That was an excellent one.

Great Film overall

Admirable film.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Copyright 31 May 1944 by Independent Film Distributors, Ltd. Made by Archers Film Productions, Ltd. London. Released in the U.S. by Eagle-Lion Films, Inc. New York opening at the Beacon on a double bill with The Woman in the Hall: 22 January 1949 (sic). U.S. release: 13 May 1944. U.K. release through Eagle-Lion: 1944. Australian release through G-B-D/20th Century-Fox: 13 February 1947 (sic). Running times: 124 minutes (U.K.), 93 minutes (U.S.A.), 91 minutes (Australia). The full U.K. version is available on both a Criterion and an ITV DVD. Criterion has a number of extras.SYNOPSIS: "The Glue Man" is on the rampage, terrorizing young women in a small village near Canterbury. He is finally brought to book through the efforts and resourcefulness of a furloughing U.S. army sergeant.NOTES: Only movie appearance of John Sweet, a real wartime army sergeant who presumably went back to his peacetime job as a schoolteacher in Ohio. According to Powell, the U.S. version — unlike the Australian — was not just a cut-down of the English release print. Additional sequences — there was one on a skyscraper — "were put in afterwards as a desperate attempt to sell it." This film seems to have disappeared. The review below is based on the complete Criterion DVD print. COMMENT: Unsuccessful in its day — even though made by Britain's top box-office production team — "A Canterbury Tale" is definitely one for indulgent, or should we say "sentimental" or perhaps "historically inclined" and certainly "nostalgic" connoisseurs. There is so much in it that would irritate or put off your average moviegoer or even your dedicated film fan. The corduroy set and the cultists are advised to give the movie a big miss. Many will see the film as an uneasy compromise between Art on the one hand, Propaganda and Entertainment on the other.My own problem with "A Canterbury Tale" is that the blatant propaganda is laid on with far too heavy a trowel. However true-to- life he may be, Sweet emerges more as a caricature than as a real human being with real human feelings. He's basically a comic cliché. Yet we are asked not to laugh at him, but to sympathize. I sometimes found this hard to do, partly because of over-heavy writing and partly because of over-heavy acting. Fortunately for me, the other players struck the right chords — particularly Sheila Sim, who never gave a more engaging performance. Also the film is nothing if not beautifully made. Superbly photographed, atmospherically scored and often strikingly directed.

Just who is the glue man and why is he doing it? The glue men were Powell and Pressburger rescuing British Cinema from the torpor of naturalism like a couple of Scarlet Pimpernels. This film may not be their most achieved, but it is certainly their most experimental and fascinating. The narrative drive takes a back seat to a rambling story that goes off in different directions, as it pleases. As far as I know it is not based on a novel, or short story. Just how unusual is that in British Cinema? It is Romantic in its use of landscape and has an innocence about it. It also has ideas, and the tale is told with Powell's remarkable sense of composition. You may not think it is having an effect on you when you are watching it, but its like a dream that will resurface again and again long after you have seen it.

