Lawrence of Arabia (2002)

Pretty Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

A lot of fun.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

(Personal Opinion and Analysis #2)Lawrence of Arabia (1962) is a film directed by the two-time winner of the Academy Award, David Lean and starring Peter O'Toole, which was worthy of seven Academy Awards, including Best Director; Best Actor; and Best Picture, amongst other tens of international awards. You will find it difficult, if not impossible, to come upon some unfavorable or disapproving review toward this masterpiece. It is based upon the experience and participation of Thomas E. Lawrence in the Arab Revolt, during the WWI.I found Lawrence of Arabia while I was checking out IMDb's Top Rated Movies. The relevance and the contagious intensity that the reviews displayed towards it caught my attention. One of them assured "Review-proof"; while another declared, "The best movie of all motion picture history"; and yet another, with an almost fierce tone, "744 people need to rethink their ratings" (They are now 5840 people who "need" to do that, though!). That was not all: I checked its consensus in the Rotten Tomatoes' website, and noticed it refers to Lawrence of Arabia as "the epic of all epics". I chose to watch it, but I knew that perhaps this movie would not surpass my expectations..., and I was right. I qualified Lawrence of Arabia with the 3/10 I think it deserves; and I will explain why I think so, for I know that others' opinion is not mine; and I am not afraid to share my personal opinion overtly.Basically, it consists of an approximate THREE HOURS AND A HALF to presenting a historical drama about T. E. Lawrence's (1988-1935) epic adventure in Arabia. The plot focuses on revealing how he was sent on a campaign to support the Arabs against Turkey. Once arrived, the natives establish a good relationship with Lawrence for he proves to have extensive knowledge about such place and a great appreciation towards nature and Arab people. But, not so far away, his British superiors assure he has gone crazy. Very popular among Arabs, he leads the unification of the warrior tribes of North Africa against the Ottoman Empire and leads his army to Aqaba. Once conquered the city, Lawrence returns to Cairo to "brag about" his triumph.The movie is divided into two halves. However, only in the middle of the first half, I started to feel decayed: I began to yawn repeatedly; I felt discomfort from sitting or lying for so long, and the lack of action and excessive slowness showed throughout the film began to be more annoying than I expected. I thought I was just not inspired to watch a movie with such a lengthy duration, and maybe it would be better to pause and wait to feel better. But the hours passed and I did not feel like watching the movie. A short time later I armed myself with volition and turned off the internet to avoid getting distracted by my cell phone. However, even having reached the film's intermedium, I felt like turning off the television and going to sleep, for my eyelids started to close slowly. I suddenly discovered that I was not tired the first time I watched the movie; it was the movie what fatigued me. I even considered that I was not understanding the film at all, but then I discarded that possibility once I read the argument in Wikipedia, realizing that the entire story was just the way I interpreted it. Dismayed, I read some comments on IMDb. And what surprised me the most, is that many people agreed on something: many had seen it at a very young age (10-15). I, being fourteen years old back then, felt confused. Was I missing some detail of the film? Was I probably not watching it the way I ought to? I kept scrutinizing and many comments expressed the same opinion: some indicated that "I did watch this film when I was a child, and it fascinated me" or "I was only twelve years old, and my entire life changed once I watched it". I concluded (distressed and disgusted by my obvious lack of good taste in movies) that the problem was me, obviously. I did not give up, though: I presented Lawrence of Arabia to my family. Basically, my mom and my two young siblings. Guess what! They opined the same: It is one of the dullest films ever made. I was outrageously confounded. After analyzing for days, I did not get to find out why there was so much hype for Lawrence. I peeled the internet, searching for some answer. Two years later, I decided to return to my enigmatic "Lawrence of Arabia's Case". Finally, I managed to find something useful: I discovered, thanks to a review I found in IMDb, that this film is Steven Spielberg's personal favorite. I searched for a video that involved Lawrence of Arabia and Mr. Spielberg. I found what I was looking for: Spielberg watched that movie when he was in High School, and like me, he did not understand what he had just seen, and he would not understand the magnitude and how much was behind that great work until after months. But there was a difference between him and me: he ended up speechless after leaving the theatre. Besides, he had no idea how that film was made, and even referred to it as a "miracle"; I did not believe in miracles until I watched James Marsh's The Theory of Everything (2014). Mr. Spielberg added that he had been raised in a desert, practically (we are talking about Phoenix, Arizona); and hence he felt a connection with Lawrence, for both had an intimate relationship with nature itself. That is not all: Mr. Spielberg mentioned a shot in the film, where the sunrise was entirely (and beautifully) depicted. He did not quite know how did David Lean and his team could get that moment, for instance-because that sunrise was not the only "special" moment we could appreciate in the film. ("Did they actually had to get up in the morning at 4 o'clock and wait for the sun to rise? I guess they actually did! David Lean was kind of a poet-novelist filmmaker naturalist". -Steven Spielberg). Finally, Mr. Spielberg added something very important; something that many reviewers and future filmmakers ought to know: Now, Lawrence of Arabia could have been done digitally-yeah, basically live-action effects mixed up with digital effects, for people "cannot" tell the difference. But that is exactly what makes Lawrence of Arabia a true masterpiece, unlike any other film that could have been done digitally by Crafty Apes, for instance: it was made in nature. The technology was undeniably necessary for Lawrence of Arabia's release, but digital effects were not, just sun; air; natural sounds; and a wonderfully written script.Before turning on the TV and starting again with Lawrence of Arabia, I wanted to check the reviews on IMDb, just out of curiosity. And I found something with which I felt identified: a user narrated his experience with Lawrence of Arabia. He had seen the film at a very early age, and ended up deeply confused, just like I did, but he would see it again sometime later; and in that second time, he would feel deeply amazed. I understood what he meant: the time makes films change. Then, with more inspiration and will, I decided to give Lawrence of Arabia a third shot. I must admit that the experience was somehow different; then I knew what Mr. Spielberg meant when he said that he would understand what he had just seen with the passage of months. But, something had not changed yet: I was getting bored. Maybe this was not my genre, but that would not make sense; I would not have liked The Patriot or Godless either. I was very confounded. I could not understand why the movie bored me so much. What most aroused my curiosity, was how, in the name of heaven, there were many people younger than I who managed to enjoy that movie, and even understand it better than me. Thousands of ideas came up to mind. Maybe they were from other times when films like 12 Years a Slave; Captain America: Civil War; or Gravity could not have been made as they were made nowadays. Or maybe my point of view towards Lawrence of Arabia would be very different if I had seen it as a child when I did not have such a great taste for films made mostly with visual effects. But, unfortunately, I can not travel in time. So this is my answer...Lawrence of Arabia is a masterpiece, unlike any film made and being made, for reasons that I already explained above. But I am not from the seventies, eighties or nineties; and I am sure that if young, nowadays' people like me watched this movie, they would surely have the same opinion as me; very different to yours. My siblings, for instance. Due to the impact on the general and popular culture it caused long ago, this film showed a dazzling success, but NOTHING lasts forever; and I do not mind that there are still people who consider Lawrence of Arabia their personal favorite, like Mr. Spielberg. I despised this movie when I saw it for the first time because I felt that I had lost three hours in watching a movie that did not move me in the least, and it never mattered to me that almost the rest of the audience did enjoy it. Having had, however, investigated a little more about it (the way it was made or the main reasons why it impacted the viewers), my opinion mutated a bit; but that does not change the fact that I got bored. I am not afraid to believe that there are people who want to cling to the past and still thinking that even in the future people will continue LOVING this movie. It IS a masterpiece, but due to time, it will no longer cause the same impact it had before. I have bad news for you all: EVERYTHING CHANGES, whether you like it or not, and I am a living example of such a fact, AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE. (Note: If you liked this movie, I envy you, for it is not the first time that I do not enjoy one of the "best movies of all time." How I would like to have such a refined taste in movies like yours.)

