the audience applauded

Good movie but grossly overrated

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Beautifully written, superbly acted, perfectly directed, this is a sardonic, satirical, tragi-comic homage to those who served in the British army in the traumatic years of the 1940s and 1950s, whose contributions were to count for nothing in the 1960s. It is right up there with The Bofors Gun and Tunes of Glory. With hindsight it is possible to see these films, and perhaps all British films of this era, as symptomatic of Britain's loss of world status after WWII. There is a moment when Jack Hawkins touches the head of a child's rocking-horse, stored away, as if to indicate that the future has slipped from his grasp. As pointed out in another review, the age of what Muhammad Ali called the little sissies, with their MBEs, was at hand. Those MBEs were justifiably resented by those who had earned theirs legitimately, at the rock-face. One of the sissies, who didn't know what an MBE was, thought he was being called up. A relevant suspicion.It is amusing also to see one reviewer complaining that this film is "talky". From the opening scene, when Hawkins emerges from a sewer, wearing his dinner jacket, the tone of the movie is hit with impeccable precision. The cast comprises at least a dozen outstanding actors, very familiar from other British films, some of whom, like Bryan Forbes and Richard Attenborough, went on to become respected directors.It is not a comedy, but it is ironic. This is a mode still enjoyed by those who relish the wit and keen observation of the manners and morals of a bygone age. The modern film-goer, looking for special effects, expensive scenery, impossible stunts, graphic killings, and generally mindless and pointless violence and idiocy, should go elsewhere. In a sense the film is dated, but it remains datelessly gripping, intriguing and exciting.

Great film. One I'd take to the desert island. It's not only entertaining, it also provides a fascinating glimpse of its era.However I do have a few niggles, some of which constitute definite spoilers so if you haven't seen the film and don't wish to note them, please read no further.At the lunch early in the film Hyde accuses all the assembled Gentlemen of being crooks "of one sort or another". While most of them had certainly been up to no good during their time in the army and been punished accordingly the word "crooks" is hardly appropriate in their later civilian lives. Mycroft certainly and possibly Race and Lexy but Weaver and Porthill seem to be more or less blameless, if in the latter case a bit disreputable, and Rutland-Smith's only crime anywhere seems to have been to have run up some "embarrassing mess bills". Stevens' implied indulgence in homosexual acts, while illegal at the time the film was made, would hardly justify his being labelled a crook even then. I feel that some more convincing criminality could have been devised - perhaps beating up Hyde en masse after he had gone round the table insulting each in turn! To my mind the only real weakness in the film is the way they were caught. There are two reasons for this, one regarding plot and the other structure. Firstly, if I am correct, they were rumbled because the policeman who visited their warehouse recorded, for some unexplained reason, the number of Hyde's car, which the latter later used in the robbery. Its number was then noted by the small boy near the crime scene. Would such a meticulous planner as Hyde really have committed such a faux pas? The stolen car, after all, had its number changed so why not his? Or, preferably, would it not have been better - indeed obvious - not to have used his car at all? Secondly the sudden appearance of the boy, taking car numbers, jarred.It clearly had some relevance, otherwise there was no need to include it, and it indicated fairly clearly that it would somehow lead to the plan's ultimate failure.Something that has always worried me and which has doubtless occurred in real life (certainly in the GTR of 1963) but which the film does not address was the fact that the taking of huge numbers of used notes inevitably led to the group taking their share of the loot in that form. We were not told how much was eventually seized but on the basis of the estimated £million divided by eight it would be £125K each. Nowadays, depending on which inflation index one uses, that would need to be, say, around £2.5 million and would need rather more than one suitcase each (see my later comment on a remake) but even the 1960 amount of physical cash would have posed difficult logistical problems for the robbers. Where to store it in the meantime and then how to deal with it, for instance. Even allowing for client confidentiality, banks and other financial institutions would, knowing that a huge robbery had taken place, be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at sudden appearances of large sums in previously threadbare or non-existent accounts. Few would mind the problem but it would need to be solved.Others have criticised the film for not allowing the crime to succeed though most accept that the moral climate at the time would not have permitted it. I think that that is true but I also think that it was not the only reason. If the film had stopped at the post-heist party with "Oh well, thanks for everything, gentlemen, enjoy the money" THE END, it would hardly have met the need for a strong ending. Really they had to be caught if only for dramatic effect.Finally, I can accept Colonel Hyde grubbing around in the sewers surrounding the bank (sadly, that manhole cover has gone now) in order to check on the subterranean situation but would he really have done so in evening dress and with his Rolls parked over the road advertising his presence? Oh, wait, though. He was very careless with his car numbers, wasn't he? Finally finally! I note the tediously inevitable call for a remake. For heaven's sake why? TLOG ain't perfect but what film is? PLEASE think of that ghastly remake of The Ladykillers and leave well alone.

