This is a splendid effort by all concerned, especially given the time constraint of about 200 minutes. As well as men and women are still marching off to war to save Western civilization, the movie has a contemporary message. The brevity of the movie, given that it tells a story, originally told in three novels goes against it. So much plot and many characters have been left out seriously compromising Waugh's comic vision. Waugh's original novels contain very amusing dialogue and much of the novels are just dialogue, the writer creating character out of what people say. Although the script used snippets of Waugh's dialogue,there is lots and lots unused. However, the script writers and all the people involved in the production did a masterful job of salvaging something of Waugh's original story. The other major flaw is in the casting of Daniel Craig as Guy Crouchback. Craig does not have the aristocratic presence to play Guy. His features, stature,and movement suggest a working class hero; he is great for contemporary characters where class is not an issue. But Waugh's works are all about class and Daniel Craigdoes not look the part of an aristocrat. He would be fine as a Lawrencian hero, Birket in Women in Love, for example. The rest of the casting is more or less spot on with some splendid choices of actors for Guy's father, Virginia, Ivor Claire, Ritchie-Hook,and Trimmer and everybody else. The book is both so much more outrageously funny and profound about life than the movie. Read the book but enjoy the movie,too; the chaps who made the film have obviously put on a good show in difficult circumstances. I am now going to reread the book for the umpteenth time. The movie inspires that.
18 Reviews
Well done with minor flaws
NicolaiLevin10 April 2017
Just watched this with my better half on DVD. I had read the books before, she hadn't.
I was positively surprised that the writers did not change much of Waugh's novels for dramatic condensation; they just omitted lots of peripheral characters and events of minor meaning to the overall plot.
The main characters are well cast and the acting is excellent. In contrast to some other reviewers, I am convinced that Daniel Craig is the perfect fit for his appearing neutral in the crucial point of class. Guy does not represent a specific class in the novels either: He's too catholic and too old for being a "chap" among the officers, he is too introverted and serious to succeed in society, and too rich and educated and considering to be a role model for the ordinary men. No, he remains an outsider to all worlds - which gives him the best position for observing and documenting all the others.
My better half liked the acting and thought the film gave her two good evenings of entertainment. Yet she was confused with the abrupt changes of locations and times (I had no problems with that with all the background knowledge of the novels and the dozens of Wikipedia pages I consulted to understand the novel's story while reading it).
I can understand her: If you are not really into WWII (and even more: if you are non-British), you really get lost if those sandy rocks now represent mock Crete in Scotland, Egypt or real Crete and what the heck were the British doing in Greece anyway? I don't think it was a good choice to split the story in two parts, while the book is made of three. The story lacks a stringent climactic structure anyway (life seldomly follows the rules scriptwriters have set for entertaining plots), and stopping in the midst of volume 2 does not really make things better. Maybe a 3 or 4 part miniseries with a run-time of 7 or 8 hours total would have been more fitting with the Crete and Yugoslavia episodes deserving a full leg of attention.
What I missed was the mentioning of Stalin. In the novel, two of Stalin's moves are main triggers for Guy's decisions: The Hitler-Stalin-pact of '39 convinces Guy to go back to England, join the army and fight the forces of evil. Germany's invasion of the USSR in '41 causes Stalin to change sides which makes Guy doubt his cause. The co-operation of the Allies with Stalin's Soviet Untion forms the quintessence of his conviction of the overall senselessness of his efforts. I can see that it is hard to make this fit into a movie version, but not to mention it at all? I also missed Stalin's sword mentioned although it is the name-giver to Waugh's trilogy.
What became clear to me after watching it is that the material is still well suited for movie or series adaptations. So, Netflix, Amazon - anyone?
I was positively surprised that the writers did not change much of Waugh's novels for dramatic condensation; they just omitted lots of peripheral characters and events of minor meaning to the overall plot.
The main characters are well cast and the acting is excellent. In contrast to some other reviewers, I am convinced that Daniel Craig is the perfect fit for his appearing neutral in the crucial point of class. Guy does not represent a specific class in the novels either: He's too catholic and too old for being a "chap" among the officers, he is too introverted and serious to succeed in society, and too rich and educated and considering to be a role model for the ordinary men. No, he remains an outsider to all worlds - which gives him the best position for observing and documenting all the others.
My better half liked the acting and thought the film gave her two good evenings of entertainment. Yet she was confused with the abrupt changes of locations and times (I had no problems with that with all the background knowledge of the novels and the dozens of Wikipedia pages I consulted to understand the novel's story while reading it).
