IMDb > Winstanley (1975) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Winstanley (1975) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 comments in total 

8 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Beautiful retelling of history, 20 July 2000
Author: che-29

A great piece of independent filmmaking!Intelligent,well directed and acted.These two filmmakers had a ton of talent .Too bad they only made two films,but luckily they are both classics.This film is very much like an early Kubrick film i.e. 'The Killing'.The locations and the fact that the were lensed on a monochrome made me feel the landscapes, situations and the plight of the people.A must see for any film lover!!!

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
An Independent British Film Classic, 29 March 2002
10/10
Author: Rock Savage from London

"Winstanley", directed by Andrew Mollo and Kevin Brownlow, is a true masterpiece of British Independent Cinema. The talent of these two film makers in unquestionable. Their vision of 17th Century England has never been bettered. Andrew Mollo's attention to period detail is unsurpassed resulting in costumes and design that are simply faultless. The cinematography is breathtaking and Kevin Brownlow's editing is masterful.

Miles Haliwell plays the lead part of Gerrard Winstanley and he gives a moving and insightful performance. This is a must see film the like of which we may never see again. I am sure it taught Kubrick a lesson or two about filming period dramas.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
Great production of a great philosopher, 30 April 2002
10/10
Author: N Karnes from Grand Rapids, MI. USA

I first watched this film in an Early Modern European history course and it blew me away. As a film buff it's interesting. It's a lot like a silent film (i.e. Griffith) with all the narrative frames in between each scene. As a socialist I find this film invaluable as a gateway to Winstanley's writings. He was truly a man ahead of his time.

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
More interesting than entertaining., 7 September 2002
6/10
Author: Euphorbia from Oregon

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

As cinema Winstanley is more interesting than entertaining. The movie was made in conscious imitation of Eisenstein, easy to dismiss for anyone weaned on MTV. But Brownlow is a careful and capable student of the classic silent film, and if you are comfortable with the originals, you will feel right at home here.

The real story is also easy to overlook. Superficially it is about the poor persecuted diggers -- portrayed as post-apocalypse hobbits, their apocalypse having been the enclosure of the commons and the English Civil War.

But the dramatic center of the story, and hence of the movie, is not so much Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers as it is Thomas Fairfax and the New Model Army. Fairfax is a successful revolutionary general, and like every successful revolutionary leader in history he must confront the dilemma of how much revolution is too much.

On this conflict within Fairfax's conscience is based the ongoing dance between him and Winstanley, and the unfolding of the story. It is not a simple 'us versus them,' and both men know it. Both are revolutionaries, yet both see value in some parts of the old order. The difference is that Fairfax has already overturned the parts of the old order that he disliked, while Winstanley still aspires to further revolution -- or perhaps counter-revolution, since like many radicals he idealizes a lost golden age of pastoral simplicity. Winstanley has no power to succeed on his own, so his best hope is to win over Fairfax, both by argument and by a demonstration that his theories can work in practice. Fairfax is at first willing to give him this chance.

Fairfax, having fought successfully and won power, is becoming pragmatic. Winstanley, being poor and powerless, can afford to remain idealistic. And this increasing divergence is what makes Winstanley the movie an interesting story, rather than merely a film class exercise. It does not make it a great movie, or even a very good one, but it does make it worth watching. 6/10.

*** SLIGHT SPOILER ***

Part of the reason to watch this movie is to savor the period props. The arms and armor are mostly the real deal, borrowed from the Tower of London. The buildings and furniture are mostly 17th century, too. Even the livestock are ancient breeds, preserved by hobbyist farmers. But then there is the Diggers' clothing: the cloth looks machine woven, rather than homespun. Not a big deal, I know, but it is inconsistent with the rest of the very careful production.

The DVD also includes a "making of" documentary, which is great fun. Winstanley was a no-budget labor of love for all involved, and Brownlow describes some clever tricks for working with non-professional actors. A must-see for film students.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
superb, 19 February 2009
9/10
Author: tom tomorrow from United States

Wonderful film. Cinematogaphy is brilliant. Story is one long overdue in telling (few people knew of the diggers prior to this film, outside of a small alternative community). Memorable scenes, such as the crossroads confrontation between the Puritan parson and Winstanley. The battle scenes at the start are artfully, sparingly, and convincingly drawn.

Winstanley himself may come off as a bit saintly, but he's nonetheless compelling, and a good choice for the role (he was a schoolteacher by trade and amateur actor). The attention to historical detail borders on the fanatical, and is well worth watching. And much of the dialogue is drawn from actual writings of Winstanley himself.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing film, 29 March 2001
4/10
Author: Ace-33 from Westfield, NJ

With all the fanfare surrounding this low-budget indie, I guess I was expecting a bit more than a series of disjointed scenes and poorly exposed cinematography. The film opens with great promise showing a well-executed battle scene interspersed with text explaining the political landscape of the mid-1600 but then rapidly goes downhill with below average technical production. There's no drama or tension to speak of. I've seen much better historical "documentaries" when I was in grammar school. A valiant effort but it doesn't hold a candle against other indie films of the period. A '4' in my book, and that's being generous.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Amazon.com summary Ratings Newsgroup reviews
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history