One of the original five against the house films, this one set in Great Britain Ex soldiers use their skills to knock over a formidable source of money.In this case a bank.This succeeds where Ocean's Eleven failed miserably. Why? When one looks at these films, a person with any foresight can see that the project is one difficult to make interesting.It sounds interesting when five or six friends talk about the idea, but to the smartest in the group, it will look like what it is, a dead end.It's just hard to make something like this interesting.Five Against the House was fairly dull. Sinatra's original Ocean group was worse than boring. It was the pillar of tedium. And we know there were many charismatic actors in that film. It isn't the actors, it is the idea that is lame, and it requires superb writing and directing to make it even partly bearable.Hawkins and crew are an asset. This role really fits a presence like Hawkins more than a charismatic "everyman" like Sinatra.The writing and directing are what make this a success, though. In an urban situated film, it is extremely hard to find settings that aren't dull. Ocean's 11 failed horribly there.Here, we get some better scenery. Even the city shots are quick moving, with not too much emphasis on the ordinary or traffic. And much of it is during the dramatic smoke screen.The characters are way more interesting than Ocean's characters. And the plot is written better. We never knew what was going on in Ocean, but here, there is a logical, even if far fetched, course.In Ocean, we were expected to exalt some characters for no reason. It was as though they were in their own little world. The audience had to exalt them because they were Sinatra, Davis, Martin, Silva.But here, the characters don't put on airs, unless it is demanded. They come across as much more alive and identifiable, and a million times more interesting. Men of mystery are men of mystery because they don't act mysterious. Those who do look like goofballs.So while Ocean's goofballs fail, this group conjures up a bit of interest. You can actually watch the film start to finish. You can't do that with Ocean.

"Think of it as a full-scale military operation," says involuntarily retired Colonel Hyde (Jack Hawkins) to cashiered ex-major Race (Nigel Patrick). "What chance has a bunch of ordinary civilians have against a trained, armed and disciplined military group?" Hyde did not for one moment like being forced into retirement after 25 years in the British army. He spent the last few days of active duty doing some research among personnel files. Now, Hyde plans to get a bit of his own back...and Race, along with six other former officers, are going to be the means. The League of Gentlemen is a cynical, stylish, witty film about a bank heist carried out with the precision of a Swiss watch, all thanks to Hyde's meticulous research. Among the seven men he recruits are Race, charming, shrewd, imperturbable and a reliable second-in- command...even if he does tend to call people "old darling." Race was forced to resign his commission because of a bit of black marketeering. Mycroft (Roger Livesey) was a superb quartermaster who was discovered in a bit of gross indecency in a public place. Lexy (Richard Attenborough), a talented and crooked mechanic and whiz with radios, was found to be selling secrets to the Russians. Porthill (Bryan Forbes) is always resourceful and is now a gigolo, but was discovered to be shooting prisoners in Cyprus. The others all had problems with being weak, or being discovered as one of those whose love dare not be spoken of, or of being responsible for the deaths of men under them. But, as Hyde points out, they were all superbly trained officers and they all need money. Hyde brings them together with an anonymous invitation to lunch in the Maple Room of the elegant Cafe Royal. Included in the envelope is a copy of a book, The Golden Fleece, and half a five-pound note. After a fine lunch with a decent wine, brandy, cigars and the other half of the fiver, Hyde gets down to business. The mission? They will rob a very big and well- protected bank in the heart of central London, make off with at least 100,000 British pounds each and then live happily ever after. It will be called Operation Golden Fleece. With just a little reliance on greed, self-interest and perhaps a hint of coercion, he recruits them. Before long we're deep into training and organizing, setting up communications and stealing transport. In an amusing, tense sequence almost good enough to be a movie itself, they also bluff their way into an Army base and steal a substantial amount of arms. Do they actually pull off this complex heist that calls for split-second timing, nerves as cold as ice and flawless teamwork. Well, of course, and we get to watch it happen. Do they get away to lead a life of leisure? You'll need to see the movie. Be prepared for a very funny appearance by a twit of an old comrade of Hyde's, Bunny Warren (Robert Coote), and a twist which is handled with a stylish dollop of jaunty ruefulness. Jack Hawkins, with that rough voice and no-nonsense face, does a fine job as Hyde, a man who can see the amusement in having few illusions. There is quite a collection of first-rate British actors in the men around Hawkins and they all are excellent. Bryan Forbes also wrote the screenplay. He was a clever actor who wrote and directed some fine movies, among them The L-Shaped Room, Seance on a Wet Afternoon and King Rat.