a series of scandals involving this snob, one of which (the "black bottle" affair) is shown in this film. An illegal duel that resulted in Cardigan's trial for attempted murder before the House of Lords in 1841 (he won acquittal on an aggravating quibble regarding the name of his dueling opponent) is not in this film.

Cardigan might still have performed reasonably well if Lucan had not insisted on being put over him as head of Cavalry (Lucan, who lived to be 91, would eventually be a Field Marshall). The two kept on sniping at each other. The Duke of Wellington had died in 1852, and Raglan, his gopher, inherited his post as commander in chief. Raglan constantly wondered how the Iron Duke would have handled every situation, thus blinding his own powers of thought. Airey was even more of a non-entity. As for the angry, hot-headed Nolan, he was desperate to prove himself in battle to show up Cardigan and his snobs.

It was a recipe for disaster. The spark was the stupid, vaguely worded order that Nolan delivered to Lucan who sent it (without comment) to Cardigan, to take the Brigade to "the guns". It is believed Raglan meant the British guns . Nolan got into a fit of temper with Cardigan and Lucan, and pointed in a way towards both the British and Russian guns. Cardigan, shrugging his shoulder, started after the Russian position. Two thirds of the 600+ men were lost, but to Cardigan's credit they did seize the Russian guns. Cardigan himself survived (he would later have to explain this - did he leave his men to die in the battle when they reached the guns?). Nolan was killed trying to stop the insane charge when he saw the error he caused.

Trevor Howard is wonderful as the snobbish, ego-maniacal Cardigan - also quite a womanizer, and jealous of preserving the appearance of a fine figure (watch Peter Bowles trying to hastily push Howard into his girdle before battle). Guilgud is wonderful as the vague, out-of-it Raglan, who barely notices his men are being killed too easily. Hemmings plays Nolan well too, as we sympathize with a fairly intelligent officer being wasted, who makes just one rash mistake too many. Harry Andrews is only in the last half hour of the film, but his bull in the china shop character bodes nothing good for the situation.

Howard would repeat the character of Cardigan, under a different name, in the comedy THE MISSIONARY with Michael Palin and Maggie Smith, where he was a reactionary old general who was the richest man in England (and who liked the sound of the word "flog" - so would Cardigan for that matter). Also note the use of 1850 political cartoons from PUNCH that are animated in the film at several points.

"No,though the soldiers knew someone had blundered!"

A Little Less Pomp, A Little More Circumstance

[Andyh74 · 7/10 · 7 October 2007]

Tony Richardson's "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is a stylish anti-war film in its' commentary on military ineptitude, but it is weakened by subplots. Its critique of class distinctions only occasionally work--particularly in the military scenes--as it tries to fit in as a film like John Schlesinger's "Far From the Madding Crowd" as another period piece commenting on class in Victorian England (and"Brigade," like "Crowd," has a woman being loved by at least two men--in "Crowd" it is three).

The Light Brigade (The 11th Regiment of Hussars) is shabbily run by Lord Cardigan (Trevor Howard), who really is playing the part of a soldier due to his status. He despises any "real" soldier (those who actually have seen combat), especially Captain Lewis Nolan (David Hemmings), a soldier who believes in kindness when handling the army--and his best friend's William's (Mark Burns) wife Clarissa (Vanessa Redgrave).

Cardigan is concerned NOT with an efficient brigade, but a brigade that reflects his elitist attitudes. In the officer's mess scene he ridicules a new recruit for eating lettuce (for being "green," or inexperienced), even though the soldier had the order to do so from Cardigan himself; and that only champagne be drunk at officer's mess and not porter beer--which Cardigan accuses Nolan of drinking (it is actually undecanted Moselle white wine). As one soldier simply puts it, "There is no making without breaking." The poor are often the ones "broken," made to thirst after eating salty mutton, forced to mount horses until they bleed under their uniforms, and having their money stolen. Recruited off of the street, some of them don't even know their right foot from their left.

