Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Bribaba There aren't too many whimsical comedies with a Trotskyite sub text, so for that alone let us give thanks, but there's a whole lot more to enjoy here. Vanessa Redgrave for one, looking wonderful as the posh girl who dumps her eccentric husband in favour of stability, shows a real gift for light comedy, Karel Reisz's direction is always inventive and makes good use of inserts from King Kong and Tarzan, and then there's the world's most wonderful couple: Arthur Mullard and Irene Handl.Warner's performance as Morgan depends how you feel about children who refuse to grow up, though he does become more sympathetic eventually. The Trotsky element comes from writer David Mercer, a renowned playwright and communist of the day and though class figures prominently in the film, it is never didactic. The screenplay is based on a TV play he'd wrote and in a unusual reversal of roles was watered down somewhat for the cinema. The ending turns into the full-blown surrealism that always threatened and there's a great, almost-last line from the Morgan himself: "I've gone all furry".

wuxmup Four stars because even though I remember the '60s, I definitely was there. Morgan! was a hot ticket back then, said to be one of the most brilliant wacky satires ever filmed.The reason: stylish and quirky direction, elegant and very fashionable Vanessa Redgrave, energetic David Warner, the exact opposite in looks and behavior of the Hollywood leading man.Unfortunately, that isn't enough to make a decent movie, though millions wanted to believe it was. The alleged humor isn't "over-the-top," it's forced and artificial. There is nothing engaging about the title character: he really is insane and potentially dangerous. His wife's love-hate relationship with him (make that "amusement-hate") is not only inexplicable by reason, it doesn't even contribute to the plot (such as it is). It's just a circumstance that wants to wow you but doesn't. The Trotskyite-Stalinist feud between Morgan and his mom seems like another pointless gimmick, though I suppose making an English Communist the main character near the height of the Cold War was calculated to give the movie some kind of edgy, transgressive feel. Like most everything else here, however, it becomes tedious and annoying after the first fifteen minutes.If you can possibly stay awake, it probably means you're loving it. I doubt there's a middle ground.A few months after the premier of "Morgan" came the American "Lord Love a Duck." It's got some serious flaws too, but if irreverent '60s, pre-hippie, madcap comedy-satire is what you want, I'd try that one. At least part of the time it's crazy fun.

goultar1 This movie was funny as hell. David Warner is an ace-- a great comedic actor, and the entire cast should have received awards. All the ingredients for a great comedy were there-- gorilla suits, slapstick comedy at a wedding celebration involving a gorilla, the main character being insane-- what more could you ask for. I saw the movie on late night t.v. and I rolled out of bed laughing.An uncredited actor who also did an outstanding job in this movie was Billy Reil, playing the part of inspector Kowalski. It was especially funny when he thought the bad guy was heading for his office and he ended up konking his secretary over the head with a flower pot.

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.