17 Reasons to Watch Lawrence of Arabia

That epic sensibility, and ability to tell such a sweeping story in cleanly delineated dramatic terms, is gravely missing from cinema today.

 

I don't need seventeen -- only one--its a brilliant epic film.

 

Disagree - there have always been mediocre movies that won Oscars. The choices made in the 1960s were no better than those now - "Oliver!" won, for God's sake!

 

From Ebert's Great Movies:
Although it won the Academy Award as the year's best picture in 1962, “Lawrence of Arabia” might have been lost if it hadn't been for the film restorers Robert A. Harris and Jim Painten. They discovered the original negative in Columbia's vaults, inside crushed and rusting film cans, and also about 35 minutes of footage that had been trimmed by distributors from Lean's final cut. They put it together again, sometimes by one crumbling frame at a time (Harris sent me one of the smashed cans as a demonstration of Hollywood's carelessness with its heritage).

To see it in a movie theater is to appreciate the subtlety of F.A. (Freddie) Young's desert cinematography--achieved despite blinding heat, and the blowing sand, which worked its way into every camera. “Lawrence of Arabia” was one of the last films to actually be photographed in 70mm (as opposed to being blown up to 70 from a 35mm negative).

 

Even Oliver! was masterpiece compared to the 2017 winner

 

Are there good and bad prints of this when seeing it in a theater? I've only been able to watch this on Blu-ray, but I'd love to see it in all its 70mm glory. I worry about faded colors or a lower resolution digital projection that wouldn't show its full potential though.

 

When I saw it, it was the restoration they had done for the Blu-ray. I would imagine this is what they would show in the theater still considering all the hard work that went into it.

 

Um, no. "Oliver!" is a pretty terrible movie, whereas "Moonlight" is a very good film.

There are some BP winners over the last 15 years that already look "embarrassing", but I don't think "Moonlight" will join them...

 

I think if you buy into the whole Hollywood/Broadway musical thing, Oliver is not that bad. It's not a great film, so I can agree with you there, but it is a very well-made film that has some good moments. I'd call it good, not great.

Lawrence of Arabia is way, way up in the stratosphere of great films, and it's very hard to come up with ten other films at this level. I always liked Spielberg's line when somebody asked him about the then-current trend of people watching films on iPhones and iPads, and he kind of shook his head and said, "I hate the idea of somebody watching Lawrence of Arabia on a 7" screen," and that's a very good point.

 

It's okay but I've never understood why people go gaga over it.

 

I have no Blue Ray player. Have been haggling in my brain about getting an Oppo.

And, remarkably, I have never seen this movie.

Im thinking this movie on Blue Ray would be a perfect excuse to get the universal player and christen it.

Good idea? Is the BR considered a good restoration/transfer?

 

Omar Shariff's first appearance would be like half a pixel.

 

Watched it a couple of years ago on Blu-Ray, but have since bought a 49" TV, so I must watch it again. I first saw it at my local Odeon with my parents when it came out in the sixties; but being a young lad with a liking for ice cream, which I had during the intermission, I threw up and my parents took me home so I never saw the ending.

 

Saw it in 70mm (at the Cinerama in Seattle) a few months ago and decided that it would be the last time. I love the movie and have seen it several times, but it is just SOOOO long!

 

Do it. The BR is amazing, one of the best (if not the best) transfers of an old movie I've seen on a blu ray disc.

 

This guy argues it's a bad movie - and dammit, I agree with him!

Oliver!: Columbia Best Pictures Collection (1968)

 

The first time I saw it was when I rented the Laserdisc, at the time (early 80s) I had a 78" projection screen at home because I worked on them. The full width image was like a band-aid of picture across the center of the screen. I enjoyed the film, but that screen was too small to see it on. I can't imagine what it looks like on a tiny TV.

 

I've only seen the print that resides in the UK (twice) and that one is in exceptional condition. Just a wonderful experience.

However, I've also seen the most recent restoration on the same screen, and while it's not quite the same, it gets you most of the way. Just make sure you see it on a big screen, one of those films that is just not the same at home.

 

Great idea! The restoration is top notch and the Blu-ray is a must-own.

 

When I first saw the LD of "LOA", I watched it on a 20" 4X3 set - and loved it! That was the first time I saw the movie period and I thought it was great!

 

Your well-reasoned opinions have won me over!

 

I could fill this forum with terrible films other than "Oliver".

 

So could I - there are many, many terrible films.

But the existence of those other films doesn't make "Oliver!" any less poor. It's a bloated, meandering, poorly-acted mess...

 

Tell us how you really feel!