I can understand her: If you are not really into WWII (and even more: if you are non-British), you really get lost if those sandy rocks now represent mock Crete in Scotland, Egypt or real Crete and what the heck were the British doing in Greece anyway? I don't think it was a good choice to split the story in two parts, while the book is made of three. The story lacks a stringent climactic structure anyway (life seldomly follows the rules scriptwriters have set for entertaining plots), and stopping in the midst of volume 2 does not really make things better. Maybe a 3 or 4 part miniseries with a run-time of 7 or 8 hours total would have been more fitting with the Crete and Yugoslavia episodes deserving a full leg of attention.
What I missed was the mentioning of Stalin. In the novel, two of Stalin's moves are main triggers for Guy's decisions: The Hitler-Stalin-pact of '39 convinces Guy to go back to England, join the army and fight the forces of evil. Germany's invasion of the USSR in '41 causes Stalin to change sides which makes Guy doubt his cause. The co-operation of the Allies with Stalin's Soviet Untion forms the quintessence of his conviction of the overall senselessness of his efforts. I can see that it is hard to make this fit into a movie version, but not to mention it at all? I also missed Stalin's sword mentioned although it is the name-giver to Waugh's trilogy.
What became clear to me after watching it is that the material is still well suited for movie or series adaptations. So, Netflix, Amazon - anyone?
Somewhat of a letdown
donita512 November 2012
Having savoured Evelyn Waugh's magnificent trilogy, I approached this filmic adaptation fearlessly. The expectation of seeing Daniel Craig, a favourite actor of mine, added to the enticement. Finally, being a WW2 films buff, I believed I was in for a treat.
What a letdown...
It's not that this mini-series is badly made, that Craig does not act well or that the dialogue is stilted. It is just soooooooo sloooooooooooow (except for some (too few) battle scenes) that it borders on boring. The one notable exception was the depiction of the battle for Crete, which looks as if was filmed on location. It had the flavour of the real thing, conveyed through the bright photography. Also, Robert Daws as brigade major Hound was fantastic.
To me (no prude) the love angle was over-emphasized, with Megan Dodds annoyingly bad. Altogether, it took up too much screen time at the expense of other, more important aspects like the War, character development or Guy's Catholic dilemmas.
Also, watching Richard Coyle acting in the same mode as he did in Coupling made me realize what a limited actor he is although again, I stress that in Coupling he was the heart of the show.
Some reviewers have already noted that this film does not compare well with the books it is based on. I will add that while most films indeed don't, this one was an extremely painful example of how not to make a TV series based on a book, especially a masterpiece.
What a letdown...
It's not that this mini-series is badly made, that Craig does not act well or that the dialogue is stilted. It is just soooooooo sloooooooooooow (except for some (too few) battle scenes) that it borders on boring. The one notable exception was the depiction of the battle for Crete, which looks as if was filmed on location. It had the flavour of the real thing, conveyed through the bright photography. Also, Robert Daws as brigade major Hound was fantastic.
To me (no prude) the love angle was over-emphasized, with Megan Dodds annoyingly bad. Altogether, it took up too much screen time at the expense of other, more important aspects like the War, character development or Guy's Catholic dilemmas.
Also, watching Richard Coyle acting in the same mode as he did in Coupling made me realize what a limited actor he is although again, I stress that in Coupling he was the heart of the show.
Some reviewers have already noted that this film does not compare well with the books it is based on. I will add that while most films indeed don't, this one was an extremely painful example of how not to make a TV series based on a book, especially a masterpiece.
A gloomy war for Waugh
Philby-35 May 2001
Once again a substantial literary work (3 novels) has been shoehorned into 200 minutes or so of television but this time without the gross omissions that usually occur in exercises of this kind. Partly this is because of the fair amount of action which takes up a lot of literary space but which can be economically depicted on the screen.
Evelyn Waugh had a pretty scrappy Second World War, but he used his illegally kept diary to good effect. His semi-autobiographical hero, Guy Crouchback goes into what he thinks is a God - ordained crusade against evil, only to discover that the war is the ideal environment for liars, cheats, cowards and phonies of all varieties. His egregious acquaintance Trimmer becomes a war hero by accident and is promoted to Colonel. The evil Corporal Ludovic who murders his C O gets commissioned while good men die everywhere. Every attempted noble act by Guy misfires, and only at the end does he finally achieve some nobility as the putative father of Trimmer's child.
Guy's position is not helped by the fact that his once and later wife Virginia (Megan Dodds) is a vain little tramp who uses men so obviously it's a wonder they are taken in. Guy's emotional IQ is so low he manages to fall for her twice. Well, perhaps the second time around he was after some nice redeeming suffering - he did have some insight - but in retrospect Virginia's demise seems a blessed relief.