There are a number of ways that you can interpret A Canterbury Tale (1944) and a number of things to look out for in order to enrich the overall experience. For me, it remains one of the finest British films of the last half-century, mixing elements of satire, detective fiction, romance and magical-realism to create a lingering and atmospheric work that forgoes any such generic storytelling concerns, and indeed, the more recognisable ideas of narrative, to instead create an experience for the viewer that works simply as a result of the feeling that is created by the contrast between the characters and the subject matter. On an entirely immediate level, the film can be seen as subtle comment on the futility of war; an idea given a greater sense of creative credence by the fact that it was produced at a time when the war was still raging. As ever, Powell and Pressburger go against the accepted grain of the era, relinquishing any obvious elements of propaganda (as they did, quite controversially, with their preceding film, the equally satirical The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, 1943), and producing a film that on the one hand seems to be a laboured attempt to smooth out relations between American and British troops in the run up to the Normandy invasion, while on the other hand offering a ironic comment on the nature of war and that air of unspoken tragedy that punctuates the drama and makes the destruction and the devastation of war comprehendible on an entirely personal level.In keeping with this notion, the only battles shown in the film are those that involve the children of the village, acting out the supposed thrill of the battle in such a way as to make light of the inherent absurdities and childishness of it all. Likewise, the ending of the film, which seems to suggest the noble spirit of war, with its "Onward Christian Soldiers" and the allusions to the Canterbury Pilgrims - as uniformed men and boys march in procession through the streets - also ties in with the propaganda element, and yet, features a subtle-subversion on this same theme in a way that may have been missed by the majority of viewers at the time the film was released. Through Powell and Pressburger deny us the sight of any actual combat, they don't shy away from showing us the aftermath of the battle; with the sequences set within Canterbury itself making great use of the recent destruction of the Baedeker Raids of May and June, 1942; which itself suggests another theme of the film in the idea of history, or indeed, conservation. The film, in both design and presentation, is a veritable ode to the wonders of nature and the glorious, pastoral landscapes of rural England, rich in atmosphere and history. Again, it is that universal connection to time and place that binds the characters beyond the recognisable differences of nationality, gender and generation, informing the tone of the narrative and suggesting a further interpretation pertaining to the past (and of letting go of the past and embracing the present).These ideas are expressed most clearly in the character of the American soldier, played here by the real-life U.S. Sgt. John Sweet, with his slow, Dylan like-drawl and keen delivery going towards the creation of a character that is honest and entirely genuine in his thoughts. The filmmakers exploit the character and his relationship between the rest of the cast to make light of both the inherent differences and (indeed) similarities between the two cultures, in a way that is beneficial to the plot. Regardless, there is a real sense of warmth to the presentation of this character, due in part to the naturalistic performance from Sweet and the natural charm of the dialog. Unlike many popular presentations of Americans - particular American soldiers of this era - he is sensitive, sympathetic, dynamic, attuned to his surroundings and quietly heroic (on an entirely personal level). Again, he is perfectly counted by the fine performances of Eric Portman, Dennis Price and the lovely Sheila Sim who round out the cast with aplomb. There's also a great sense of warmth and pathos to these characters, moving from moments of light comedy to more affecting moments of drama and intuitive character observation as we return to that idea of the past and how the location binds the characters, regardless of their superficial differences.Throughout the film, the characters cling to old memories of people and places, never realising that there are experiences to be cherished in the here and now; even more so given the life and death implications of the war itself. These are incredibly weighty ideas being expressed in a film that was no doubt considered to be a silly little war-time romp when originally released, but can now be seen as one of the finest, most intelligent and repeatedly rewarding films ever released. Admittedly, it won't be to all tastes; as is often the case with the films of Powell and Pressburger there is no set genre here, with the reliance on character and atmosphere leading us away from such notions and instead towards something that can only be experienced. It is a film that relies mostly on the feeling that is transmitted between the film and the viewer and will be considered a success or a failure depending on how it leaves the audience with that final shot of the chiming bells of Canterbury Cathedral. You could perhaps argue that it lacks the imagination or epic-spectacle of the later films, like A Matter of Life and Death (1946) or The Red Shoes (1948) - still two of the greatest works of British cinema - but in my opinion A Canterbury Tale remains a minor masterpiece in its own right, and seems to be something of a thematic companion piece to director Michael Powell's earlier work, The Edge of the World (1937).

One of the great pleasures of Powell & Pressburger films (and there are many) is that they exist outside of genre categories and constraints. The fun of watching them is that they always trust the audience to find their own way through idiosyncratic material. On top of that you're always observing filmmakers working in a very open, artful idiom. Granted this movie is supremely light stuff, the rough equivalent of a Nancy Drew mystery, but so much of it is charming and the P & P approach is of very high quality.The 'plot' is inexplicably inept. It's about a loose criminal whose method, motive and moniker are beyond bizarre. But everything else more than makes up for it. Freed as it is from genre clichés, there's plenty of room for viewers and their readings; you detect, pursue and ponder what you like, and this movie does its best to stay out of your way. Watching earnest people for any length is pretty trying, but this is so striking it's hard to complain. It's shot so beautifully I'd watch it again just for the compositions. I feel about this movie as many do about Night of the Hunter, a similarly visual but thoroughly mediocre film.The only really bad aspect of the movie is the American GI; an overearnest pinhead, as dense as they come, played by a horrible, off-putting actor whose skills would be inadequate even for community theater. I was aware that this is an "American" as presented to British audiences, and likely about as realistic in intent as British characters in American films. But for god's sake, after 5 minutes with this irritating simpleton I'd be giving his coordinates to the Nazis. I'd cheer to see him strangled.The movie is MUCH too long, and pacing is out the window, but the location photography is stunning and there are a handful of memorable/funny sequences. This movie actually made me wish that Hitchcock had been less contrived and controlled in his presentation of England and Englanders.