After watching the Terence Rattigan DVD collection (with most of the adaptations being from the 70s and 80s) when staying with family friends last year, Rattigan very quickly became one of my favourite playwrights and he still is. His dialogue is so intelligent, witty and meaty, his characterisation so dynamic, complex and real and the storytelling so beautifully constructed.

'The Winslow Boy' is along with 'The Browning Version' and 'Separate Tables' one of Rattigan's best, containing all of the above and also showing his gift of giving his principal characters an emotional and psychological complexity in a real life situation (if not quite as much as 'The Browning Version'). This 1999 film is not as good as the 1970s version, with Alan Badel and Eric Porter, or especially the 1948 film (one of the definitive film adaptations of any of Rattigan's plays),but it is still very good with a lot to recommend.

Rattigan is not easy to adapt, not necessarily the language but more how to get his themes across, how to maintain momentum in the dialogue when so dialogue heavy, the danger of being too stage bound and how to make the story (which may be to some somewhat slight and old-fashioned now) appeal to a more modern audience. Director David Mamet surprisingly overcomes all of those things here. Am saying surprisingly because this is an atypical effort for Mamet, where he usually touches upon darker and heavier subjects like con artists and their tricks and any kind of lowlife, so there was the worry as to whether he would be suited for so very different material.

He not only directs with ease, with understanding of the style and near-perfect direction of his actors, but he also adapts Rattigan's script and does it in a way that's thought-provoking, literate, witty and emotionally powerful, sometimes tense. 'The Winslow Boy' is not quite perfect, though it is a film with little wrong with it. Rattigan's insights into class, society and hypocrisy was brought out more strongly, being clearer and sharper, in the 1948 film. Most of the acting is wonderful, but both Desmond and John's parts were written and acted rather dully, meaning that one doesn't feel as sorry for Desmond or grow to loathe John in his treatment of Catherine as one would like.

On the other hand, 'The Winslow Boy' is very well made, with gleamingly beautiful cinematography by Benoît Delhomme and the costumes and interiors are sumptuous and rich and evocative in detail. Alaric Jans' music score is used only when it needs to be and is sweeping and understated and never intrusive.

Mamet's adapting of Rattigan's writing is remarkably well done as said above, while the characters are complex and alive to nuances in a way that would make Merchant and Ivory proud. The character dynamic is spot on too, especially in the classic interrogation scene between Morton and Ronnie (the most powerful scene in the play, the same applies here) and the witty exchanges between Morton and Catherine, particularly the climactic ones. The story is deliberately but tightly paced, and the slight structure doesn't feel so when the writing and characterisation is so riveting and that story-wise and how we are told a lot that it actually feels like a lot happens.

Regarding the question as to whether the film and Rattigan's style would appeal to a modern audience, speaking as a modern viewer myself, I'd say why not if given a chance and knowing what you're in for before watching. Mamet actually does a good job respecting the essence of the source material and also doing enough to try and attract a wider audience, also succeeding in what could easily come over as old-fashioned on-screen fresh and fascinating.

Expecting the roles of Desmond and John, the performances are wonderful. Jeremy Northam and Nigel Hawthorne are especially good. There was the worry as to whether Northam would be too young for Morton, but this quickly evaporates when the wit, authority, coolness and cold fish aspects of the character are brought out brilliantly by Northam, shining particularly in the interrogation scene and the climactic moments. Hawthorne is dignified and moving as the patriarch Arthur, one does identify with his want to clear his son and have a lot at stake to prove it.

Gemma Jones, always reliable, is cast perfectly, as is appealing Guy Edwards. Rebecca Pidgeon has garnered a mixed reception seemingly here, to me she brought out the charm and outspoken shrewdness of Catherine very well and just about avoids being too much of a snob.

In conclusion, not one of the adaptations of Rattigan but still very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

This is an adaptation of a play by David Mamet. He also directs. Unusually it does not feature con artists, a favourite area that Mamet likes to re-visit.

The film where a family wants to clear the name of their almost 14 year old boy who has been dismissed from the naval academy for stealing a postal order is all about performances, there is very little visual trickery but good use is made of sets, lighting, music and direction.

The actors are very much at the fore of the performance with Jeremy Northam as the Barrister delivering the goods as someone who believes in the boy's innocence but seems distant and uninvolved.

In some cases he got the role of the barrister in the pre World War 2 era very much spot on. It is all about the law and proving your case.

Nigel Hawthorne does well as the father of the family who might be on the edge of financial ruin as he fights to clear his son's name. It might be viewed that Hawthorne would be too old to play a father of a 14 year old lad although his other children are older.

Rebecca Pidgeon who in other roles comes across as uninspired especially when she plays tough Americans is more comfortable here as the radical sister of the accused. She also suffers loss as her engagement is broken because of the fight to clear her brother's name.

It is a brave undertaking to adapt a Terence Rattigan play for the big screen and Mamet has done very well in making the film watchable and highlighting the mores of the time.

Good reviews, and seeing that David Mamet wrote the screenplay and directed, made me to see this film so I rented it and, of course, was disappointed. In a nutshell, it was boring and it feature a very annoying lead character in "Catherine Winslow" (Rebecca Pidgeon). Her feminist agenda was a little too strong to swallow, like Kate Winslet's super-irritating role in "The Titanic." It's not a bad film, just not interesting enough and one of those movies that after an hour, you realize you don't care about any of the major characters.

One thing I did appreciate: the dry humor. In fact, it was refreshingly dry. (I've always appreciate sarcasm, unless it's too strong against by beliefs, of course!) It's also a period costume film, set in the early 1900s, an era I like.

One question: why wasn't this the courtroom drama it was supposed to be? Instead, we get all this feminist agenda and stupid romance between two idiots. Also, it's supposed to also center around the title - the Winslow boy. Where was he? He took a backseat, far back in this stagy yawner.

Mamet's "Hannibal," "The Spanish Prisoner," and "Ronin" are all far superior work to this one.