The Caretaker (1964)

Sadly Over-hyped

Best movie ever!

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

A reasonably faithful adaptation of the stage play by the dramatist himself, Harold Pinter. As I write this the play has been revived yet again in London with Timothy Spall leading the cast. This proves that the play has legs even in the one-room claustrophobic setting which Pinter opened out marginally for the screen. There are still only three actors as Pinter wisely resisted showing those only mentioned on stage - the cafe proprietor who fired Davis, plus possible patrons of the cafe; the monk who brushed Davis off, etc. All three actors, Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance are at the top of their game and play off each other brilliantly, none more so than Robert Shaw, best known for semi-violent roles to come, such as The Sting and Jaws, here playing a passive quasi zombie in the wake of a lobotomy. More Art House than Multiplex but none the worse for that.

Almost needless to say, this is an adaptation of Harold Pinter's play "the Caretaker." The play is a great one -- combining cryptically poetic language with impeccably-tuned character tension. This film hews very close to the play and its contributions do nothing but do justice to its very special material. Alan Bates, Robert Shaw, and Donald Pleasance create their characters beautifully and completely, such that the sparks (sometimes overt, sometimes right beneath the surface) fly rivetingly when they interact. Everything about how the film is shot compliments the atmosphere of oppressive desperation, such that this tight film about - essentially - three in and out of a cluttering room involved in invested discussion about shoes, interior decorating, and getting down to Sidcup becomes hypnotically compelling.

Someone said in a comment that this is "barely an adaptation" and I have to second that. Though the cast list has names of characters other than the main three, that's because there's a minute or two where the film is outside so there were a few extras who got credit.If you like the play (seeing it or reading it, whichever) you will love this interpretation of it. I can't believe this was made in 1963-the acting is passable even by today's standards and amazing for back then.There are a few lines that are switched around, very very few that are removed altogether, and certain parts of scenes are set outside of the attic-otherwise it stays true to the original version.I suppose if you know nothing of the play then this could still suit you, however, it has a strange premise, and is generally a bizarre movie altogether. The focus is mostly on character development and unusual dialogue, with monologues every three minutes, one of which is easily one of the best absurdist monologues of all time (Aston's bit at the end of act 2).Personally I would buy it just for Aston's monologue, but the movie has many other virtues, and for the standards of its day I'd feel uncomfortable giving it anything other than a 10/10

Apart from the scenery and huge cast, this has all the ingredients of a Cecil B De Mille epic. Three men, (two of which are brothers and a cunning almost invited guest) struggle for power and dominance in their dingy little house. In my opinion it says something about the predicament of human behaviour what ever their surroundings.Its dark, sometimes funny and you can almost smell the decay.