However, Cardigan has his admirers, especially one Mrs. Duberly, the wife of the Brigade's paymaster (who Cardigan dismisses as not having a rank, but a "trade"). Attracted to image, she sees war more as something done for her amusement, detached from the fact that people get killed--and yes, they do get killed.

Having reached Sebastopol in Turkey, the army led by the senile Lord Raglan (John Gielgud) is of course ill-prepared. Soldiers marching end up dead from cholera or from the enemy, which is compounded by Raglan's stupidity, as evidenced by the charge itself--done after only Nolan, tired of the inaction and incompetency, tries to get the brigade moving--and he does--but is killed, leaving Lucan, Cardigan, and Raglan only each other to blame.

"Brigade" is worth watching, but the love triangle and Mrs. Duberly bloated the film. However, I did like the animated sequences that explain the historical context (particularly their engraving-type look).

So if the film focused on the faulty preparation for the war and on the failed charge itself (a little more circumstance), and got rid of the love triangle in particular (a little less pomp), I would have liked it more.

Slightly tedious account of the famous titular event

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 15 January 2017]

THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE is a wannabe 1968 epic about the Battle of Balaclava and the infamous charge of the British light cavalry which ended in disaster. This lengthy film attempts to show the context for the debacle and the events which led to it, and it really turns out that it was all down to miscommunication and the general incompetence of a handful of men.

The film was directed by kitchen sink stalwart Tony Richardson with a kind of weary realism that makes it rather tedious to watch in places. The attention to detail and costume is strong, but the battle scenes ill realised and not very convincing, particularly at the disappointing climax which is merely adequate. The film does contain a handful of fine performances that alone make it worth a watch. David Hemmings is fine as the idealistic captain and Trevor Howard constantly astonishing as his pig-headed nemesis. John Gielgud makes a fine turn as the doddery aristocrat and Harry Andrews typically shines as his aide. The rest of the cast is a mixed bag with some characters, like that of Vanessa Redgrave, feeling extraneous to the main story.

Another time, another place

[Bobs-9 · 11 June 2001]

I do find it fascinating to come across obscure, almost forgotten films like this with familiar faces and famous actors in it. It was made ca. 1968, and in the true spirit of '68, it is strongly anti-war, anti-military, and anti-establishment, even though it is set in the Victorian era, the height of the Romantic age, when Military valor was largely celebrated. Military life is here portrayed in terms of ranks of men being bullied and brutalized by each successive rank above them, with the biggest, meanest and stupidest ones at the top.

I found it quite interesting to see the famous charge, celebrated in the romantic verses of Tennyson, portrayed in such a matter-of-fact manner as a series of tactical blunders due to bad communication and incompatible personalities among the commanders. These events were supposedly well-researched, and though I am not informed on the subject, I found this version of events very credible. Even with the high level of weapons and communications technology we have today, this sort of thing still happens. It must have been very common in centuries past.

To me, the dialog of this film and its delivery by the actors is its most remarkable feature. Seeing films that depict distant eras, I've often thought that these eras must have not just looked different from what we are used to, but sounded very different as well. If we were suddenly dropped into Victorian England, we wouldn't always understand what was being said or inferred to us. Words, phrases, gestures, facial expressions or body language that would have obvious meaning in that time and place would be strange to us. The language and syntax would, of course, be different, but so would the rhythm, pace, expressive color and accenting of the way people spoke. `Charge of the Light Brigade' does a remarkable job of not just looking, but sounding like a distant place and time. For a viewer who is not educated in antique British expressions and military jargon, as I am not, it makes watching this film a bit challenging, but it's like spending 130 minutes in the Victorian age as a so-called `fly-on-the-wall,' as the British put it. There was more than one line spoken after which I thought `say what?' But that's OK. It doesn't kill you, just encourages you to think a bit. This aspect of the film looks to be well-researched as well, a superb example of a somewhat talky script in which great care is taken with the language and its use by the actors. The script doesn't serve the purpose of an exposition device for the dumbest members of the audience, a very common vice in films, particularly big-money films engineered to alienate as few people as possible. It's an integral part of a design to recreate an unfamiliar time and place, and as such, a bit uncompromising.