Lawrence of Arabia is truly one of the greatest films ever produced. It is the definition of the word "epic". It is a hug story with incredible acting, is very well written, and both dramatic and touching. Every scene is a masterpiece. One of the very, very best films ever shot, it is definitely in the conversation of "greatest film ever" along with Citizen Kane, etc.

Sound: Excellent orchestral score. 100/100 Narrative: Circular narrative, with heavy fictionalization of Auda abu Tiye and some of the battles; especially the battle of Aqaba. The story is still told well though. 80/100 Technical: Exquisitely shot, framed, and edited. Excellent use of montage and landscapes. 100/100 Acting/Character: All parts well done. O'Toole brings out Lawrence's eccentric behavior well. Alec Guinness' King Faisal gives us a dyed in the wool politician playing against experienced Machiavelli's 100/100 Did I like it: Yes, viewing this film on the big screen I felt like I could step out from my seat and into the scene. 100/100 Artistic merit: Historical films need more factual accuracy to draw their weight; but the overall craftsmanship keeps the films power. 95/100 Final score 95.8/100

10 nominations, 7 Oscars won and not single one female role. I did not notice that at all while I was watching this great movie, but then I read that fact somewhere and started to rewind the movie in my head. Three and a half hours of movie and completely without any women in it. It must be very good movie if I didn't notice absence of women lol.