CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

sijoe22 I saw this movie DECADES before I saw "Chips" so maybe I'm prejudice, but I think it's better nonetheless.After the success of "Chips," I'll bet studio went scrambling to find a similar book to make a film of, and this was it. They, did- it was based on Thomas Hughes' novel, TOM BROWNS SCHOOL DAYS. (But it receives NO credit in the movie- what happened there?) Characters and acting all top notch. Kind of a sad movie, especially when poor Tom is ostracized for something he didn't do. Many American actors were used, but their fake British accents weren't bad at all. (I thought they were REAL ENGLISHMEN for years.) Has a somewhat happy ending I guess, though it takes a great man's death to cause it.Might contain the worst "stunt double" scene in movie history- when Tom steals cart, look closely - his "double" is about thirty years older than him! I submitted this in the "Goof" section to no avail.I recommend this movie to everyone of all ages.

JohnHowardReid "Tom Brown's School Days": A novel? A memoir? An autobiography? I think the third is the best description of this schoolboy's time at Rugby, written by "an old boy". Thomas Hughes was not identified as the author of the book until around the time he was re-elected to the House of Commons in 1871. (He had been a member of parliament since 1864). By that time, Doctor Arnold was long dead, but his educational ideas persisted in the British education system until well into the 1960s. However, he is not a major character in the novel. Indeed, he is a somewhat shadowy figure, remote from Tom's immediate world. It was the 1916 movie version that elevated Arnold's importance, and following that lead, it is our 1940 version that virtually makes the influential educationalist the central character.However, I don't think that elevating Arnold's importance detracts from the movie. Far from it! As brilliantly brought to life by Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Arnold is indeed a fascinating, charismatic figure. Hardwicke is not only ideally cast, he rejoices in the best role of his extensive career, demonstrating how he can not only capture an audience's attention and sympathy, but how he can totally dominate the action if given the right script and director.Nevertheless, the supporting players, led by Billy Halop, also turn in outstanding performances. This was probably the only totally unsympathetic role Halop ever played, but he limns the character with a skill that simply rivets the attention. His is the definitive study of a swaggering bully. Of course, Jimmy Lydon never bettered his role as Tom Brown. Freddie Bartholomew is also solidly convincing as East, and there are fine studies from Polly Moran, Josephine Hutchinson, Ernest Cossart and Charles Smith (who was soon to prove Lydon's mainstay in the Aldrich movies).Adroitly directed by Robert Stevenson, and most expansively produced with marvelous sets and evocative photography, this version of Tom Brown's School Days is not only a really gripping, stirring experience, it's an absolute must-see movie – a credit to all concerned!

MartinHafer As an American, I didn't have the privilege of growing up in a British boarding school. So, regular beatings, hazings and the like are something I did not have the fortune to experience first-hand. Considering what I saw in this film, I think I can live without that privilege."Tom Brown's School Days" is about an enlightened headmaster (Cedric Hardwicke) and his attempts to create a school based on honesty, tradition and regular beatings administered by staff and not fellow students. While Hardwicke is against bullying and dishonesty, I did find his regular lashings of the boys to be a bit hypocritical. But, in this film he's supposed to be the model of decency and integrity--which makes me assume other educators of the day regularly killed their kids!! All sarcasm aside, the film is watchable and mildly entertaining. Harwicke was a wonderful actor and so I would recommend you see it if only to watch him. As for the rest, it's a decent time-passer. However, the ending seemed VERY anticlimactic and incomplete--the reason why I only scored this one a 5.

Atreyu_II This film is not the first screen adaption of the classic story of Tom Brown's schooldays. There is actually a version made in 1916 which I never saw but even if I could, sincerely I wouldn't bother with it. It's too old even for me and it's silent (I dislike silent movies).The 1940 version was therefore the first version with sound and the first "true" version. It was directed by Robert Stevenson who'd become famous years later for directing several Disney films such as 'Old Yeller', 'Mary Poppins', 'The Gnome-Mobile', 'The Love Bug', 'Herbie Rides Again' and 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks'.I got to know 3 versions of "Tom Brown's Schooldays": 1940, 1951 and 2005. There is also a 1971 version as a TV show but I never saw it. Of all the versions I got to know, my favorite is the one from 1951. It's a very rare case of a remake that's better than the original (even if it's possibly not as faithful to the book than the 1940 version) and therefore more watchable. But the 1940 film is not bad, it is actually a decent alternative. The 2005 version is fairly weak, no matter how hard they tried.Sir Cedric Hardwicke plays the charismatic Dr. Thomas Arnold with wiseness and class. I like him as Dr. Arnold as much as Robert Newton when it comes to acting, although in this version he is more prone to expelling boys and more intolerant in certain things. As a person, I prefer the more sympathetic Dr. Arnold played by Robert Newton.John Howard Davies is my favorite Tom Brown, but I also like this version's Tom Brown sentimentally played by Jimmy Lydon. If you ask me, Jimmy Lydon makes a different Tom Brown but equally likable and interesting.I have mixed feelings about East in this version. Even if he is greatly played by Freddie Bartholomew, the character himself isn't always very sympathetic. In the 1951 version, East is nicer and friendlier to Tom if still occasionally selfish.Billy Halop is an interesting choice as Flashman, as good as the actor in the 1951 version, just different. Comparing to the 1951 version, Flashman is generally less intimidating although almost as vicious.This version seems more detailed and realistic than the others in some ways and yet not as detailed in other aspects. The beginning is considerably different and many events happen much sooner and quicker than in other versions, which also makes its last 30 minutes different from other versions - with stuff missing in them. Having that said, this version has similarities with the others too.