Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I was really looking forward to this film but it was a major, major disappointment. In fact, I utterly despised this film. I thought that it was absolutely dreadful from start to finish. It was incredibly boring and horrendously written. I understand what they were going for in (accurately) depicting the British military establishment as an overly bureaucratic, incompetent mess which seemed to think that they were still fighting Napoleon but not one of these scenes - or any other scenes in the entire film, for that matter - were in any way interesting. As with "Battle of Britain", I had no interest in any of the poorly written, distracting, clichéd, melodramatic "romantic" stuff. The fact that the people involved were real didn't make these scenes any more bearable. The Crimean War does not even begin until almost a full hour into the film. Admittedly, the details of the war are not as popularly known as those of the two world wars but it still seemed excessive. 20 minutes would have been more than enough.The film is almost as big a mess as said military establishment. There is no flair or energy in Tony Richardson's direction and it is not a particularly good looking film. It has a great cast such as John Gielgud, Vanessa and Corin Redgrave, Trevor Howard, Harry Andrews and T.P. McKenna but it takes more than good acting to save it a film this bad. Conversely, David Hemmings is not a good leading man as Captain Louis Nolan. I'm a leftie pacifist so I certainly agreed with the film's anti-war stance and it was likely intended as an anti-Vietnam War allegory but I would have preferred a good film over...this. If you want an excellent anti-war film, watch "Oh! What a Lovely War" (which also features Gielgud and the Redgraves). If you want an excellent film about a failed military operation, watch "A Bridge Too Far". Both of those films are directed by Richard Attenborough, probably the best British director of his generation.The only thing that I really loved about the film were the "Punch"-esque animations. Actually, I not only loved them but I adored them. However, they took up about three minutes of a well over two hour film. Let's see. Besides that and some of the acting, what else did I like about the film?....Um, there were some nice dogs in it. I love dogs. Yeah...At one point, Nolan says, "I had such hopes of this war, Morris." I know how he felt. I had such hopes for this film! Out of a grand total of 430 films since January 2014, I was more disappointed with this film than any other. Even "Excalibur", yet another Corin Redgrave film. However, there were a few - though only a few - which were worse.The only reason that I didn't stop watching after about 40 minutes is that I promised myself that I would watch every single film from beginning to end no matter what. In retrospect, I sort of wish that I had as 2+ hours of this awful rubbish was a very painful experience. If it were not for the talent or at least basic competence of most of the actors involved, I would give it a lower score. To coin a phrase, someone had blundered. On the bright side, I have not gotten this much pleasure out of writing a scathing review in about three years!

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.

Near-perfect. Worth at least 9 but gets 10 stars because of the miserable 6.6 it's given on this site, compared with the 1936 Errol Flynn fantasy which gets 7.1. Richardson's film is quite brilliantly written, superbly acted, masterfully directed. The only flaws occur because of minor budget constraints, and these never hamper a genuine dramatic production. Great work is timeless. It is memorable, it improves with each viewing, it grips and seizes the attention. It has something to say, and says it excellently well. The characters are compelling. In this case the atmosphere of the time it is set in, mid-19th century Europe, is evoked with such realism and precision that it deserves nothing but applause. It is highly inventive, and some may find these inventions, such as the Punch cartoonery annoyingly quirky. I thought it astoundingly effective. Richardson seems to have introduced an autobiographical element by apparently identifying with Nolan's involvement with his adored friend's wife, played by Vanessa Redgrave, and introducing a fictional subplot. I found this also fascinating, especially since the film was made very shortly after, or perhaps during, Richardson's divorce from his own real-life wife Vanessa Redgrave. Richardson died of AIDS. A very creative, powerful and exceptional piece of film-making, like most of this director's other pictures.

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.