Generally though, this was a decent effort. Highlights included the Crete and Croatian sequences and the great portrayals of Ludovic, Major Hound and Brigadier Ritchie-Hook the truly crazy brave military idiot, who was at least able to admit that he enjoyed all that killing'n stuff. Daniel Craig's Guy is also a very measured performance. He has a face on which one can read inner suffering like one reads a weather dial. It was also nice to see that perennial lightweight Leslie Phillips (of 'Carry On' fame) bringing some gravitas to the role of Guy's aristocratic father.
I haven't read the books in this case, but if the portrayal of Mrs Stitch, the society grand dame in the production is anything like that in the trilogy it's a wonder Lady Diana Cooper, who was still alive when they were published, didn't sue. Lady Diana is thought to be the real-life model for the character, who cheats on her absent husband with a young war hero, destroys Guy's mail and pulls strings to get him transferred back to England so he can't blow the gaff on what her 'hero' really did in Crete (desertion).
Anyway, I am now inspired to read the books, which on previous experience should be no hardship. Evelyn Waugh was an intriguing character who started out as an angry young literary man in the 1920s and finished up a reactionary old fart in the 1960s, his time long gone. Yet he was one of the greatest English literary stylists of the 20th century, equally adept at satire ('Decline and Fall', 'Scoop') and serious work ('Brideshead Revisited', Sword of Honour'). This production suitably honours his memory and isn't a bad bit of television in its own right.
Evelyn Waugh had a pretty scrappy Second World War, but he used his illegally kept diary to good effect. His semi-autobiographical hero, Guy Crouchback goes into what he thinks is a God - ordained crusade against evil, only to discover that the war is the ideal environment for liars, cheats, cowards and phonies of all varieties. His egregious acquaintance Trimmer becomes a war hero by accident and is promoted to Colonel. The evil Corporal Ludovic who murders his C O gets commissioned while good men die everywhere. Every attempted noble act by Guy misfires, and only at the end does he finally achieve some nobility as the putative father of Trimmer's child.
Guy's position is not helped by the fact that his once and later wife Virginia (Megan Dodds) is a vain little tramp who uses men so obviously it's a wonder they are taken in. Guy's emotional IQ is so low he manages to fall for her twice. Well, perhaps the second time around he was after some nice redeeming suffering - he did have some insight - but in retrospect Virginia's demise seems a blessed relief.
Generally though, this was a decent effort. Highlights included the Crete and Croatian sequences and the great portrayals of Ludovic, Major Hound and Brigadier Ritchie-Hook the truly crazy brave military idiot, who was at least able to admit that he enjoyed all that killing'n stuff. Daniel Craig's Guy is also a very measured performance. He has a face on which one can read inner suffering like one reads a weather dial. It was also nice to see that perennial lightweight Leslie Phillips (of 'Carry On' fame) bringing some gravitas to the role of Guy's aristocratic father.
I haven't read the books in this case, but if the portrayal of Mrs Stitch, the society grand dame in the production is anything like that in the trilogy it's a wonder Lady Diana Cooper, who was still alive when they were published, didn't sue. Lady Diana is thought to be the real-life model for the character, who cheats on her absent husband with a young war hero, destroys Guy's mail and pulls strings to get him transferred back to England so he can't blow the gaff on what her 'hero' really did in Crete (desertion).
Anyway, I am now inspired to read the books, which on previous experience should be no hardship. Evelyn Waugh was an intriguing character who started out as an angry young literary man in the 1920s and finished up a reactionary old fart in the 1960s, his time long gone. Yet he was one of the greatest English literary stylists of the 20th century, equally adept at satire ('Decline and Fall', 'Scoop') and serious work ('Brideshead Revisited', Sword of Honour'). This production suitably honours his memory and isn't a bad bit of television in its own right.
A reasonably decent tv adaptation
boogsie29 November 2021
It's hard to fight a war...
Enchorde1 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Recap: Guy Crouchback joins the war effort during World War 2, an idealistic quest to join the forces of good in the fight against evil. But his efforts is not rewarded, he never has any chance to join any real fighting, circumstances always prevent it. Instead he finds himself in the middle of an army full of cowards, incompetents and a few outright evil men. They of course reap the fortunes of war, promotions and fame, but never Crouchback. His war is just an endless list of transfers and an hopeless but noble quest for righteousness.
