Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

RyothChatty ridiculous rating

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

grantss Professional servant Barrett (played by Dirk Bogarde) is hired by a wealthy young man, Tony (Edward Fox), as his man-servant. Initially Barrett is the ideal man-servant - quiet, loyal, submissive, unquestioning and very helpful. However, over time the shine wears off and he reveals more of his true self, and it's far from submissive. Moreover, with time the master-servant dynamic starts to shift.Good build up to what I was hoping was going to be a very powerful and/or profound ending. Characters are given depth and are dynamic in their personalities. There is a decent degree of engagement and the plot develops well, albeit slowly.I was happy to take the slow-burning nature of the movie, figuring there would be a big pay-off at the end. Unfortunately, the end doesn't quite reward you for your patience. It does demonstrate how the dynamic between the master and servant has shifted, and how significantly, but that's it, and it's not really a surprise. I really was hoping for something more explosive at the end.

andrewplord Dirk Bogarde plays Barratt, a "gentleman's gentleman" employed by Tony, an upper class young man (James Fox, looking remarkably like David Bowie in his "Let's Dance" period) who needs someone to look after him until he gets married to his no nonsense fiancé Susan (Wendy Craig)The script, by Harold Pinter, begins like a modern day Jeeves and Wooster story full of "I aim to give satisfaction sir" and "I took the liberty sir of remove the ruffled valances. Not very practical." Before too long it all goes very nasty indeed, as though Jeeves turned out to be a psychopath. The pictures takes a path through psychological thriller areas with hints of sexual blackmail, incest, and intrigue and moral corruption and then ends up in firmly absurdist theatre territory, with characters playing threatening games of Hide and Seek, adults reacting like children to minor injuries (the sound Bogarde makes when he is struck in the face is quite bizarre) and strangely unerotic orgies filled with fully clothed prostitutes posing in front of strangely angled cameras.The whole thing keeps getting reflected in distorting mirrors and through crystal orbs and the script is lean and spare as only Pinter scripts can be.And to top it off the whole thing is shot through with a sort of all pervading, but unspoken gayness. There are significant glances aplenty between Fox and Bogarde, they bicker and argue like a married couple, and Fox's character slowly slides under Bogarde's control until by the end of the film he is... well, let's say he isn't in charge and leave it at that.It's creepy, it's disturbing, it's puzzling and very very dark. Is it an allegory of class? Is it a film in the closet? Is it a surrealist drama? Probably yes to all three. But even more, it's a Pinter script. Like "The Birthday Party", like "The Caretaker", like "The Room", it's full of menace and dark humour and unspoken threat.Losey directs like the master he was. Slocombe films the thing is pristine B&W and fills it with beautifully composed shot after shot. and The four principle actor give it all they're got.The only thing dated is the score, which is very much of its time. But this is a splendid film.

Scott44 Some excellent reviews so far. I enjoyed the commentary of ian_harris ("Superb, sinister movie", ian_harris from London, England, 25 November 2002). Also, Framescourer ("Confusing, sexy and brilliant", Framescourer from London, UK, 16 November 2004). And, Bobs-9 ("Disturbing but fascinating psychological drama", Bobs-9 from Chicago, Illinois, USA, 27 December 2001). And, MARIO GAUCI ("THE SERVANT", MARIO GAUCI from Naxxar, Malta, 24 August 2006). And, meitschi ("Perverted Jeeves", meitschi from Vienna, Austria, 22 August 2002)."The Servant (1963)" is a psychological, nearly plot-less drama that depicts a transfer of identity between a wealthy, idle playboy (James Fox) and the manservant (Dick Bogarde, who is devastatingly good) he employs. An alcohol and cigarettes-fueled blend of hetero and homo-eroticism, the principal characters tear at each other until stodgy British social class distinctions and behavior norms come crashing down. The last 25 minutes are mesmerizing; and was probably regarded by British audiences at the time as depraved.Harold Pinter wrote the screenplay. Joseph Losey and Dirk Bogarde handled direction. (Bogarde reluctantly stepped in when Losey came down with pneumonia during production.) Visually, "The Servant" has superb style. The use of mirrors and common household objects (e.g., phones and dripping faucets) is done with great effect.Bogarde leads the excellent cast. He is sublime as the menacing, morally and sexually ambiguous social climber Hugo Barrett. Sarah Miles is also superb as Vera; her erotically-charged performance makes the word "slut" seem less of a pejorative than a compliment. The rest of the cast is also good. (I disagree with criticism of Wendy Craig as Susan; she works for me.) "The Servant" is emotionally powerful; it is filled with style and vigor. It demands multiple viewings.

Spikeopath The Servant is directed by Joseph Losey and adapted to screenplay by Harold Pinter from the novelette of the same name written by Robin Maugham. It stars Dirk Bogarde, Sarah Mles, Wendy Craig and James Fox. Music is by John Dankworth and cinematography by Douglas Slocombe.When well-to-do Londoner Tony (Fox) hires Hugo Barrett (Bogarde) as his manservant, he gets more than he bargained for. Especially when Hugo's sister Vera (Miles) also arrives on the scene…The Servant remains as enigmatic today as it was back on its release in the early part of the 1960s. It's a film that defies classification, that rare old cinematic treat that continues to cause debate about not only its worth as art, but also its very meaning(s). A head bothering delight that revels in toying with your perceptions as much as Hugo Barrett enjoys toying with his supposed master. Lets play master and servant - indeed.Set predominantly in the confines of Tony's swanky Chelsea abode, there's a disturbing claustrophobia that pervades the narrative, and this before we even begin to ponder the power of man, his ability to dominate and manipulate, or the reverse side that sees another's lack of ability to not succumb to the downward spiral instigated by a supposed lesser man.Sprinkled over power issues are sexual desires, obtained, unfulfilled or simmering away unspoken. As the literate screenplay comes out in sharp dialogue snatches, breaking free of Pinter's other wise cement ensconced writing, there's evidence that this is a psychological study as opposed to the class system allegory that many thought it was way back then. This really isn't about role reversal, the finale tells us that.Visually it's a box of atmospheric tricks as well. Losey and Slocombe use deep angular black and white photography to enforce the chilly dynamics at work in the story, the longer the film goes on, as it gets to the nitty gritty, the more jarring the camera work becomes – delightfully so – the house no longer an affluent person's residence, but a skew-whiff place of debauchery and mind transference. And mirrors - reflections, important and used to great effect.Some scenes are striking and rich. Hugo at the top of the stairs standing in the bedroom doorway, in silhouette, an overhead shot of Hugo and Tony playing a childlike ball game on the stairs, a sex scene on a leather chair that we don't see but understand totally. And many more as Losey finds the material that allows him to show his skills.Cast performances are across the board terrific, particularly Bogarde who gives a visual acting master class, and Fox who beautifully shifts a gear from toff twit into dependant dead beat. While Dankworth's musical accompaniments add flavour to the unfolding machinations. 9/10