Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Aedonerre I gave this film a 9 out of 10, because it was exactly what I expected it to be.

John Car Moonfleet is not a minor Fritz Lang. Without doubt, it is one of the most extraordinary films ever done. This is not to exaggerate, not a bit. Even if Lang was not pleased with the result (the studio interfered in the final cut), the truth is that the spelling experience achieved in Destiny (Der Müde Tod, 1921), for example, knows its peak with this adventure story lived and seen by the young John Mohune. One of those films only a good cinema theater is an appropriate place to watch. In cinemascope and glorious, dreamlike color. Attention: if you want to see Moonfleet on DVD, search for an edition that respects its original colors. It would be a crime to see this film in one of those very shiny restorations.

telepinus1525 This is one movie where I can honestly say that the adaptation to screen is better than the book. Not that it's great, mind you, just better. While watching Granger and Sanders in anything is entertaining, it seemed that screenwriter Jon Lustig wanted the character of John Mohune(John Trenchard in the novel) to be the focus(like, say, Jim Hawkins in "Treasure Island"), but couldn't quite figure out how to give him something useful to do without taking away from the top-billed stars. The finished film is more streamlined(and watchable) due to Lustig's and director Lang's desire for a tighter story. No way was a straight adaptation going to do *THAT* on screen! If Whitely's character, young John had acted as he does in the novel, and wrenching the story 90 degrees in a lesson on the "wages of ill-gotten gains", I probably would have thrown a brick at the t.v.(but then, that's just me). All in all, not one of Lang's(or Granger's, or Sander's, or Crain's) best, but worth a look. Especially, you've got to love Jack Elam's scene with the hats in the smuggler's grotto. THAT was funny...

cuzjackincanuckland I know the original novel, aimed at male children and adolescents, but this monstrosity of a screen-play has little connection to it, and the changes are not for the better. Why didn't they change the name of the film and have a completely new set of names for the characters? If it was to attract people who knew the original story, was that well-advised? They would only come away from a viewing disgusted and angry. The original story had its faults and weaknesses, but the story in the film is sheer nonsensical rubbish.In the novel, the boy is older and a native of the village, he has a living mother, his helper is Elzevir Block who is the inn-keeper, there are no lords or aristocrats, only a miser-merchant who bought the manor-house; the boy is involved in the smuggling, led by Elzevir Block, there are no pirates or piracy; and he, the boy, returns to village when a man only through luck and the self-sacrifice of Elzevir Block, and there meets his childhood sweetheart. Other than the possibly-supernatural occurrences, the book plot is in many ways realistic.

bob the moo Young John Mohune comes to Dorset to meet a man called Jeremy Fox who he believes was a friend of his late mother and will help look after him. Expecting a friend in Fox, John is upset to find an uncaring man who has no interest in John. He persists though in trying to gain the friendship and attention of Fox even in the face of great dissuasion. All Fox's acquaintances are rather desperate men, which fly in the face of his rather "proper" appearance. John doesn't suspect anything, being a child, but the area is famous for smugglers and Fox may be connected and perhaps be more dangerous than anyone realises – not least the innocent John Mohune.I watched this film simply because I was a bit taken aback by the fact that it was a Fritz Lang film. Not being a name I would have associated with a period film I decided to take a look and see what he did with it. In fairness Falkner's source material does give him something to work with and there are interesting themes and ideas running through it. It takes a little bit to get going but after a while the smuggling story and the relationships make for a good adventure that is brisk enough for children while also having a bit of meat for the adults. I quite enjoyed the sweeping adventure feel it had but I was more interested in the character of Fox, who is never a "good man" and is all the better for it (in terms of the narrative). Lang appears to be interested in this as well, and he does make Fox the biggest part of the film.Granger rises to this by turning in a solid performance where he is a rough character but not to the point where he loses the audience. The problem with the film is not with him – unfortunately it is with Jon Whiteley. He is too cute and very much a child actor – and I don't mean that in a good way. He isn't really able to emote and, apologies for the lack of intelligent criticism, but he just got on my nerves. I'm sure this film didn't want to go too deep but I would be happy to see a remake of this with a stronger and more natural child actor in the role, that may allow the relationship to be developed a bit further. Sanders is always a welcome presence but he is given very little to do. The rest of the support cast are all solid enough but the film is pretty much Granger's and he works it well even if Whiteley isn't up to much.Overall though this is a solid little adventure tale that makes for solid family viewing. It is brisk and swashbuckling enough to entertain children while the solid yarn will engage adults. The cast mostly give a good account of themselves and, while I didn't hate him, I must admit that Whiteley was annoying to me personally and his performance here suggested a good education but a limited ability.