Leofwine_draca I was primarily interested in watching MORGAN: A SUITABLE CASE FOR TREATMENT because it was the film that made David Warner famous, and I've enjoyed watching Warner's acting work over the years. Roles like the ones in STRAW DOGS and THE OMEN have made him one of those criminally underrated actors who really should have been as well known as the big shots.Sadly, this unworkable mental illness comedy must have been dated on release, although I understand it has a reputation as a cult film. I can't work out why. I don't mind stupid humour, and I actively like surreal humour, but the stuff that goes on in this film is random and pointless. Warner dresses up as a gorilla, wanders around a bit, smashes some stuff in his room, and goes on various escapades. In between there's a lot of dated dialogue in the form of cod psychological debates and the like. It seems to trivialise mental illness a lot and the execution is so poor it can't be taken seriously.It doesn't help that the film was shot in black and white, making it look cheap and old-fashioned; some colour would have better brought the decade to life. Warner does his best with the material, but the likes of Vanessa Redgrave seem stuffy and too focused on acting without feeling natural doing so. I did enjoy seeing supporting roles for the likes of Bernard Bresslaw, Irene Handl, and Graham Crowden, but that's just about all I got out of it.

MrOllie Karel Reisz directed "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" which people went to see at the cinema in droves, and was enjoyed by many working class folk. Karel Reisz also directed "Morgan: A Suitable Case For Treatment" which far fewer people went to see at the cinema, and I feel was much less appealing to the working class viewer. I suspect that those who did see it and found it a hoot, where most likely to be middle class lefties and students. Because I am neither a middle class lefty or have ever been a student, I didn't find it a hoot at all. In fact I found David Warner's character Morgan, extremely irritating and annoying, him being a grown man acting like a badly behaved child. Although, in todays world grown men acting like badly behaved children are sadly accepted by society and are not deemed to require treatment. The Inbetweeners for example. I watched Morgan again recently, and it was nice to see Irene Handl and Arthur Mullard. I like the nostalgia of 1960's British films (even rubbish ones like this)and enjoyed seeing a youthful fresh faced Vanessa Redgrave. This lady was the reason I took out a short lived subscription of "The Workers Revolutionary Party" newspaper, way back in the early 1970's. I always intended to go to one of their meetings in the hope I might meet her, but never ever got around to attending one. Morgan was certainly not for me. If I have to watch so called slapstick comedy such as this (minus the political stuff) then give me a Norman Wisdom film anytime.

edwagreen What some men will go through in order to win their ex- wife back forms the basis for this 1966 film farce.David Warner gives quite a display as the rejected husband who shall resort to just about anything to get his recently divorced wife, Vanessa Redgrave, in a totally ridiculous Oscar nominated performance by her, to get her to return to him.Warner goes completely berserk in the film,wire tapping and doing all sorts of mayhem.Redgrave comes from a rich family and how she ever had married the Warner character, a pure bred Communist, is beyond me. Irene Handl as his mother is effective in attempting to understand his off- the-wall behavior.The picture just goes from one crazy routine to another and the emulation of King Cong by its end is most ridiculous at best. The ending at the asylum with the hammer and sickle, symbols of Communism is most appropriate. It's just that someone should have taken a hammer and sickle to the entire movie.

pterzian I was moderately charmed by 'Morgan' when I first saw it in 1966, partly because it afforded a (romanticized) view of Swinging London and it has its absurdist moments. Watching it again after 42 years, however, I was repelled by Morgan's vandalism and obsessive behavior--we would now call it stalking--and the seeming helplessness of the people he is determined to harass. Morgan's 'eccentricity' wears very thin very quickly, and he becomes tedious and offensive; in the end, one longs for him to be punished and suffer. Stuffed shirts like his nemesis Charles Napier are always cinema villains, but I found him sympathetic under the circumstances. Irene Handl, as always, is delightful as Morgan's long-suffering, class conscious, Marxist mum, and we see Vanessa Redgrave before her Madame DeFarge period. In the end, a waste of David Warner's considerable (comic) talents.