Good War Film, But Bad History

[doug1717 · 7/10 · 16 April 2008]

The film is largely Trevor Howard's. The entire film revolves around his character and his fascinating if inaccurate portrayal. David Hemming's Nolan is just Howard's contrast who is just as equally inaccurate and watchable. However, the film does work, and as such is entertaining and has a Dickensian period feel. The Richard Williams animations are entertaining but run counter to the flow of the film. The first time I saw the movie I was taken aback by their sudden intrusion into the story. The subplot with a young and attractive Vanessa Redgrave does lend a "homefront" setting to contrast the aspects of military life, but it is merely fantasy as others here have pointed out the inaccuracy of the Nolan character's portrayal. The actual battles are fun to watch, and again, largely inaccurate, as are the uniforms and equipment. Military buffs will be miffed at the glossing over of important details of The Alma and Balaclava, but it still is a decent war film. Overall I still can't say what the film really was. Yes, it is anti war and anti military. There are several quotes by Nolan and Raglan on how war is changing in the industrial age as the old Napoleonic (Waterloo) order is surpassed - "soldiers shouldn't know too well their business. It smacks of murder", etc. Certainly the charge itself is bloody and must have killed or injured many tripped horses during the filming. The last image of the film is a slaughtered horse. But the film also tries some social commentary, with the poor who take the Queen's shilling, the pompous officer barracks and fancy dress balls, contrasting with the life of the other ranks and NCO's. This is effective to some degree, but there isn't a lot of time or detail to make the effort rise above the level of a caricature. And that leaves us with the Richard Williams animation interludes again. They are unusual, they portray the political situation but lend a strangeness to the film. What to make of this film? It is an inaccurate but entertaining glimpse into a period of history that was on the cusp of great social and military change. Highly inaccurate but entertaining, this film is a light buffet for history buffs, and not a full course meal.

Well mounted production of ill fated charge slowed to gallop by heavy hands.

[st-shot · 7/10 · 20 November 2009]

Tony Richardson elects to go with Cecil Woodham Smith's historically accurate book instead of Tennyson's glorifying poem in this version of the oft filmed Charge of the Light Brigade. It is a sprawling epic richly constructed, sumptuously photographed (with some splendid animation interludes) and well acted by a prestigious cast but its lumbering pace removes the urgency from the the build-up and the film staggers.

Brigade's anti-war theme deals with the unvarnished state of the military and the disparity between officer and enlisted man leading up to the climactic battle. Officers who live comfortably are petty, vain and incompetent while the enlisted live in cramped unhealthy hovels. It is only on the parade ground or assembling on the battle field they mix as a cohesive and splendid looking unit and Richardson remains intent on getting this across.

Trevor Howard and Harry Andrews as the bickering and bumbling officers Cardigan and Lucan are magnificently and maddeningly vainglorious while John Gielguld leads with reticent senility forgetting at times what war and enemy he's fighting.

David Watkins lush photography along with David Walker's costumes captures both the romance and the squalor of the Victorian period. The folly of the charge itself is dramatized to maximum effect as it cuts back and forth from the command post and the mayhem in the valley with officers blaming each other for the catastrophe.

This version of Charge is clearly a metaphor for it's time (1968). Richardson intently lays his message on thick by portraying the entire officer corps as insensitive and imbecilic posers. The film is closer to the truth and sees the charge for the avoidable tragic waste it is but slows down too often to hammer home its point.

Think before you post

[AttyTude0 · 7/10 · 5 January 2022]

I'm sorry but I simply must correct the poster who complained about the film not mentioning Sir Winston Churchill's participation in the Battle of Balaclava. Churchill would have been hard pressed to do so since he was born twenty years later. The battle took place in 1854 and Churchill was born in 1874.

The film is fine, though I could have done without the musical cartoons.

