Which Man for all seasons do you like more?

I have only seen the 1966 film.

But I remember reading Heston insisting in his autobiography that he knew he could play Sir Thomas More better than Scofield. That is a laughable claim.

How can you improve on perfection? Heston is good in roles where he has to stick his chest out and look commanding but as an actor he simply lacks the subtlety that this role demands and which made Scofield's portrayal so memorable.

The Best Actor Oscar awarded to Scofield is one of the rare occasions where the Academy got it right. Scofield's performance was astonishing.

I haven't seen this one either, can't seem to find it! However I can't imagine any other version being better than the 1966 one. Paul Scofield was brilliant.

Scofield is by far the better Thomas More, and the better overall production is the 1966 movie. That being said, if you haven't seen this version, beg, borrow, steal, whatever you need to do to see this for the late Roy Kinnear stealing the whole production as the "Common Man".

The two adaptations are very different, namely in that the '88 version is almost a verbatim adaptation of the play. The Common Man is a positive addition to the play and gives the film much-needed humor. On the other hand, Chapuys' scenes come off as superfluous and I think Zinnemann and Bolt had the right idea excising him from the earlier film. More's religion is more prominent in this version though I don't think it greatly affects the story either way. More pointedly, it's very long and occasionally dry; Heston's direction is purely functional and it's not interesting on a cinematic level. To be fair, it is a TV movie.

The acting is the main difference quality wise and it's all over the place. Heston badly overplays More: he handles the big speeches very well but in the more quiet scenes his mannered delivery is ridiculous. I'm probably spoiled on Scofield's more subtle take on the character but I usually like Heston well-enough. His acting style just doesn't fit More.

The supporting cast is wildly variable. Roy Kinnear's Common Man is a superb addition, and he earns a laugh every time he's onscreen. Richard Johnson brings a lot of humor and boisterous energy to Norfolk and bests Nigel Davenport. I really like Benjamin Withrow's take on Cromwell. While Leo McKern was a blustering bully, Withrow is a subtle, slippery snake in the grass, and he matches more closely the impression I got from my initial reading of the play. John Hudson does a lot more with Roper than Corin Redgrave did in the original.

On the other hand, Vanessa Redgrave hams it up embarassingly; hard to believe such a good actress gives a lousy performance. John Gielgud sleepwalks through his scene as Wolsey, lacking the devious humor Orson Welles brought to the role. Jonathan Hacket's Rich is very badly overacted, especially the "Employ me" scene. Martin Chamberlain and Adrienne Thomas are competent but come off poorly compared to Robert Shaw and Susannah York.

So yes, it's a far lesser adaptation. But it's nice to see a more complete adaptation of the play, and there are some good performances to commend it (along with some subpar ones).

"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down someone else's life for his own."

I admire Charlton Heston mightily, and not the less so for taking on this challenge which would intimidate anyone to attempt - and he was at his best in this, which is to say soul-stirring ...

but ...

Paul Scofield's performance stands as perhaps the most magnificent achievement in all of film history.

I appreciated the 88 version more as I understand it was closer to Bolts play. I think I understand Rich a little better. In the 66 version I was not sure why the More household was opposed to him. I was more interested in the dialogue and points being made than the actors who made them.

Actors for lead characters of Cromwell and More were fine in both films. I know little of Scofield other than the More performance so the actor did not stand out from character. Much more familiar with Heston it became a Heston's More. Likewise with Cromwell I am more familiar with McKern and so it was McKern's Cromwell (and I thought he was mugging it up at times). Whitrow, I am not familiar with, and he seemed to convey a more malevolent political type which I very much enjoyed.

I am happy that I did see this version of "A Man for All Seasons" for its closer adherence to the play on which it is based, BUT:
For me, the 1966 version is the THE definitive version, even though it adheres less to the play. Paul Scofield owned the role of More. I also preferred Wendy Hiller's earthy authoritative portrayal of Alice More to the somewhat wimpy hysterical interpretation of the role by Vanessa Redgrave, and Susanna York's contained and intellectual Margaret was better. The slight antagonism between Alice and Margaret in the 1966 version can be explained by the fact that historically Margaret was Alice's stepdaughter, and Alice's jealousy of the closeness of Margaret to her father is a part of that slight antagonism; More had 5 daughters; only two of whom were his by birth. His adopted daughter, Margaret Giggs, was the only family member who witnessed his execution (she died in Belgium, where she and her family had fled to escape persecution of Catholics. Her death came on the 35th anniversary of More's execution), but Margaret More Roper was the child closest to his heart. More was ahead of his time in that he insisted not only on educating, but on personally instructing his 5 daughters, Margaret, Elizabeth, Cecily (foster), Margaret (adopted; called 'Mercy' to distinguish her from the first Margaret) and Alice Middleton, the younger (stepdaughter); he also had a son, John. Margaret More was a Latin scholar who sometimes collaborated with Erasmus of Rotterdam, and Margaret Giggs' forte was in mathematics and medicine.
Nigel Davenport's blustering obstreperous Duke of Norfolk is superior to that of the wooden Richard Johnson in the role. Leo McKern even resembled Holbein's portait of Thomas Cromwell, and looked and acted the part of the 'dockside bully' to which More likened his behavior. Cromwell was the son of a blacksmith.
I enjoyed this version, and if I had never seen Paul Scofield as More, I would say that Heston did the role justice.
I found the character of the 'common man' from the play distracting and irritating, but upon further reflection, see his usefulness in explaining how the common people survive (by their wits, if their station in life brings them into touch with the powers that be) through the reigns of tyrants.

"..sure you won't change your mind? Why, is there something wrong with the one I have?"

I liked them both.

However one of my favorite lines is missing in this version.

During their meeting Wolsey said something like "You were a fool to oppose me at the council meeting earlier." To which More replied "I am thankful there was only one fool at that meeting."