Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.

TheLittleSongbird Don't get me wrong I loved this film as a kid, but after revisiting it after five or six years, it didn't quite gel for me. Of course the sets, costumes and cinematography are superb, and the score is rousing enough. And the story is delightful, despite the fact it has been done to death so many times, while there is some great acting from Oliver Reed, Rex Harrison, George C. Scott and especially Ernest Borgnine in very meaty roles. However, despite all the extravagance and the fine acting from the supporting cast, there are shortcomings. Mark Lester is very unconvincing in the lead double role, while Raquel Welch looks alluring but she is left with little to work with. The direction never feels solid enough, while the pacing is uneven and the action like the direction lacks solidity. Overall, disappointing but worthwhile film adaptation. 5/10 Bethany Cox

didi-5 The major failing of this version of the famed classic is the presence of Mark Lester as the twins, the prince and pauper of the title. He was great as a pre-teen in 'Oliver!' but here he just hasn't the range to convince in either role.There are, however, ample compensations. Oliver Reed is really rather good as bulky swordsman Miles Hendon (following in the footsteps of Errol Flynn from four decades earlier); while others in the cast making the most of small but meaty roles are George C Scott, Rex Harrison, Harry Andrews, Murray Melvin, and Charlton Heston. There's also Julian Orchard playing his usual silly English fop, but you can't have everything.I loved this film as a child and still do; it has the right amount of adventure, romance, and silliness to get by. Get rid of Mark Lester and it would have been close to a perfect kid's film; as it is it is around halfway there.

Poseidon-3 Touted as the latest answer to the 1973 version of "The Three Musketeers", this film can't hold a candle to the light wit, sumptuous splendor and game cast of the first film. (The movie even cribs no less than 4 actors from the prior film.) Based on the story by Mark Twain, it concerns a pick-pocketing urchin (Lester) who finds himself in the room of King Henry VIII's son (also Lester) and discovers that the two are virtually identical. They swap places as a lark and soon find themselves up to their necks in the problems of each others' lives. Lester, so adorable in "Oliver" years before, is a lanky, fright-wigged, one-note presence. On the occasions when he stands up straight, he TOWERS above everyone including the extras, looking gangly and awkward. He has a pinched facial expression and fraught eyebrows through the entire film...as both characters! This gets very old, very quickly. Reed shows up as a game, but bulky swordsman who aids the one who's stuck as a pauper. Second-billed Welch barely appears in the film, turning up at the very end (and looking stunning.) Four (count 'em) Best Actor Oscar winners round out the cast to no great effect, done in by the laggy direction and the uncreative script. Heston (with no authentic accent) unconvincingly and hammily plays Henry VIII to the one filling in as a prince. Borgnine (in another distractingly non-British accent) plays the urchin's overbearing father. Harrison has little to do (he's offscreen for a significant portion of the film) as one of Heston's political rivals. Scott has a cameo as a grizzled leader of thieves. The good things about the film (the sets, costumes, star wattage) are done in by the bad things (mundane storytelling, lazy cinematography, a ghastly, anachronistic score by Jarre.) The biggest flaw is the casting of Lester. So much hinges on him and he is just wrong for the role by this time. Comparing this so-so piece of work to the majestic, classy and rich "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" is blasphemy.