Columbia Pictures | Release Date: September 20, 2002
8.7
USER SCORE
Universal acclaim based on 320 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
282
Mixed:
21
Negative:
17
Watch Now
Buy On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
3
virtualPresenceOct 7, 2016
I found out one very interesting fact about this film users review is "CONSISTENCY" ... all the negative critics users written are very very similar like:
- film too long (3.50h)
- film too boring - film has poor story The users which
I found out one very interesting fact about this film users review is "CONSISTENCY" ... all the negative critics users written are very very similar like:
- film too long (3.50h)
- film too boring
- film has poor story

The users which gave negative critics also pointed out some positive thing found in the film similar like:
- film has great photography (desert scenes/animal scenes camels, horses...)
- film has some great acting performances (but boring story and very long scenes spoiled my interest)

MY CONCLUSION:
Like the most of the negative user critics I had very similar experience. I was actually very disappointed because I've read so many good critics from users before I watched this film all saying it is EPIC film but as I watched it -> partially/fully overrated... It deserves only three stars and no more. I shoul next time read aso the negative critics before reading positive to see the difference. But likely the critics which are many places consistent and repetitive are likely "genuine critics" or real personal experience. Im not sure if all this positive critics found on board are "truly genuine critics" because film making is big money today much bigger then before we are talking of billions of $$$...so what to think... I learn every time something new... one has to seems read also the negative comments/ratings and if there is consistency there is great chance of genuine viewers experience it means I may also not like this film.... chances are 50-70%....
Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
2
massimobFeb 22, 2009
Ok, some visually stunning scene, but it was the landscape, the story meant nothing the acting was stiff, maybe I'm an idiot, too long , too melodramatic, I can't imagine this to be a great film, don't believe the hype, try Ok, some visually stunning scene, but it was the landscape, the story meant nothing the acting was stiff, maybe I'm an idiot, too long , too melodramatic, I can't imagine this to be a great film, don't believe the hype, try watching it more than once, you can't or you're deluding yourself. Expand
5 of 30 users found this helpful
3
Batman30512Jun 23, 2011
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, fansI 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
2 of 17 users found this helpful215
All this user's reviews
1
financialwarJan 20, 2017
three hours and 40 minutes of boredom. Do don't trust general review. these people are sheeps.

action scene are fake as ****, the blood is fake as, acting is fake, everything is fake.
0 of 5 users found this helpful05
All this user's reviews