Under Milk Wood (1992 TV Movie) User Reviews

No, it's the animated version!

[210west · 9/10 · 14 February 2014]

Apologies to the previous commenter, but he appears to have confused this 1992 50-minute cartoon version (which does indeed feature the voice of Richard Burton, narrating) with the 1972 movie version, whose cast, I gather, includes Burton, Elizabeth Taylor, Peter O'Toole, and a number of other well-known names.

For what it's worth, the animation in this version is beautiful, tasteful, and atmospheric, and it superbly complements Thomas's play (whose text, by the way, is considerably condensed). You could close your eyes and listen to his words alone with pleasure; you could also watch this animation with, say, the sound off and some appropriate music on, and chances are it might also be rather pleasant. Together, they make for a rewarding film.

I really wanted to like this, but. . . .

[lawrence81 · 22 February 2005]

It certainly had a great cast. But there were problems, big problems.

1. UNDER MILKWOOD was written as a "play for voices"--for the ratio. It was originally intended as being what we would call a 'pilot' for a series for the BBC about the goings-on in a small Welsh town where everybody is crazy--some people are mildly eccentric, at least two are right over the edge, and everybody else somewhere in between. It is a good piece for college and community theatre groups because, as a play for voices, there is minimal need for sets, costumes, props, etc., and by doubling roles one can do it with a fairly small cast.

Thomas drank himself to death before the BBC could pick it up. Why, then, would you make a FILM--a visual medium--of a RADIO PLAY--an audio medium? The whole idea was flawed from the beginning.

2. That being said, the performances were mostly very good, except for Elizabeth Taylor. She and Burton were a 'package deal' at the time. Her performance wasn't exactly BAD, but they cut so much of Rosie Probert's part from the original that one couldn't get a real sense of the character.

3. Which leads me to the next point. Why did they cut so much? And, if they made the cuts due to time constraints, why did they add the gratuitous sex scene with "Norma Jean", which had NOTHING to do with the play?