Along with Meryl Streep's in "Sophie's Choice" my all-time favourite performance by an actor. Scofield truly deserved the Oscar® for his unforgettable portrayal of Sir Thomas Moore.

Is such a performance deserving of hackneyed description?

If only they had not portrayed Becket in the same light as the whoremonger, Henry II, the movie would have 99% accurate.

You read my mind. The part in which I give Peter OToole a slight point above Scofield is his voice, which he would whisper or scream out like a lion.

Why?

@@mcmanustony No soul.

@@mcmanustony Because they are degenerate filth.

@@mcmanustony Because, after Hollywood's Golden Age, the Movie Men were replaced by the Money Men, who only care about the Bottom Line. That's why we get dirty-minded comedies & kid stuff. Culturally, we've fallen very far, very fast...

@@CLASSICALFAN100 Yes and no. Hollywood was always about money. Was then and is now. There are independent films being made today. Then the entire industry was in the control of the big studios. Kids stuff was also being made in the 60s. As were dirty minded comedies. I grew up in Britain- if you don't know of the Carry On films you're in for a feast of dirty minded comedies. This film is timeless, as are the themes addressed. I was introduced to it as a kid, as an example of evil people persecuting Catholics. That is not the theme of the film. It was written by an atheist.

I agree with the sentiment of your words. However, does history repeat or rhyme?

Every bit as good as O'Toole and Burton.

No doubt! Shaw was able to be charismatic and friendly then turn volatile and intimidating in a split second, especially in the garden scene

Plenty of harumphs though

Wdym, the executioner is clearly wearing a mask. I guess it’s unsurprising, those who complain about modernity are blind and stupid.

@@vondas1480 I take it you forgot the sarc tag.

Imagine how good this movie would have been with some explosions or maybe if they made Henry VIII a CGI character, would have been an even better movie. Honestly needs a few more one liners and the movie would be perfect, maybe some cameos of other saints from other movies, or an ending scene of the next saint like a teaser.

@@Blibetyblabla LOL! Absolutely.

Some people may not quite agree with that statement, but because of the significance of what happened in quite a short period of time, relatively speaking, and the cruelty of what happened in General to all those who objected, and St Thomas More who was a very honest and decent man - and so true to his faith, and the great acting in the film, and the way it plays out the story, it's as close as is possible to get to what really happened, and how it came to be. I pray to him and Cardinal St John Fisher regularly

Everybody did. It was customary. What More said to the axeman is more important.

He wants ensure the blow was clean and swift, Axe man have tendency making mess of it. Which means victims suffered a lot before end.

It was customary. In fact the condemned removed their outer garments also, and these too were given to the executioner as payment. More originally dressed in his best clothes, the Lord Lieutenant told him the executioner was a rogue. So More changed into the cloak of his servant so the executioner did not receive the more valuable clothing.

When Cromwell was to lose his head, others who hated him had made sure the headsman was solid drunk and it took like 10-12 strikes to separate head from shoulders.

🙏

To be fair, his mistresses gave him healthy sons

He was plainly and simply a very evil and desperate man, who has been forgotten about, and thanks be to God for that, whereas St's Thomas More and Cardinal St John Fisher are revered, and rightly so.

​@@jkelsey555Only one son was ever acknowledged by Henry. That son was Henry Fitzroy, whose mother was Elizabeth Blount (one of Queen Katherine's ladies-in-waiting). Fitzroy was made Duke of Richmond and Somerset. He was married to a daughter of the Duke of Norfolk, but no children from the marriage. Fitzroy died shortly before Anne Boleyn's execution in 1536.

@@gidzmobug2323 Yes but there are many other suspected non-acknowledged bastard sons who were healthy and lived to adulthood

@@jkelsey555 Perhaps. Fitzroy was the only one I knew about.

The body of Sir Thomas More is buried in the Chapel Royal of Saint Peter ad Vincula in the Tower of London. His head however was placed with the remains of his beloved daughter Meg Roper in the Roper vault within the church of Saint Dunstan's, Canterbury.

Too true. He was responsible for the deaths of many a poor soul who were cruelly burned at the stake. I admire his resilience and overall stoicism during his defence. He showed true strength of character in upholding his personal beliefs, as did those who refused to yield to him, whilst threatened with death in such a hideous manner.

@@dendemano … Thomas Moore would be considered as the Ayatollah of Christianity in modern times because of his fundamentalist views… he tried to trick William Tyndale back to England from Belgium so that he could be tried and executed for translating the Bible into English… however, we are judging him by today’s morality… whereas he lived in an age when you could be cut to pieces for saying something negative against the king. Henry proved to be much more brutal and yet he is considered as one of the greatest kings of England.. human nature just needs an excuse to return to savagery..

Is any one?

@@miguelservetus9534 No, but not everyone acts like they are.

@@miguelservetus9534 ..so you think that Jesus, the apostles and all the prophets were not perfect even though God raised them above everybody else…hmm😏

I don’t buy the Wolf Hall version

There is pretty good contemporaneous record of the trial. The movie got a fair amount right. Wolf Hall is less so.

@@miguelservetus9534 I'm sure the trial is accurate i shouldve been more specific when I said whole thing i guess.

The diary of Sir Thomas More's son-in-law, William Roper, provided the historical evidence.

He did keep schtum regarding his opinions of Henry's divorce and the taking of Anne to be his 2nd wife.... Instead Rich perjured himself to condemn More and gain favour for himself. More was too canny to divulge ANYTHING of worth to Rich, but failed to take account of his avarice and dishonesty.

Becket?

Why should he sign it? What could he have done to fix henry shooting blanks? What was he going to accomplish by signing? Lending his prestige to the following oppression of catholics?

His soul …….

More would not swear to something he believed to be untrue, not to save his neck or gain any earthly reward. That's the whole point of the story.

Honesty and integrity

Clearly you weren't listening to a single word.

Yes, numbskulls and nincompoops often complain about such things.

The voice and pen are far mightier than the sword. Because words can be made into laws.