Comments: Really a miniseries, based on a novel, or apparently a series of novels, that has been put on a DVD together to find a very long movie. Never read the novels, so I can't comment on how the movie compares to the books. But I can comment on the movie, and I can't really figure it out. Does it want to be a comedy, or a dramatic comment on wars as such. I think it really tries to be both, but because of it accomplishes neither.
Too many characters are too incompetent, too cowardly or simply too mad to really take seriously. And if a score of characters can't be taken seriously, how could any message or implication in the story really be taken seriously. At the same time Crouchback seem to get in to quite a few hotspots in the war, but nothing really ever happens to or around him. So it is certainly not anything like an action. There is an implication about the madness of war, but what doesn't get lost in the lack of seriousness really get lost in the inaction of the movie. The message may be noble and important, but more than three hours are too much time to make just one statement, and when nothing other happens it gets dull.
A few known actors and faces, but Daniel Craig is certainly the most known of them, mostly for his work after this movie. Can't really say he shines in this one, but he doesn't disappoint either.
The movie isn't that bad really, but far too long. Therefore nothing I can recommend.
5/10
Comments: Really a miniseries, based on a novel, or apparently a series of novels, that has been put on a DVD together to find a very long movie. Never read the novels, so I can't comment on how the movie compares to the books. But I can comment on the movie, and I can't really figure it out. Does it want to be a comedy, or a dramatic comment on wars as such. I think it really tries to be both, but because of it accomplishes neither.
Too many characters are too incompetent, too cowardly or simply too mad to really take seriously. And if a score of characters can't be taken seriously, how could any message or implication in the story really be taken seriously. At the same time Crouchback seem to get in to quite a few hotspots in the war, but nothing really ever happens to or around him. So it is certainly not anything like an action. There is an implication about the madness of war, but what doesn't get lost in the lack of seriousness really get lost in the inaction of the movie. The message may be noble and important, but more than three hours are too much time to make just one statement, and when nothing other happens it gets dull.
A few known actors and faces, but Daniel Craig is certainly the most known of them, mostly for his work after this movie. Can't really say he shines in this one, but he doesn't disappoint either.
The movie isn't that bad really, but far too long. Therefore nothing I can recommend.
5/10
Much, much better than we'd any right to expect.
the red duchess15 March 2001
'Sword of Honour' can be seen as an update of the Boultings' 'Pilgrim's Progress' - an anachronistic idealist fights in World War Two for reasons of chivalric honour, only to see the world overrun by liars, cheats, murderers, cowards and lunatics; where decency is pointless, even dangerous.
William Boyd's restructuring of Waugh's war trilogy is a miracle of adaptation - his leavening of verbal humour with slapstick; his capturing of Waugh's elliptical tone; his creation of haunting visual patterns acting as counterpoint to the horrific satire that is the war. There is one haunting sequence amid so much disintegration, the false bomb warning during Virginia's post-natal party, that magically hints at forces beyond man's self-defeating endeavour, while also rescuing a character Waugh was rather hard on. In the moral sense.
William Boyd's restructuring of Waugh's war trilogy is a miracle of adaptation - his leavening of verbal humour with slapstick; his capturing of Waugh's elliptical tone; his creation of haunting visual patterns acting as counterpoint to the horrific satire that is the war. There is one haunting sequence amid so much disintegration, the false bomb warning during Virginia's post-natal party, that magically hints at forces beyond man's self-defeating endeavour, while also rescuing a character Waugh was rather hard on. In the moral sense.
As dull as ditch water
jjc1-114 October 2015
How a scintillating trilogy like this could be transformed into a lifeless parody of itself by filmmakers is a complete mystery. It is lugubrious, slow and mistakes slapstick for wit. Waugh would have been appalled by this work. He was a nasty man in private life--a friend of Randolph Churchill whose boorish behavior was legendary--but he had high literary standards. Daniel Craig, incidentally, does not do humor well. The first review on this site must have been written by the movie publicist. The actress who plays his first wife is as wooden as Craig himself -- zero chemistry there -- and there is a supporting cast who clearly didn't have their heart in any of this. A total waste of time, so don't bother. I hope I have made myself clear in padding this out to the full 10 lines required. Left to me, I would have kissed it off with a simple, "No, don't think so. Take your dog for a walk instead."
TV intended to make you think - almost unheard of nowadays
siobhan-rouse17 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Like almost all of Waugh's novels, this is a lightly fictionalised version of incidents in his own life. Apart from the early one's, they were intended to advocate the austere and serious form of Catholicism that Waugh had converted to. But what makes him such a compelling storyteller is that he mixed comedy (light as well as grotesque) with the serious points, so that one never knows quite how a story will turn out. Waugh's life alternated between melancholy and farce - and that is how his fiction comes across as well. Maybe that's why when I read his novels and see the adaptations, I find myself nodding in agreement. Yes, that is what life is like ! I thought this version of Sword of Honour very good, but oddly structured. It started as three novels, so I would have thought it would make most sense as three segments, broadcast weekly. Instead we have two long "movies", which to the casual viewers must seem a bit jumbled.
