While I agree that Heston wasn't as good a fit for More as Scofield, one thing I did like about this version was its fidelity to the full play. The original cinematic version strayed from it, especially from the device of having Matthew/the Common Man play multiple roles throughout.

I also found that some of the other characters were better developed here: Henry VIII demonstrated more of the desire for More's approval than Shaw's performance; Cromwell was much more conniving and shrewd; Rich was more weak and duplicitous even than Hurt's portrayal.

I think most of the comments for this film are rather unfair. Unfair to the actor Charlton Heston and unfair to the film itself. Please let me explain:

It seems to me a sort of "England, England!" thing is standing in the way of a fair and objective comment on this film (as if I could give one...).
Even though Charlton Heston has sunk very much in my esteem since "Bowling for Columbine" I feel I need to set the record straight (for my own peace of mind): This film is great, and believe you me, I am a Scofield fan (I simply adored him in the 1966 version of this film as well as in the 1994 Martin Chuzzlewit television film/mini-series).

But to do away with this 1988 version of Heston as a failed attempt to improve on Fred Zinneman is not only an unfair comparison but also a foolish one.
To begin with: Heston's version is far closer and more true to Robert Bolt's play than is the Fred Zinneman version. In addition, Heston's performance, although more obviously dramatical than that of Scofield, is more passionate. The scene in which he thrashes Roper and stands for his daughter Meg is simply the greatest ("They put about too nimbly!!!"), as is his performance with the Duke of Norfolk when they discuss water spaniels.
Next to Heston, the performance of his fellow actors should not be discarded.

Roy Kinnear, bless his soul, is brilliant as the common man (a Robert Bolt invention that stayed alive in this version but was left out of the 1966 Zinneman production)

In addition, the role of the king is played simply brilliantly by Martin Chamberlain. The scene in More's garden is a scene that will never be mastered.

Vanessa Redgrave gives one of her finest performances as More's wife. The scene in the Tower where they part for the last time is always tearing me apart! (Oh God, all these plain simple men!)

And of course the roles of the "two ugly ladies" Benjamin Withrow and Jonathan Hackett are delicious and not to be found anywhere so great in the 1966 Zinneman version.

So I beg you: Please be fair, enjoy the Zinneman version, but also take the time to (learn to) appreciate Heston's version. The man has his faults, but just appreciate that what he has done right!

I love this story, as a fragment of history (such as we know of it), as a dramatic work by a fine playwright and in both extant film productions. The 1966 film directed by Zinnemann is a wonderful filmic reworking of the play with some noble acting and art direction. It retains the essence of the story whilst changing 'operatically' the angle, rather like Milos Forman has done with Peter Schaffer's "Amadeus". Heston's TV film, on the other hand, sticks rather more closely to the play, in both script and format and succeeds equally well. This isn't a 'remake'; rather, it is a new approach in its own right. Both films are valid additions to the canon. Heston was, indeed, a great actor who was more than equal to this task; all too often he has been the target of 'casting snobs'. Finally, the late Roy Kinnear's contribution as the 'Common Man' (a part not featured as such in the 1966 film, Colin Blakely as More's servant, Matthew being the closest comparable) is a little gem!

If you were expecting something similar to the Oscar-winning 'Man for All Seasons' starring Paul Scofield, Orson Welles and co., you will not find it here. Sometimes remakes can be wonderful, and sometimes they can add a fresh interpretation to time-honoured themes and stories; alas, such is not the case here.

Charleton Heston is woefully mis-cast as the principled and intelligent Thomas More; Heston is a very good actor, and has done such a range of characters that it is not that I see a Moses or Michelangelo here - it just doesn't work. I freely confess that it may be that the Scofield performance is too much locked in my consciousness, but then again, I am one who usually likes remakes...

Another element here is Sir John Gielgud, who is one of my favourite actors by far. Unfortunately, he just doesn't have enough screen-time or involvement in the overall plot to save this piece. Vanessa Redgrave as Lady Alice is also another terrific actor mis-cast; Redgrave's stunning performances in film and on stage (I've been fortunate to see her in several West End productions) have something that isn't present here.

The minor casting of important figures like Richard Rich, Henry VIII and Cranmer also pale so far from the original film casting that the less said here, the better.

I give one star for reasonable sets and production values, and a second star for having the presence of mind to recall this wonderful Bolt play and screenplay and try to revive it for a new generation of viewers. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work here.

Okay, let's step back a moment and review what we have here. The original of this movie was named Best Picture and it's lead actor, Paul Scofield, was named best actor. The original is heralded as one of the best movies ever made. In short, the original comes about as close to perfection as a movie can.

So why even attempt a remake? What is to be gained? A better question might be, "what is to be lost?"

Much! This remake doesn't even come remotely close to what was achieved by the original. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, the remake, is a movie that had no business being made.

Charlton Heston as Thomas More? Not a patch to Scofield's performance. In fact as Chuck's performance continued, I found myself whispering to myself the lines from a far better Heston acting effort, THE AGONY AND THE ECSTASY, "When will you make an end, Michelangelo?" Heston's performance here was pure agony! John Gielgud, as Cardinal Wolsey, can't even begin to touch the hem of the robes worn by Orson Welles who defined and mastered this role in the original. And it's incredibly bizarre, as well, that Vanessa Redgrave, who cameoed nicely the part of Anne Boleyn in the original, wouldn't know better about assuming the role of Lady Alice More and falling considerable short of the original performance of Wendy Hiller.

The rest of the cast is equally miscast as they attempt to fill shoes of veritable "Who's Who" of British and American Cinema, shoes so big that none of them had a chance from the beginning. But, again, how do you compete with or remake a movie that was perfect to begin with?

Don't waste your time with this flop. The original is still with us and available on DVD and here's hoping it ever will be!

The Horseman