Uneven, Mixed-Genre Spectacle

[wuxmup · 7/10 · 7 May 2006]

Marvelously filmed but uncomfortably poised between historical drama and antiwar satire. The performances, direction, and cinematography are all first-rate, but the script, which emphasizes the stupidity of nearly everyone involved--with the possible exception of Nolan--leaves one wondering where satire ends and history begins. The portrayals are by no means slapstick, though, just heavy-handed: Cardigan is a dimwitted, pompous bully. Lucan is nearly as bad, and the muddled Raglan may be described as a nonentity who's far beyond his depth.

Visually the movie leaves little to be desired as a recreation of time and place, but it all comes across as unsatisfyingly cold and aloof.

An undiscovered masterpiece.

[Hermit C-2 · 10/10 · 2 May 1999]

This overlooked masterwork of director Tony Richardson seemed to have dropped off the face of the earth until resurfacing on video a few years back. Seeing it again after a quarter century only made it seem even better.

It's a strong anti-war film but not strident or unfair. David Hemmings as Captain Nolan has his own definite ideas about fighting wars and improving the army. He is revolted by the brutality and stupidity of the officers towards the men, but he has a tragic fatal flaw. He believes that war, the main reason for a soldier's existence, is a proud undertaking that is best fought aggressively. This leads to disaster for him and his regiment.

Shining brightest among a stellar cast is Trevor Howard as Lord Cardigan, who despite his high social position and the finery he surrounds himself with is a brute and a boor. Howard's portrayal is classic. Harry Andrews is also excellent as Lord Lucan, Cardigan's brother-in-law and fierce rival. Of course John Gielgud also excels as Lord Raglan, the tired old soldier who leads the brigade. One weak spot in the movie is that the role played by Vanessa Redgrave seems rather tacked-on without great purpose. The only significant female role is handled well by Jill Bennett.

The charge occurs during the last part of the film and you'll want to watch it again to determine what really went wrong and who was at fault; though let me warn you, those answers aren't at all clear. What is abundantly clear is that this is a superb motion picture that deserves to be more widely seen.

Military Moo! :

[MooCowMo · 6/10 · 1 February 2000]

Tony Richardson's 1968 re-make of "The Charge of the Light Brigade" plays moore like an absurd black comedy than a historical military drama. Richardson("Tom Jones", "Look Back in Anger", "A Delicate Balance")'s re-make is moore historically cowrect than the rousing, B&W Hollywood-plotted 1936 version by Michael Curtiz, starring Errol Flynn, but not nearly as fun. This one focuses moost of it's attention on the feuds between the boorish and incowpetant Lord Cardigan(Trevor Howard, "The Third Man", "Mutiny on the Bounty", et al) and the equally loutish Lord Lucan(Harry Andrews, "Moby Dick", "Barabbas", et al); also feuding are Cardigan and the sympathetic, sensible Captain Nolan(David Hemmings, "Blowup", "Barbarella"). Sharp-eyed Anglophiles will also recognize Peter Bowles("To the Manor Born" british tv), Vanessa Redgrave("Isadora", "Murder on the Orient Express", et al), and Jill Bennett("Poor Little Rich Girl" PBS tv, "The Sheltering Sky"). These Victorian would-be-Wellingtons are all displayed as brainless, rank amateurs, whose personal squabblings lead to the folly and destruction of the Light Horse. Richardson's dry, black wit in "Tom Jones" is nicely balanced with the film's sheer bawdy fun: no such cownterbalance exists in Richardson's "Charge", and the whole film simply feels absurd, a feeling even moore accentuated by the many zealous propaganda animations. Richardson's anti-war message is about as subtle as a 900lb Holstein. Worst of all, the MooCow sorely misses the wonderful action scenes in Curtiz's 1936 "Charge" - the "revisionist" battle scenes here seem somewhat moore realistic, but lack zing. Not a bad film, to be sure, but this is no "Dr. Strangelove" or "Paths of Glory". Action-seekers should try to procure a copy of Curtiz's 1936 version, with Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. The MooCow says this "Charge" is worth a rent, but keep yer tongue firmly in yer cheek! :=8)

typical british bluster

[sandcrab277 · 4/10 · 14 November 2020]

I found it difficult to believe that the english public put up with trevor howard because he was neither an actor nor a gentleman ... his bark was always loud and forceful but rarely gave you the confidence that he knew what he was doing ... he reminded me of a bully that needed to be put down a few pegs ... probably why he ended up his career doing television ... he had a very pompous british personality ... this film is a tongue in cheek view of how ridiculous the crimean war was conducted in the name of queen victoria, which probably made her blush to no end ...god save the queen from dumb asses.