There are some superb acting performances here, though I found Daniel Craig as the hero a bit blank. Perhaps that is because, like Charles Ryder in Brideshead, the story is not really about him but about the people he meets and remembers in extraordinary circumstances. Previous reviewers have said that his wife Virginia comes across as very silly and unlikeable, but I disagree. I thought the actress (Megan Dodds - the end credits were so small that I couldn't read her name so I had to look on this site !) gave a very subtle and sophisticated performance. Really she is a woman who has never needed to think seriously about anything before, but the war experience forces her to. She becomes a Catholic - I think for Waugh this is one of the most important parts of the story.
This is a worthy successor to the celebrated TV version of Brideshead Revisited, though I wanted it to go on longer ! Unlike Brideshead (which was stretched out to an absurd 13 hours), this trilogy of stories could have gone on much longer, and I still would have been absorbed.
There are some superb acting performances here, though I found Daniel Craig as the hero a bit blank. Perhaps that is because, like Charles Ryder in Brideshead, the story is not really about him but about the people he meets and remembers in extraordinary circumstances. Previous reviewers have said that his wife Virginia comes across as very silly and unlikeable, but I disagree. I thought the actress (Megan Dodds - the end credits were so small that I couldn't read her name so I had to look on this site !) gave a very subtle and sophisticated performance. Really she is a woman who has never needed to think seriously about anything before, but the war experience forces her to. She becomes a Catholic - I think for Waugh this is one of the most important parts of the story.
This is a worthy successor to the celebrated TV version of Brideshead Revisited, though I wanted it to go on longer ! Unlike Brideshead (which was stretched out to an absurd 13 hours), this trilogy of stories could have gone on much longer, and I still would have been absorbed.
A war movie without war.
imap-052322 June 2022
Little can be said about these 3.5 hours of boredom, except that viewers such as me are sticking with it in the hope something is going to happen. However, it does not.
What we see is an English noble searching for some purpose in life, even if it means to join the frontline, something that never happens. His failed marriage and reunion with an adultery gold-digging wife is as exiting, as the rest of this tedious never ending story.
Danial Craig is good in movies where acting is not required, such as the James Bond series. Otherwise is he one of the most overrated actors in the industry.
I didn't read the novels, but believe they have to be better than the film - not a difficult task though.
What we see is an English noble searching for some purpose in life, even if it means to join the frontline, something that never happens. His failed marriage and reunion with an adultery gold-digging wife is as exiting, as the rest of this tedious never ending story.
Danial Craig is good in movies where acting is not required, such as the James Bond series. Otherwise is he one of the most overrated actors in the industry.
I didn't read the novels, but believe they have to be better than the film - not a difficult task though.
don'see
z28rikard16 April 2007
I might sound blunt here but this is a movie recommended to watch only if intoxicated with illegal substances. Otherwise you will either fall asleep or look for a victim to get rid of your frustration. A typical "a'la Stephen King" failure trying to make a movie out of a book. it's like when you listen to a CD book and the narrator is trying very hard to get the listeners attention with a poor try in narrating acting. What did the actors think when they read the script or did they just read the book and trust that the director could get this on the screen by magic.
Don't waste your time on this one.
Don't waste your time on this one.
A hero in search of a "decent" war.......................
