Scaramouche is a reasonably average swashbuckling Technicolor extravaganza with great sword fights, but the story, the characters and the performances just didn't impress me as much as I had hoped.
Set in France in the period leading up to the French Revolution we follow the story of André Moreau the bastard son of a nobleman. Initially a carefree young man living off an allowance he is spurred to action by the death of his principled friend. Andre hides out with a theater troupe where he adopts the character of Scaramouche a clown while he contemplates how he can avenge his friend's death. There are a number of intertwined sub plots which are fairly convoluted for a film of this type.
When Scaramouche is compared to other swashbuckling epics such as; Robin Hood, Captain Blood or even The Sea Hawk all of which were made 10 or more years earlier, it pales in comparison. Director George Sidney isn't Michael Curtiz, Stewart Granger certainly isn't Errol Flynn and Mel Ferrer isn't Basil Rathbone or Claude Rains. Of all the principles only Vivien Leigh compares adequately to her predecessors.
These are not the only deficiencies in the film though, it appears that the story upon which the film was based had considerably more depth and likely could have been adapted better. In all likelihood parts of the story should have been sacrificed to make the story flow better.
The production values (costumes, sets, music, etc) are all OK but nothing stands out, perhaps my opinion is affected by my overall opinion of the film but I didn't find anything memorable here.
The film despite its deficiencies isn't without its charm and for fans of the era and genre it will likely provide enjoyment. The sword-fights and the rich Technicolor picture just weren't enough for me to see it as anything more than mediocre.
The film is based on a novel by Rafael Sabatini who also penned The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood.
Set in France in the period leading up to the French Revolution we follow the story of André Moreau the bastard son of a nobleman. Initially a carefree young man living off an allowance he is spurred to action by the death of his principled friend. Andre hides out with a theater troupe where he adopts the character of Scaramouche a clown while he contemplates how he can avenge his friend's death. There are a number of intertwined sub plots which are fairly convoluted for a film of this type.
When Scaramouche is compared to other swashbuckling epics such as; Robin Hood, Captain Blood or even The Sea Hawk all of which were made 10 or more years earlier, it pales in comparison. Director George Sidney isn't Michael Curtiz, Stewart Granger certainly isn't Errol Flynn and Mel Ferrer isn't Basil Rathbone or Claude Rains. Of all the principles only Vivien Leigh compares adequately to her predecessors.
These are not the only deficiencies in the film though, it appears that the story upon which the film was based had considerably more depth and likely could have been adapted better. In all likelihood parts of the story should have been sacrificed to make the story flow better.
The production values (costumes, sets, music, etc) are all OK but nothing stands out, perhaps my opinion is affected by my overall opinion of the film but I didn't find anything memorable here.
The film despite its deficiencies isn't without its charm and for fans of the era and genre it will likely provide enjoyment. The sword-fights and the rich Technicolor picture just weren't enough for me to see it as anything more than mediocre.
The film is based on a novel by Rafael Sabatini who also penned The Sea Hawk and Captain Blood.