Bill (Sebastian Rice-Edwards) and Sue (Geraldine Muir) running down a rubble-strewn street carrying cases
Film review

Hope and Glory

1987 · Directed by John Boorman · 1h 53m · MPA PG-13

In a sentenceThe children think the Blitz has improved the neighbourhood

Bill (Sebastian Rice-Edwards) is a boy growing up in suburban London during the Blitz, watching the war change the streets around him. Where adults face danger and disruption, he finds opportunities for play, with bomb-damaged neighbourhoods becoming places to explore. Family life continues around him, with Sarah Miles as Grace, David Hayman as Clive, Sammi Davis as Dawn and Geraldine Muir as Sue. Written and directed by John Boorman, this semi-autobiographical drama follows wartime childhood through a boy’s incomplete understanding of what is happening to his family and the country.

Fi1m review

We recommend John Boorman’s funny, affectionate account of a wartime childhood, chiefly for the children themselves. The nostalgia sometimes softens things too much, but their pleasure in the disruption is both convincing and quietly troubling.

John Boorman’s Hope and Glory is a warm, funny film about a child enjoying circumstances that ought to frighten him. Bill, played by Sebastian Rice-Edwards, sees the Blitz as an interruption of ordinary life with several advantages. Boorman writes and directs from his own childhood memories, and he allows the boy an awkward amount of pleasure. There is no attempt to give him the solemn appreciation of history that adults tend to want from children in war films.

Rice-Edwards makes Bill’s curiosity convincing without asking us to find him adorable. Geraldine Muir’s Sue is equally unforced, and the children’s interest in what is happening around them can be cheerfully heedless of anyone else’s distress. We laughed at their pleasure in treating bomb damage as a playground. Then we felt ashamed of how readily we had joined them. Boorman gets that response by staying close to what the children enjoy, long enough for us to forget what their new freedom has cost.

Anthony Pratt’s production design makes the suburban streets feel lived in, and that matters when they become places for children to explore. The period detail works because it gives Bill somewhere credible to play. Philippe Rousselot’s photography encourages us to share his fascination with the changed surroundings. We can understand why the boy keeps looking, even when the fondness of the images threatens to make the damage too inviting.

Sarah Miles gives Grace enough strength to keep the domestic scenes from being swallowed by Bill’s adventures. Miles makes carrying on seem tiring, even within this affectionate account of family life. Sammi Davis’s Dawn also helps sustain our interest in the family beyond the boy. These performances matter because the film is fond enough of almost everyone to risk making their troubles seem more manageable than they are.

The weakness is the way the anecdotes accumulate. Ian Crafford’s editing gives the individual episodes room to settle, but the joins between them sometimes feel loose. At 113 minutes, the film has stretches in which another colourful recollection adds little to what we already know about Bill. Some of the eccentric behaviour also seems included because it was remembered fondly, without telling us much about the person involved.

Peter Martin’s music suits the affectionate mood, although it leaves us wishing for something less reassuring in the cosier passages. That is the larger reservation too: Boorman sometimes seems so pleased to revisit this childhood that adult suffering is acknowledged and then hurried past. A child’s limited understanding is a sound reason for leaving things out. Even so, a little more fear would give the pleasures more weight, without requiring a catalogue of wartime horrors.

War films often ask children to make adult suffering easier to grasp. Here, the child’s failure to grasp it is allowed to be funny, even a little cruel. That willingness to leave Bill with feelings we might disapprove of gives the film more life than its occasional quaintness suggests. Choose it for that unruly childhood, with a warning that Boorman sometimes remembers the grown-ups rather too kindly.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

84
Positive
8
Mixed
0
Negative
0

The reviews are unanimous in the film’s favour, and the praise gathers around the same thing: Boorman’s decision to show the Blitz through a small boy’s eyes, so that the bombing becomes fireworks and the rubble an adventure playground. Most critics call it warm and funny rather than solemn, a comedy of family life with the blood and sacrifice kept to one side. The period streets are found convincing, the young performers are singled out, and Los Angeles Times reads it as a salute to the strength of its women as much as to the boy.