ianlouisiana5 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Desperate to find some cause to hitch his waggon to,Guy Crouchback, introverted,middle - class,Catholic,is a man determined to find honour and redemption in war.To assist him in this effort he commits himself whole - heartedly to the Halberdiers,an obscure but "superior" British regiment which after years of idleness suddenly finds itself confronted with the realities of modern warfare. Actually proving a rather good and popular officer,he fights a losing battle against the tide of cynicism,opportunism and political in - fighting,corruption,self - aggrandisement and general rottenness from his contemporaries,a victim of their jibes,their genial or sometimes not so genial contempt and condescension. Bloodied,appalled and bruised by what one of his colleagues calls "the whirligig of war",he gets the chance to "do the decent thing" by marrying his ex - wife,Virginia, who is pregnant by an odious fellow - officer,thus,by proxy,continuing the Crouchback line which dates back to mediaeval times. When Virginia Crouchback is killed in an air raid,Guy comes home and sees "his" son for the first time. Awkwardly,clumsily,he says to the boy,"I'm your father" as the camera cranes up and we leave the two of them to a hopefully happier future. Adapting Waugh's marvellous trilogy of war novels for television was no mean task,and leaving aside any petty intellectual snobbery from old school Waugh admirers who might baulk at his masterpiece being sliced up and presented as popular entertainment no matter how well done,it must be said "Sword of Honour" is something of a triumph. Mr D.Craig is quite excellent as Guy and conveys well the gradual change in his character as his wartime experiences have an increasing effect on him. Mr L.Phillips - a man whom I would normally walk a mile to avoid on the screen - is sensitive and moving as his elderly father,a man unshakable in his beliefs and quietly indomitable in his courage.Miss M.Dodds as the flighty Virginia gives the best performance,displaying the easy charm existing in a total moral vacuum but somehow fatally attractive. The production values are high,the battle scenes well above par for a TV production and,in line with the original,the TV adaptation takes on a very bleak aspect towards the end. By giving legitimacy to Virginia's son,Guy redeems himself in a way that he signally failed to do in combat. Channel 4 is to be congratulated.
All is not lost
rboysdad29 August 2009
I was unaware of this film adaptation of Waugh's trilogy until today's showing on British freeview TV, and missing the first half hour, also missed the chance to record it to DVD. Drat. Until I saw it. Very pretty production by Channel 4 TV and Talkback, made some 8 years back, before Daniel Craig became a superstar.
I've read and reread a lot of Waugh but believed Sword of Honour to be an inexplicably stolid, inaccessibly unreadable work, so big, so long, so dull. Brideshead was the beginning of the end, the trilogy was the end writ large.
Until I found the BBC radio adaptation from 1974, over 11 hours rather than this film's 4. After a few hours I began to see the early Waugh wrapped inside the less obviously satirical wrappings, his humour and gravity. The genius, in short.
They don't make them like Waugh any more, nor do they make the people; the 1974 recording was made in time to catch many authentic sounding voices from the era, and some very fine acting. A gem which I recommend to any Waugh fans.
This film seems to be, probably, a rather adroit shot at a script which condenses a huge tome to a few hours, but the vowels are comprehensive school, Craig is hopelessly wrong, and there are but a few flashes of sharp observation and very little wit. But the audio version is available on the internet, and of course the pictures are better.
I've read and reread a lot of Waugh but believed Sword of Honour to be an inexplicably stolid, inaccessibly unreadable work, so big, so long, so dull. Brideshead was the beginning of the end, the trilogy was the end writ large.
Until I found the BBC radio adaptation from 1974, over 11 hours rather than this film's 4. After a few hours I began to see the early Waugh wrapped inside the less obviously satirical wrappings, his humour and gravity. The genius, in short.
They don't make them like Waugh any more, nor do they make the people; the 1974 recording was made in time to catch many authentic sounding voices from the era, and some very fine acting. A gem which I recommend to any Waugh fans.
This film seems to be, probably, a rather adroit shot at a script which condenses a huge tome to a few hours, but the vowels are comprehensive school, Craig is hopelessly wrong, and there are but a few flashes of sharp observation and very little wit. But the audio version is available on the internet, and of course the pictures are better.
Wise, varied, complete, exciting, realistic.
Chinesevil14 April 2022
This movie has all the qualities to be an entertaining and teaching film. There is a beautiful story of an honest and courageous man in a difficult and troubled world that revolves around. The actors and the sets, at certain moments, have some problems but the plot, the ideas, and the completeness of the life of man during the war, make us understand many useful things.
Noblesse Oblige and its Discontents
mike-92518 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Guy Crouchback has a problem. He believes in war as a great cause, but finds World War Two itself, wanting.
This two part film based on Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honor is not the first rate production Brideshead Revisited was, but it captures some of Waugh's dismay with World War Two.
It is surprising Waugh found so much fault. Wars since have never come close to matching the sheer resolution that went into winning the great war that surpassed in every way the "Great War" that had preceded it.
The film is fairly commercial but captures many of the story points of Sword of Honor. As an antiwar film though, it doesn't even come close to matching Catch 22, the great American war novel turned movie that Mike Nichols directed in 1969. Catch 22 the movie was considered a failure.
So what to make of this one? Its a failure too, an even bigger one. But for those interested in Waugh, it is a gateway to one of his lesser known books. I've been reading Waugh for years but never heard much about this one. Seeing this movie has firmed my resolve to get an Amazon Reseller paperback if possible- my sister bought Kite Runner for 33 cents!- and see what the novel was about.
