User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 211 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 13 out of 211

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 23, 2011
    3
    I watched this movie with no doubt that it would be as good as it was made out to be. It was in the top 10 of the AFI top 100 movies of all time, and it had received many 4 star reviews. About an hour into the film, I fell asleep. Now, fans of the film would say, "Oh, you can't handle the impact of a long epic film. You have a short attention span." Well, with me, that is not the case. But, on the subject of length, this film is almost four hours long. For the content displayed in this film, the running time was way too long. If Titanic can cram all the hefty things it needed in a matter of 3 hours, then this is no excuse. Nothing was happening. I mean, literally nothing. The screenplay needs a real doctor, because it has so much unneeded dialogue. It just procrastinated its way through, I think because it really had nothing more interesting. Director David lean is probably one of the best directors of all time, but in this film, you can tell that his and the producer's mind frame was "I wonder how many academy awards I can get through this film?" It wasn't made naturally, it was gargantuan for this point. I about turned off the movie when I saw a thirty second look at the desert landscape for about the millionth time. Yes, it does take place in the desert, but this movie was called "Lawrence of Arabia," not "The Arabian Desert." Which brings me to my next point: Peter O' Toole. I have seen him in many marvelous performances. I'm surprised he hasn't received an Oscar yet. But, his interpretation of Lawrence was so vague. You only saw the exterior, you never saw the interior. He gets a rush out of killing, yet we don't know why. i partially blame it on the script writers, but I also partially blame it on him. When you are an actor, you have to convey to the audience who you are, no matter how good or bad the script is. he is playing the character that embodies the whole movie. It is solely about him, and he doesn't sell that. Now, I'm not going to bash everything just because I don't like the film, but i will compliment Alec Guinness for his outstanding but short performance as Prince Feisal, Maurice Jarre for the superb score, and the editing. Sorry to burst the bubble of the "Lawrence of Arabia" fans, but I really think this film is overrated, and that it is not as good as it is made out to be. That is my opinion on "Lawrence of Arabia." Expand
Metascore
100

Universal acclaim - based on 7 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 7
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 7
  3. Negative: 0 out of 7
  1. In short, they don't make 'em like this one anymore. Viewing it is like taking a time machine to a movie age that was more naive than our own in some ways, more sophisticated and ambitious in others.
  2. 100
    What a bold, mad act of genius it was, to make Lawrence of Arabia, or even think that it could be made.
  3. It's perhaps only because it can't be seen in its full glory on television that "Lawrence" isn't ranked more highly on some recent all-time "best film" lists. But it belongs near the very top. It's an astonishing, unrepeatable epic.