Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A Masterpiece!

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The acting in this movie is really good.

I was looking forward to getting my teeth into this film because the plot sounded so unusual, freaky, curious and interesting. For the first half hour or so I really enjoyed it but after that point I began to realise I was watching a film with 2 main story lines (rather than a main plot plus sub plots).The 2 were plots were: The story of Alan (the patient who had attacked the horses) and; The story of Martin, the therapist treating him. For me, the plots opposed rather than complimented each other and I found myself enjoying the film when it focused on Alan. His character and his interactions with his family and Jenny Agutter's character were all very interesting.However, this interesting story line kept getting interrupted by soliloquies by the therapist that I felt were melodramatic and I just kept wanting to tell him to lighten up. These speeches direct to the camera, as well as his scenes with his therapist friend, were all just about him being miserable and moaning about everything. I know the whole idea was to show how much the patient had had an affect on the therapist as what the therapist had had on the patient but for me it just slowed the whole story down and added a large dose of unnecessary melodrama. So for me half of the film was really good and the other half was really dull.

In Psychology 101, I had to chose two books and their accompanying movies to write a college thesis on. Although not on the professor's list, I chose, and, was allowed, this, "Equus;" (and, "Wild At Heart" (1990)).This 1973 play by Peter Shaffer is based upon a real incident that happened near Suffolk, England, where a young man blinded six horses. No more information on that was given.Peter Shaffer heard of this incident and based his play (hence, the subsequent movie) upon this; added many details; and, it became a great play/movie/story.Shaffer's story is about an abused young man, Alan Strang, who mentally confuses his father's domination (apparently, with the Romans) and his mother's obsession with God (apparently, with the oppressed) to salvation and safety with a picture of Jesus wearing 'chains' and a crown of thorns, bleeding, and, with tears coming from his "EYES!" Unknowingly, as he prayed to this picture, there is a nearby picture of a horse that he sees, too, wearing what he perceives as 'chains' (the bridle); and, he confuses this 'horse' with 'Jesus;' and, 'Jesus' with this 'horse.' Thereafter, later, whence trying to make love in a horse stable... the picture of Jesus, along with his horse picture, "BOTH" as 'his' confused image of Jesus come to memory and tell him "NO" (through guilt and re-confusing his dad and mom with this horse picture and 'Jesus' icon also saying "NO!") - he goes berserk and blinds six horses (thorn-like) to get back at his 'confused representation' of Jesus for not allowing him to make love to a young woman..."NOT THE HORSES themselves!" The horses were only 'his' REPRESENTATION and MANIFESTATION of Jesus...'HIS' Jesus! He wanted to get back at and hurt 'Jesus' for his own sexual inadequacies and inability to please a young lady whom he likes. The horses were only his accidental interpretation and representation of Jesus through confusion...his icon of Jesus.The complexities of this story is why I chose it in college. An abused young man with a domineering dad and a religious-freak mom who confuses safety in and with a picture of Jesus and a picture of a horse and Jesus!?!? He wanted to exact pain upon 'his' Jesus...the horses!?!? I received an "A" for the thesis, and, what I wrote here is a 'generalization.' To get more detailed, I'd need ten to 20 more pages. This is what makes this play and movie so remarkable...its complexity. So many scenarios and possibilities, as well as so much information, is crammed into this story; and, regardless of your moral; ethical; religious; and/or political views..."THIS," what I wrote here, is the 'psychiatric' view, and, what really happened in this movie.Although a product of many conflicting stimuli, this young man, Alan Strang (or, anyone even remotely like him), needs to be placed into a psychiatric hospital so that the next victim isn't some innocent 'girl' who he confuses with Mary Magdelene; The Virgin Mary; or, even, Mary King the Olympic Equestrian! This is a great psychiatric voyage into the mind of a Freudian Dream; and, of the psychiatrist who attempts to help him.

This is the predictable over-the-top dramatic tosh that they dished up in the early heyday of Larry's 'National Theatre', when the all-male literati still ruled London. It's loaded with all the required themes: paganism, devil worship, bestiality, Biblical delusions and psychiatry, but what it's really about is why men hate and fear a naked, willing woman, something that the production itself reinforces. A far more interesting topic, IMO, would be how women put up with screwed-up men like Alan Strang (Firth). But that would never do, would it. It's a man's world, and it's Strang who is "feeling pain", not Jill Mason (Agutter), the woman he treated brutally, before deflecting his impotent rage on to his kinky hang-up: horses. And a brilliant doctor has been persuaded to treat Strang, not Mason, who surely requires post-traumatic stress therapy. Author Shaffer cleverly introduces an ironical second layer of plot when shrink Dr Dysart (Burton) reveals that he is jealous of the madman Strang, who may be barmy, but at least he has "known passion", unlike the prosaic doctor. Probably only a cabal of gays could come up with such utter rubbish and win glittering prizes for it. But that was a generation ago, and Equus has slipped into well-deserved obscurity since then.

Based on Peter Shaffer's play, "Equus" revolves around a crime in which a young boy stabs six horses, graphically puncturing their eyes with a metal spike. It's up to Richard Burton, a local psychiatrist, to find out why the kid did what he did.Unfortunately, the film is more interesting to think about than to view. Themes of sexuality, religion and freedom all swirl about, but always in the form of conversations and dialogue. The result is a very claustrophobic and difficult to watch film.Director Sidney Lumet has adapted many stage-plays for film, but this one is simply too dark to be much fun viewing. The notion that a boy would transpose religion onto the face of a horse, the watching eyes of the animal becoming a substitute for the oppression of God, is interesting, but the film lacks energy. 6/10- Jenny Agutter, who made a career out of playing sexy characters, is very good here, but the rest of the cast is rather bland. Most interesting is the decision to place Agutter in a skintight horse riding outfit. Why is she always placed in fetish gear? Her school uniform in "Walkabout", her nurse's uniform in "An American Werewolf in London", her horse riding outfit in "Equus", her skimpy clothes in "Logan's Run", her German frocks in "The Eagle has Landed" etc etc. Her whole career is littered with roles in which she is reduced to a fetish doll.