Where critics part is on how much is lost by keeping the horror off screen. Empire finds it an idealised remembrance with twee leanings rather than a historical snapshot, and Variety treats it as a string of sweet anecdotes, best when the boy is at the centre. Radio Times notes an episodic quality. The spread is narrow, though: from admiring to devoted, with nobody dissenting from the affection.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · Peter Freedman
100

War is a wheeze for a nine-year-old boy in suburban London during the Blitz in Boorman's whimsical, funny, nostalgic semi-autobiographical memoir. Strong performances, especially from the young leads, make it a delightful movie despite some episodic qualities and minor quibbles with eccentric portrayals.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
30 October 1987 · Sheila Benson
90*

The critic calls the film brilliantly evocative and warmly comic, shifting the point of view to a 7-year-old boy for whom the war is liberation in its most glorious and frightening form. Boorman captures every contradictory nuance of the experience with an irresistible salute to women's strength and England's resilience.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
· Charles Barr
90*

Boorman has written a childhood autobiography on film that confirms him as the great risk-taking romantic of British cinema. The child's-eye view of family life during the Blitz paints an unexpectedly warm picture, blending domestic drama with surreal flashes.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
9 October 1987 · festival review · Janet Maslin
90*

The critic finds John Boorman's autobiographical film a radiant remembrance of World War II as seen through the eyes of a young boy who savors its adventure. It has an invitingly nostalgic spirit with a fine eye for magical details a child might notice.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
28 September 1987 · Pauline Kael
85*

The critic praises Boorman for crafting a great comedy from the Blitz, depicting WWII through an eight-year-old boy's eyes as an exciting party rather than a sentimental tragedy. She highlights the film's lighthearted desentimentalization of wartime England and its focus on family dynamics and the child's adventures.

Read the full review →
Time Out
22 February 2012 · BC
80*

Boorman's autobiographical film about family life during the Blitz is subversively light on the blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice, and a joy throughout. It communicates the affectionate poetry of a long-lost England through the eyes of a nine-year-old seeing the war as a wonderland of fireworks and adventure playgrounds.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Hope and Glory worth watching?
Hope and Glory is worth watching for anyone who wants a wartime childhood remembered with humour rather than solemnity, and we scored it 82. Sebastian Rice-Edwards makes the boy's pleasure in the Blitz convincing and a little troubling. The anecdotes sometimes accumulate loosely, and Boorman remembers the grown-ups rather too kindly.
How long is Hope and Glory, and what is it rated?
Hope and Glory runs 1h 53m and is rated PG-13 by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and war film.
Where can I watch Hope and Glory in the US?
Hope and Glory is not on any streaming or rental service in the US at the moment. It is available in 13 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Hope and Glory, and is it suitable for children?
Hope and Glory carries a UK 15 certificate, though its Blitz is seen through a child who treats bomb damage as a playground rather than a horror. There are no graphic scenes we can point to, and our reservation is that it softens adult suffering rather than dwelling on it. Older children and teenagers should manage it; the certificate suggests keeping younger ones away.
How does Hope and Glory compare to The Spirit of the Beehive?
Hope and Glory is the warmer and funnier of the two, while The Spirit of the Beehive is quieter and more unsettling in following a child's incomplete grasp of adult troubles. Boorman's film is the easier evening, though its nostalgia can soften things too much. Erice's is the more patient and affecting work, for those willing to give it the attention it asks.
What should I watch after Hope and Glory?
After Hope and Glory, try The Spirit of the Beehive (1973, Fi1m 87): Another child’s incomplete understanding of adult troubles, though the mood is quieter. Then Good Bye, Lenin! (2003, Fi1m 78): Family comedy finds absurdity in political upheaval without forgetting what change costs.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1988

Nominated
Best Cinematography
Nominated
Best Picture
Nominated
Best Production Design

If you liked this, try…

  1. Small Change (1976) · not reviewed yetChildren make their own rules while adults struggle to understand the game.

  2. The Spirit of the Beehive (1973, Fi1m 87)Another child’s incomplete understanding of adult troubles, though the mood is quieter.

  3. My Life as a Dog (1985) · not reviewed yetChildhood grief and bewilderment handled with humour that never cancels the hurt.

  4. The Railway Children (1970) · not reviewed yetFamily upheaval seen by children, with warmth and a firmer sentimental streak.

  5. Good Bye, Lenin! (2003, Fi1m 78)Family comedy finds absurdity in political upheaval without forgetting what change costs.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever