Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Console best movie i've ever seen.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Khun Kru Mark A riveting version of the famous socialist J B Priestly morality play by the BBC. It was originally broadcast as a three-part serial in the summer of 1982 but is much more enjoyable if viewed as a 'movie'... and a watchable version is currently available on YouTube as I write this (2018).Set in 1912 as the build-up to 'The Great War' was in motion, it can be seen politically as a warning of what war will bring and also socially as how a young, spirited and attractive, working-class girl (who we never see) is discarded by the middle classes.As the doors slowly open and the servants traipse out, we are invited into the world of an upper-middle-class dinner party. Things are going well... there is an engagement to celebrate and the future of better business relations between two competing families.Capitalism is about to be put on the trail when a mysterious Detective Goole arrives and holds the members of the family up to scrutiny as it emerges that a girl has killed herself by drinking cleaning fluid. Yikes! What a horrible way to go!The irony of the screenplay may escape some younger viewers but even if you don't 'get' every reference it's still a magnificent and captivating TV play. As each member of the wealthy family is shown to have, in some way, contributed to the demise of the poor girl, the family 'unit' quickly breaks down.The players are all exceptional and the theatrical delivery makes for an absorbing 90 minutes.

Robert J. Maxwell This is a nicely presented version of J. B. Priestley's 1945 play about class distinctions, exploitation, and the nature of communal guilt.Here is this stately family sitting around the dinner table in 1912. There's the pater familias, Mr. Berling, his starchy wife Sybil, his pretty daughter Shiela, his quietly drunk young son Eric, and the ambitious suitor for Shiela's hand, Gerald Croft. Then the doorbell of the mansion rings and the maids usher in a police inspector named Goole, who has come to make some inquiries about the rather nasty suicide of a poor young lady a a few hours ago. None of the diners have heard of her. But by the time the inspector is finished with his questions, the family is in turmoil and their bonds shredded.It's a powerful play. One by one, the guests are questioned and it's revealed that each of them had in some serial way contributed to the girl's death. Mr. Berling had fired her for participating in a strike at his factory. Shiela had had her fired from a boutique out of jealousy. Croft, the suitor, had taken up with her and had an affair for some months before ending it, although the girl was in love with him. The weak son Eric had picked her up when she was down and impregnated her before stealing some money and sending her on her way. Mrs. Berling, head of a community organization for poverty stricken ladies in trouble, had turned her away. Each person, without knowing it, and without knowing of the involvement of the others, had contributed to the girl's horrible death.Inspector Goole leaves, warning them that if people don't take care of each other, there will be fire, blood, and anguish -- an anticipation of the war that was to break out two years later.The family is baffled. Goole seemed to know everything before asking. His manner was a bit impudent. A phone call to the chief of police reveals that there is no Inspector Goole on the force and the relieved family convince themselves that it was all a hoax and now they can resume their usual personae and treat those of lesser status with the usual disdain. Except for daughter Shiela and guilty son Eric, who accept their responsibilities in the chain of events that led to the death of an attractive and highly principled young lady of no particular means. Then there's another call -- This is pretty well acted. Bernard Hempton as the inspector is the epitome of cool. He never smiles or rambles on but he's perceptive and controls his environment. Perhaps the best performance -- because it's just plan outrageous -- is that of Nigel Davenport as the cigar-smoking elderly father who dominates the family. The contempt in his tone when he speak about the working classes is superlative.

howardmorley Previously I have seen a professional West End production of this play at the Charing Cross theatre as well as owning a DVD of the celebrated Alistair Sim 1954 filmed version of J.B. Priestley's classic tale of morality.I am not as severe as the other user's comments about "the girl" who has committed suicide by imbibing cleaning fluid.We must all meet people, some of whom may meet tragic ends.Are we therefore responsible for their ultimate demise?It was a well acted professional TV play and I recognised every actor except those who played the son & daughter.Margaret Tyzack from her days playing in the early 70s Forsyte saga, Nigel Davenport from his portrayal of the Duke of Norfolk in a "Man for All Seasons" (1966) and Simon Ward for his uncanny representation of "The Young Winston" (1971).I rated it 8/10.

benosler You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.This production of Priestley's classic play is billed as a "TV Movie" on IMDb; it's not. It is really more of a Television Play of the type that we saw with "Play of The Week" or ITV's "Armchair Theatre" in the 70s and 80s. If you want to see a film of this story then you are better off watching the 1954 version with the very wonderful Alastair Sim in the lead role. This is not meant as a criticism of this production. I like that sort of thing myself, a staged play that one would see in the theatre with the slight difference that instead of seeing it from a static point of view one sees it through the camera's lens albeit a fairly static camera.The cast are all good especially Bernard Hepton who plays The Inspector and Simon Ward who has the role of Gerald Croft. Neither Sarah Berger who plays the young daughter Sheila Berling nor Margaret Tyzack who plays her mother Sybil Berling are names that I recognise but they both do a good job of acting as do Nigel Davenport and David Sibley who play the father and son respectively.All in all it's a very entertaining production. Generally I've found Priestley's work to be politically questionable and morally objectionable however and this play is no exception. It might appeal to a Collectivist but Libertarian Individualists like myself are not so easily fooled.Priestley's main point is that we are all responsible for what happens to others and I think this is socialist-Marxist collective clap-trap. We are all individuals. The girl who is supposed to have killed herself was given more than enough help to have pulled her own socks up. Why when she was set up in a flat and given money the first time around did she not take the opportunity to start up a small business or other entrepreneurial venture so that she had something for the future and even after having another affair out of wedlock and becoming pregnant when she is given money by the would be father she apparently spends it on a holiday at the seaside "so she can remember the good times" and then refuses to take more because she knows it is stolen.Birling dismisses her for being a "trouble-maker". Well as an employer wasn't he perfectly within his rights do do so? Maybe she was a trouble-maker. Then Gerald Croft sets her up in "rooms" that he has at his disposal, rent-free and generously gives her some money. True - he eventually takes that all away at the conclusion of his summer fling but she knowing that that would happen, why didn't she put something away for a rainy day? Why didn't she look for any old job and more humble accommodation so that she could be self sufficient after the gift horse has bolted? The Inspector's "holier than thou" attitude and suggestion that everyone at the dinner table that evening was in their own way morally responsible for the girl's downfall is nonsense and it's interesting to note that the first production of this play was staged in Soviet Russia in 1945, five years after Priestley had broadcast left-wing propaganda for the BBC that (according to Wikipedia) had "...influenced the birth of the Welfare State".Also interesting is the fact that "Priestley's name was on Orwell's list, a list of people which George Orwell prepared in March 1949 for the Information Research Department, a propaganda unit set up at the Foreign Office by the Labour government. Orwell considered these people to have pro-communist leanings and therefore to be inappropriate to write for the IRD" (Wikipedia). How's that for the pot calling the kettle "black".The play is supposed to be a critique of the class system but this is unfair and twisted. The rich Birling Family are cast as the "baddies" who pray on the poor working class girl when in fact the opposite is true. Mr Birling, a mill owner, is providing employment and goods at risk of his own capital and the "poor working class girl" makes trouble for him so she loses her job and then she is generously provided for by not one but two young men. In short she looks for a handout, gets it twice over and blows it just like many of today's scroungers who complain about their lot as they sit in furnished council houses in front of 42 inch colour televisions all paid for by the Birlings of this world.Politics aside, this is still a most enjoyable production and well worth watching if it's not taken too seriously although getting hold of a commercial copy from mainstream sources doesn't seem possible. It has not been released on DVD and probably never will be.