Diagonaldi
Very well executed
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
Francene Odetta
It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.
GusF
Based on the 1881 novel of the same name by Mark Twain and released in the US under the title "Crossed Swords", this is a very fun historical adventure film in spite of its flaws. The film has a slow start but it picks up momentum as it progresses. It has a good script by George MacDonald Fraser but the direction of Richard Fleischer is not up to his usual very high standard. Given that it was produced by the Salkinds, has several major cast members in common and was adapted by Fraser from a 19th Century classic, it is difficult not to compare it to "The Three Musketeers" (1973) and "The Four Musketeers". On that score, I found the film to be a little wanting. I couldn't help thinking that it would have been better if it had been directed by Richard Lester, who was more suited to the swashbuckling adventure genre than Fleischer. The film stars Mark Lester in not one but two very bad performances as the title characters Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VI) and his impoverished doppelgänger Tom Canty. As played by Lester, both characters are cardboard cutouts. The very occasional slight trace of a Cockney accent aside when playing the latter in the early scenes, he does absolutely nothing to distinguish between the two. They are supposed to be physically identical but not in terms of their personalities, which often seems to be the case here in spite of Fraser's efforts in the script department. The fact that Lester delivers 90% of his lines in a monotone and shouts the rest of them does not do him any favours either. At 18 years old, he was far too old for the roles, as both characters are supposed to be about nine in the novel. Other than all of these things, however, he was perfect casting. In spite of Lester's poor performances, Prince Edward and Tom are both likable characters, which is a testament to Fraser's writing and the strength of the source material. It is quite funny that the film would have been better with one Lester and without another. I found the scenes featuring Prince Edward trying to deal with the often merciless outside world to be far more interesting than those of Tom in Nonsuch Palace.The best performance in the film comes from Rex Harrison, who is wonderful as the kind, fiercely intelligent, witty and introspective Duke of Norfolk, who is condemned to the Tower of London by Henry VIII but finds a friend and ally in Tom. George C. Scott has little more than a cameo but he is sublime as the enigmatic, dishonest monk turned gang leader Ruffler. In contrast to Lester, his "Oliver!" co- star Oliver Reed was very well cast as Miles Hendon, a nobleman turned soldier of fortune. He takes pity on Edward, saving him from a mob and fighting off Tom's abusive father, but does not believe his claims to be the Prince of Wales for most of the film. Reed is an excellent actor and he imbues the hotheaded Miles with a great deal of pathos, particularly in the second half. I have always thought that Charlton Heston is a very underrated actor but he is atypically bad and forgettable as the dying Henry VIII, in contrast to how effective he was as the conniving Cardinal Richelieu in the aforementioned films.Ernest Borgnine is pretty decent as John Canty but I think that he may have been miscast. As Miles' beloved Lady Edith, Raquel Welch is billed second after Reed (and before Lester) in the opening credits but she does not appear until almost three-quarters of the way through the film and has only about 15 minutes screen time, if even that. Nice work if you can get it! Welch is better known for the way that she looks in a fur bikini or a tight spacesuit than for her mastery of Shakespeare but she still manages to give a better performance than Lester, which says a lot. David Hemmings was quite good in the small role as Miles' treacherous brother Hugh, which surprised me as I thought that he was very bad in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1968). It also features nice appearances from Harry Andrews as the new king's uncle Lord Hertford, Julian Orchard as St. John, Lalla Ward as a suitably imperious Princess Elizabeth, Murray Melvin as Edward's dresser and Hammer regular Michael Ripper as Lady Edith's servant.Overall, this is by no means a perfect film but it's good fun. The script and some excellent performances are able to paper over some of the more obvious cracks.
Blueghost
Hot on the heels of the Salkind Musketeer films, Oliver Reed and a cast well knowns (Welch, Harris, Borgnine, Scott, et al), grace the screen in this very well done period piece regarding Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemmens more popular works regarding Renaissance England.Lots of art direction and top rate thesping went into this film to bring alive a violent period fill with intrigue, we witness the improbable but plausible exchange of personas; royalty takes on the guise of a pauper, and vice versa. We witness the adventures and misadventures of the Prince of Wales and his companion gallivant dangerously around London and beyond.Likewise we see the low born try to navigate and negotiate, and ultimately accept and become accustomed to wearing the crown of a world power. From nothing to master of England and beyond, his mastery of upper life is as entertaining and eventful as his willing impostor's acceptance of street life.For a film designed to ride the coat tails of the musketeer films, it's remarkably well shot and overall well put together. If I had one gripe with this film, and I'm not sure that I do, it's that the music isn't quite majestic enough for a renaissance tale penned by a Yankee. That is perhaps intentional, for there is a comic underscore here, but it seems that perhaps the tale of royal awakening and serf uplift should embody a more noble set of musical chords, or perhaps something akin to the post medieval equivalent of "James Bond". For indeed are we not witnessing a type of "secret agent" film, albeit without the spectre (no pun intended) of global peril?Overall an extremely enjoyable film for the history minded to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon. A top notch cast for a respectable film with very respectable production values.Give it a try, and enjoy.
c-kelsall
Pah! Doesn't follow the book very closely (rhubarb, rhubarb!)... Frankly, who cares? The book was a work of fiction to start with, and this "version" of the story makes a classic '70's swashbuckler in the fashion of the Three Muskateers. It's got witty dialogue, colourful characters, an all-star cast, a good soundtrack and a happy ending. What more does anyone want? Okay, it was never going to be shortlisted for Oscars, but back then that was often a good sign (Kramer vs Kramer, anyone? Please, God, noooooo!!). If you like swash and buckle, and you've a few hours to kill, this will do the job, so don't dismiss it from your list of films to see. It's a little hard to find on DVD though.
loobyloo_66
My parents recorded this when my brother and I were learning English Tudor history in school, and has never lost its spark, although perhaps I still see it through my child eyes! The sets and costumes are fantastic, the all-star cast are all well cast, there's plenty of action and adventure and Oliver Reed is particularly a gem. "Your fingernails are filthy!" Although Mark Lester is fairly wooden and old for this role, I still think he was well cast. Great film for all the family, lots of action and fighting sequences, although more from Heston, Harrison and Welch would have been better, and also less of the American accents!!