This two part film based on Evelyn Waugh's Sword of Honor is not the first rate production Brideshead Revisited was, but it captures some of Waugh's dismay with World War Two.
It is surprising Waugh found so much fault. Wars since have never come close to matching the sheer resolution that went into winning the great war that surpassed in every way the "Great War" that had preceded it.
The film is fairly commercial but captures many of the story points of Sword of Honor. As an antiwar film though, it doesn't even come close to matching Catch 22, the great American war novel turned movie that Mike Nichols directed in 1969. Catch 22 the movie was considered a failure.
So what to make of this one? Its a failure too, an even bigger one. But for those interested in Waugh, it is a gateway to one of his lesser known books. I've been reading Waugh for years but never heard much about this one. Seeing this movie has firmed my resolve to get an Amazon Reseller paperback if possible- my sister bought Kite Runner for 33 cents!- and see what the novel was about.
Was this a comedy?
gsyzrgch19 May 2023
We watched about 2 hours having never heard of this movie. It was strange and confusing until we decided it was a comedy, then the movie made a lot more sense! So many scenes were just goofy, like the captain hopping up and down at the shooting range, or the ports- toilet disappearance, or the dopey guy suddenly dying, and the ex wife popping up everywhere with many ex husbands all running into each other, not to mention her male hairstylist popping in as a soldier, and a hero? I'm not sure it was supposed to be a comedy, but if you watch it with that perspective it becomes much more enjoyable!
I did like the filming style.
I did like the filming style.
An excellent unglamorous literary account of WWII
SimonJack26 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If one is looking for or expecting a war movie filled with action, "Sword of Honour" will not do. Likewise, if one wants a nice English war film with some romance or loved ones left back home. No! Evelyn Waugh's trilogy put to film based on some of his World War II experiences is nothing like the romantic or heroic images we so often have from movies about WW II. Nor is it a gritty account of the gripping experiences of war, death and destruction so common in more modern war films that tend to bring the gore to the fore.
"Sword of Honour" is none of these things. Yet it has traces of each, along with much more. The three novels incorporated quite well into this film are "Men at Arms" (1952), "Officers and Gentlemen" (1955), and "Unconditional Surrender" (1961). Waugh wrote his books from his diverse experiences of wartime service. He had kept a diary, and many of his characters are based on or are conglomerations of people he had known in the service. A couple of themes common to most of Waugh's fiction are present here. His Catholic faith and wrestlings with class distinctions are interwoven in his many exploits.
The story outline and reviews elsewhere discuss the plot. I would just point out that this is a very unusual look at the military and wartime service. Comedies have a lot of fun poking fun at the military. But when a film is not a comedy – as this one is not, the exposure of so much that is wrong or that goes haywire is truly unflattering. As such, this film is satirical without being a satire. It gives account after account of ineptitude, fraud, incompetency, irony and miscues that belie any honorable notion about the military services and wartime culture.
All of this is seen as experienced by Waugh's main character, Guy Crouchback, played very well by Daniel Craig. He encounters a plethora of characters. Some are fun and entertaining – if not to Crouchback, to the novel readers and film audience, such as Brigadier Ritchie-Hook. Robert Pugh plays the seemingly fearless veteran Army officer with pugnacity equal to the character. Guy Henry plays the scornful and scary Ludovic superbly. He is a sardonic and mentally disturbed character. Richard Coyle is excellent as Trimmer McTavish. He is the perfect foil to Guy's image of what an honorable officer and gentleman should be. This is made more ironic by the ruse of Trimmer's heroism and rise to high rank and honor from the lowly civilian occupation of a hairdresser. Great satire, indeed. Other actors lend panache, pathos, humility or humor to their roles as appropriate to each character.
One other aspect that sets this film apart is its unusual portrayal of the wartime love or romance component. Guy's estranged wife, Angela, is a party girl, carouser, and playmate who lives for pleasure, with no sense of responsibility or respectability. Selina Cadell plays the role superbly. The title of the film comes from a little known factual story that Waugh relates in the third novel. It describes the circumstances of the Sword of Stalingrad. King George VI ordered a special long sword to be decorated with jewels and presented from the British people to the Soviets who defended the city in the battle that turned the war against Germany on the eastern front. Prime Minister Winston Churchill presented the sword to Joseph Stalin on Nov. 29, 1943, at the Tehran Conference, in the company of President Franklin Roosevelt.
The movie does not include this historical situation, but the screenplay deftly covers much of the trilogy in its 3½-hour time. Toward the end, Crouchback's faith and honor rise above all the experiences he has had. He marries his former wife a second time so that her child by McTavish won't be born out of wedlock. And, after Angela is killed in a bombing raid over London, Crouchback returns at the end of the war to embrace the innocent son he has brought into the world honorably.