Accurate and brilliant

[chas-hemsbrook · 10/10 · 18 April 2006]

My favourite subject is history (especially the Victorian era)and I was very pleased that Tony Richardson made this excellent film historically accurate.No Hollywood style poetic license.Some of the quotes that Capt.Nolan said were apparently excerpts from a book he wrote on cavalry warfare (which I have never found).I wondered how he (Richardson) would handle the fact that no one actually knows whether Cardigan reached the Russian guns or not and at what stage (if any) he turned back,but he seems to have glossed over that issue.I can only give this film 10 out of 10 because it is simply brilliant.The casting was superb with what I think was Trevor Howards best ever role,and Harry Andrews as Lord Lucan was perfect.I watched the Errol Flynn version of the events the other day and they seemed to have gone out of their way to make it as far from the truth as possible,right down to the uniforms and regiments involved.So well done to Tony Richardson etc.for making what is so far my favourite war film.Since writing my earlier comments I have discovered that Capt.Nolans book is still available "CAVALRY,ITS HISTORY AND TACTICS"and I would dearly love to read it but it costs £80!.I have also been told that the scene where Cardigan does actually reach the Russian guns was in fact edited from the final version.I thank other people for the comments and my learning more about a fascinating event in military history

Decent but disappointing

[grantss · 6/10 · 25 April 2017]

The (in)famous Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War. Starting from several months earlier, we see the potential origins of and background to the debacle, as seen through the eyes of one of the chief orchestrators of it, Captain Lewis Nolan.

Decent but disappointing. The amount of time devoted to the battle, and even the Crimean War itself, is quite limited, around 30-40% of the movie. Instead what we have is a lot of time spent on background and, although some of it is necessary, it is vastly overdone, taking about the first hour or so. These scenes have some interesting sub-plots and do show well the relationships that would doom the brigade, but have a lot of padding and is often quite dull.

Plus we go into Nolan's private life and relationships, an area that was unnecessary, uninteresting, badly done and boring.

Then there's the segue-providing animation that probably require you to be high to appreciate (well, the movie was made in 1968) - random and often nonsensical. Sort of reminded me of Terry Gilliam's cartoons in Monty Python episodes, except that there they were funny and made more sense.

The dullness and inanity of the first 60-70% or so is made up for by the battle scenes of the remainder. Very accurate depiction of what occurred, especially the command issues and communication breakdown that lead to the disaster.

The last bit also reminds you how much potential the movie had. By cutting out the fluff from the first half and adding in a more complete picture of the Battle of Balaclava, especially things like the Charge of the Heavy Brigade and the defensive stand by the 93rd Highland Regiment ("The Thin Red Line"), this could have been a great movie.

At least this isn't as bad as the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade, starring Errol Flynn, though would take a lot to be that bad. The 1936 version totally rewrote the history of the charge, it was that contrived and inaccurate.

Very poor

[robertasmith · 5/10 · 2 October 2016]

I'm never quite sure what this film was aiming for. Is it a critique of war or is it a telling of a real story? The performances are average at best. Jill Bennet is annoying, Peter Bowles has a silly accent and Vanessa Redgrave is pointless. David Hemings does his best with a poor script and Trevor Howard hams it up beautifully. John Gielgud as Raglan is, unsurprisingly, excellent but again suffers from a poor script. In my humble view Tony Richardson was entirely the wrong director and gives far too much screen time to Redgrave's character Clarissa. The final product is boring and has not lasted at all well whereas the 1936 Flynn version is just as inaccurate but great fun.