"Historical "? Hysterical is more like it. This is a riot of dumbplicity. What a joke! This is ludicrous. Terrible acting. Only Maureen can possibly save this and make it worth watching by sheer beauty alone.
But so far - no go.
This film is certainly not 'Captain Blood' or 'The Black Swan', I grant you, but viewed in the right mood, it is just a bit of Saturday afternoon fun.
Paul Henreid was certainly miscast but Walter Slezak was rather fun as Alvarado and I do agree that Maureen O'Hara looked lovely.
It's only a movie.
To hear his daughter tell it, Paul always wanted to do a swashbuckler movie so here it is. He may be no Errol or Tyrone but he holds his own. I do agree that Maureen looked great and I think she was at the height of her beauty in this movie. By the way, the studios have a lot to do with movie content and RKO was no Warner Brothers or Paramount so it's not like Paul, or the rest of the cast, had everything to do with how the movie turned out.
KS
Very interesting comment! Of the five swashbucklers made by Paul Henreid, this is undoubtedly the best.
His daughter points out that he was well trained in fencing, That's probably why he was cast in this film although he is clearly doubled by either Fred Cavens, (the Belgian fencing master) or his son Albert in most of his fencing scenes in long shots. Though Cavens (or Al) doubled for Flynn (particularly in The Sea Hawk) and Ty Power in Mark of Zorro.
Henreid was rather a big star at this time (1945) and was billed above Maureen O'Hara but in my opinion, he just didn't have enough dash for these kinds of films. Doug Fairbanks jnr would have been a better choice as per his excellent Sinbad The Sailor made around the same time.
Cheers
MD
There are moments of decent acting in this film, but for much of it the dialogue is mediocre and the actors aren't trying very hard.
shareKeep in mind this was escapism for the audience during WWII, or the end of it. It was something to look at and pass a couple of hours.
Also, the sexual tension between Maureen and Paul was likely considered....rather HOT! (would they? yes, but when? when would she give in? would he force her? tee-hee!)
Also, the sexual tension between Maureen and Paul was likely considered....rather HOT! (would they? yes, but when? when would she give in? would he force her? tee-hee!)That sub-plot made the movie for me. How was the wedding night scene? He with her nightgown, she with the dagger, which drops to the ground when she can't resist his kisses. Then he tucks the absolutely gorgeous Maureen into a single bed and leaves a somewhat frustrated and perplexed new wife. LOL! Smouldering Stuff!🐭 share
As a fan of the genre I was very disappointed by this movie. I understand that the genre usually involves swashbuckling with a wink and a smile, and that suits me fine. But it doesn't work when the leading man winks and smiles at the wrong moments and isn't really good at buckling his swash. Henried seemed to deliver all of his lines at the same volume, and with the same inflection. And he seemed to lack any emotional range.
The fact that the pirates seemed oblivious to the women (including the gorgeous Maureen O'Hara!) and completely content to pillage her ship was neutering beyond Disney levels. Add to that the notion that the captain of these "cutthroats" is dying to get married (without a hint of irony or euphemistic double-entendres) and that the lovely noblewoman ultimately falls for him and is content with becoming the wife of a pirate, and you end up with a story that is even more absurd than the "comic book" description of other commentators.
I could watch this joke to its end only for the costumes and the incomparable beauty of Maureen O'Hara.
John 3:16
As a fan of the genre I was very disappointed by this movie. I understand that the genre usually involves swashbuckling with a wink and a smile, and that suits me fine. But it doesn't work when the leading man winks and smiles at the wrong moments and isn't really good at buckling his swash. Henried seemed to deliver all of his lines at the same volume, and with the same inflection. And he seemed to lack any emotional range.
The fact that the pirates seemed oblivious to the women (including the gorgeous Maureen O'Hara!) and completely content to pillage her ship was neutering beyond Disney levels. Add to that the notion that the captain of these "cutthroats" is dying to get married (without a hint of irony or euphemistic double-entendres) and that the lovely noblewoman ultimately falls for him and is content with becoming the wife of a pirate, and you end up with a story that is even more absurd than the "comic book" description of other commentators.
I could watch this joke to its end only for the costumes and the incomparable beauty of Maureen O'Hara.
John 3:16
Well spoken, matey. Rrrrrrrrrrr
shareIt could have been a very good film, too. I am not a big fan of Paul Henreid, Casablanca notwithstanding. However, I don't know whether his performance here is attributable to his own initiative or the direction. Either way, the result is just bad.
John 3:16