This is not an exciting film to watch. But it is interesting and enjoyable. It's an honest account of a different picture of wartime service, especially in Britain. It's a picture that's not at all flattering about the military or culture of the time. And, it's a fine example of a lengthy literary work being expertly put on film.
"Sword of Honour" is none of these things. Yet it has traces of each, along with much more. The three novels incorporated quite well into this film are "Men at Arms" (1952), "Officers and Gentlemen" (1955), and "Unconditional Surrender" (1961). Waugh wrote his books from his diverse experiences of wartime service. He had kept a diary, and many of his characters are based on or are conglomerations of people he had known in the service. A couple of themes common to most of Waugh's fiction are present here. His Catholic faith and wrestlings with class distinctions are interwoven in his many exploits.
The story outline and reviews elsewhere discuss the plot. I would just point out that this is a very unusual look at the military and wartime service. Comedies have a lot of fun poking fun at the military. But when a film is not a comedy – as this one is not, the exposure of so much that is wrong or that goes haywire is truly unflattering. As such, this film is satirical without being a satire. It gives account after account of ineptitude, fraud, incompetency, irony and miscues that belie any honorable notion about the military services and wartime culture.
All of this is seen as experienced by Waugh's main character, Guy Crouchback, played very well by Daniel Craig. He encounters a plethora of characters. Some are fun and entertaining – if not to Crouchback, to the novel readers and film audience, such as Brigadier Ritchie-Hook. Robert Pugh plays the seemingly fearless veteran Army officer with pugnacity equal to the character. Guy Henry plays the scornful and scary Ludovic superbly. He is a sardonic and mentally disturbed character. Richard Coyle is excellent as Trimmer McTavish. He is the perfect foil to Guy's image of what an honorable officer and gentleman should be. This is made more ironic by the ruse of Trimmer's heroism and rise to high rank and honor from the lowly civilian occupation of a hairdresser. Great satire, indeed. Other actors lend panache, pathos, humility or humor to their roles as appropriate to each character.
One other aspect that sets this film apart is its unusual portrayal of the wartime love or romance component. Guy's estranged wife, Angela, is a party girl, carouser, and playmate who lives for pleasure, with no sense of responsibility or respectability. Selina Cadell plays the role superbly. The title of the film comes from a little known factual story that Waugh relates in the third novel. It describes the circumstances of the Sword of Stalingrad. King George VI ordered a special long sword to be decorated with jewels and presented from the British people to the Soviets who defended the city in the battle that turned the war against Germany on the eastern front. Prime Minister Winston Churchill presented the sword to Joseph Stalin on Nov. 29, 1943, at the Tehran Conference, in the company of President Franklin Roosevelt.
The movie does not include this historical situation, but the screenplay deftly covers much of the trilogy in its 3½-hour time. Toward the end, Crouchback's faith and honor rise above all the experiences he has had. He marries his former wife a second time so that her child by McTavish won't be born out of wedlock. And, after Angela is killed in a bombing raid over London, Crouchback returns at the end of the war to embrace the innocent son he has brought into the world honorably.
This is not an exciting film to watch. But it is interesting and enjoyable. It's an honest account of a different picture of wartime service, especially in Britain. It's a picture that's not at all flattering about the military or culture of the time. And, it's a fine example of a lengthy literary work being expertly put on film.
Good if you want to explore the poverty of minds in war
johnlmodra19 July 2022
Worth watching for the solid character and moral challenges ( bad luck if you no longer believe we have them ) even though for many, the caricature and patheticness of the big boys and girls in the play make us less than warm to them in the film version.
Waugh has taken on the tough job of telling the truth from the inside and its not nice, good or even very inspiring. Unfortunately that's what we are like .Ultimately its these truths , not fantasy ,that sets us free .
The son ,father and growing men figures whose bouts of courage to do the right thing, give the play a gritty guts that make this drive through the sordid and mad mess of war really worthwhile . Because its so punchy, and even funny, if you a boy yourself , about stupid men, it should be shown in all public schools.
Waugh has taken on the tough job of telling the truth from the inside and its not nice, good or even very inspiring. Unfortunately that's what we are like .Ultimately its these truths , not fantasy ,that sets us free .
The son ,father and growing men figures whose bouts of courage to do the right thing, give the play a gritty guts that make this drive through the sordid and mad mess of war really worthwhile . Because its so punchy, and even funny, if you a boy yourself , about stupid men, it should be shown in all public schools.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
