Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Allissa .Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

bernard-keeffe A peripheral pleasure was the sight of those great English character actors, the backbone of so many heroic films. Alec Clunes for example, whose son, Martin, is such a favourite today. Wilfred Hyde White, usually an elegant toff, was here a barber with a delightful wig shaving Robert Morley. He of course was in danger of stealing the show, a villain with a winning smile and wonderful accent. I relished the sight of a Kay Kendall in what appeared to be a white nightdress; but even more more striking was the speed with which she added a robe, whilst running round the castle with Taylor. We so easily take the music for granted; here it was expertly matched to the action, wonderfully orchestrated and brilliantly played and conducted - but by whom? The composer Bronislaw Kaper? Was it recorded in London or Hollywood? The professional skill that these musicians displayed deserves far more attention. Too often today the score is synthesised, or inanely repetitious regardless of the scene and the action.

Boba_Fett1138 It isn't until the end that the movie turns into a spectacular and true swashbuckler. In between there are too many long moments in which basically nothing is happening. Also often the action just seems to drop out of nowhere and the movie features some awkward and forced humor, that perhaps even is a bit embarrassing to watch. But hey, everyone knows that the greatest swashbucklers were not made in the '50's.The story is just a great one. It's an absolutely top-class and solidly constructed story. It had lots of potential in it and interesting characters and motivations. The movie however never really fully uses all this potential You can't help when looking at this movie thinking how much better it all could had been, or at least more entertaining, if it just went that one step further. The movie gets obviously restrained by its low budget but that's no excuses in my opinion. The directing is rather bland and imaging-less. Strange though, since Richard Thorpe is obviously a capable director.The love-story feels forced, as if it was simply a needed ingredient. It of course always has been a part of the swashbuckler genre but in this particular case they would had been better off skipping it, since it's simply not believable in the story and there is no chemistry between the two lovers, played by Robert Taylor and Kay Kendall.The end still makes up a lot for the movie, when the main hero and villain are clashing their weapons, while swinging in a bell tower. Great swashbuckling stuff.The movie has some great characters in it but non of them quite work out, since they are being portrayed too formulaic. You know this is the sort of movie in which the villains all wear black and the good guys are all colorful and stuff. A shame, since it again, showed some real good potential.Robert Taylor did a good job, although he really ain't no Errol Flynn. He also was perhaps a little bit too old for his role already. He was 44 at the time and he really looked like it. It's also not hard to see why Kay Kendall nothing really had a sparkling career, though her early dead in 1959 also of course contributed to this.Not a that bad movie but the Sir Walter Scott novel deserved a better treatment.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

bkoganbing Mid-point in his career Robert Taylor was given Quo Vadis and was such a success in it that MGM then gave him Ivanhoe and Knights of the Round Table and finally Quentin Durward. Taylor did not like these films, he referred to them as his "iron jockstrap roles." He much preferred westerns and modern pictures. But he went with the flow so they say.The stream flowed well for him in Quentin Durward. What Walter Scott was trying to do in the novel and succeeds on the screen is juxtapose the lives of noble knight Quentin Durward and the scheming spider king Louis XI of France played superbly by Robert Morley. Louis XI is modern man, stripped of all pretenses, surviving on his wits. Durward is a figure from antiquity even in the 15th century.Louis XI is one of the most fascinating monarchs in history and we've seen him as a supporting character both in If I Were King and in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He was a guy who if one scheme didn't work, he had a backup plan, in fact about 5 or 6 backups. Most of us are lucky if we have 2 in any situation. But he had to rule that way. When he took the throne of France in 1461 they had ended the Hundred Years War and France was a devastated country. He couldn't afford to be starting any wars or he wouldn't have a country left. He had to rule by wile and stratagem and he succeeded. Too bad Robert Morley didn't make a film just about Louis XI. Great story, hope someone does it some day.One of the most exciting action sequences in film history is done here with Quentin Durward battling the villainous Walter DeLa Marck in a burning bell tower while they are both swinging on ropes holding bell clappers. You should see the film for that alone.

Igenlode Wordsmith This is a film to be watched with a wide and affectionate grin. Outstanding are Robert Morley as Louis XI, the infamous and wily 'Spider' of France, and Robert Taylor as the eponymous Durward, a would-be chivalrous hero born out of his time who is none too sure of himself. The necessary, and highly satisfactory, heroics are spiced with a rich leavening of humour and some genuine moral questions - how much should a man sacrifice for his country's sake? His love? His life? His honour? But above all it is a joyous and thrilling romp that doesn't take itself too seriously. Durward wants to be a knight in shining armour, but circumstances tend to conspire against him, and his lady is definitely the stronger-willed of the two; though like the audience, she cannot resist his puppydog charm. And ambiguous, cynical, cowardly Louis is often in danger of stealing the show outright, as he sits at the centre of his web and pulls the strings that manipulate all the other characters - a far-from-two-dimensional villain after my own heart! Definitely a superior swashbuckler, with a saving vein of humour.