The most curious thing about Scaramouche is how much Stuart Granger resembles Mel Gibson in his looks and mannerisms. Has anyone else noticed this? I couldn't help wondering if Gibson had copied Granger. Thankfully, Granger doesn't go to such excesses as Gibson, so if you are not a Gibson fan, don't worry, you can still enjoy Scaramouche.
This is a good story, with plenty of twists and turns, and a clever O'Henry type ending. It has its rough spots early on, but it's worth sticking with it.
I stumbled on Scarmouche out of curiosity to see the younger Eleanor Parker, who played the Baroness in The Sound of Music. She certainly was beautiful. The acting all around is vintage 1952 Hollywood epic, though a major step up from earlier clunkers like Samson and Delilah and Quo Vadis. The Techicolor sets are wonderful, if not 100 percent realistic.
The background music is sometimes obtrusively loud and not very good, which is interesting because in 1952 studios were just beginning to use reel to reel tape recorders, instead of recording sound on special film audio recorders. I wonder if this is why they got carried away?
This film could have been better with less campy acting. For some reason, Hollywood took an odd turn in the Fifties. There had been so many great movies in the late 1930s, especially in 1939, with wonderful acting and sets. And then there was the war and whatnot, and it seems the studios lost the thread of making truly great movies and epics.
I have mixed feelings about Mel Ferrer's acting ability. Here he is fine, though his performance lacks range. He seems to be a chameleon who can put on different masks, but under the mask there lacks subtlety. He plays the villain here, and delivers a suitably dislikable persona. The sword fight with Granger is one of the most entertaining, along with The Princess Bride.
It's a little tricky to rate these old movies. By today's standards it might rate a 6 or 7, given its weaknesses. But by the standards of 1952, it would rate an 8 or 9. People paid their two bits and went into the theater and got elaborate sets, glorious color, plenty of action. It's still good entertainment, especially if you have a really good color monitor.
This is a good story, with plenty of twists and turns, and a clever O'Henry type ending. It has its rough spots early on, but it's worth sticking with it.
I stumbled on Scarmouche out of curiosity to see the younger Eleanor Parker, who played the Baroness in The Sound of Music. She certainly was beautiful. The acting all around is vintage 1952 Hollywood epic, though a major step up from earlier clunkers like Samson and Delilah and Quo Vadis. The Techicolor sets are wonderful, if not 100 percent realistic.
The background music is sometimes obtrusively loud and not very good, which is interesting because in 1952 studios were just beginning to use reel to reel tape recorders, instead of recording sound on special film audio recorders. I wonder if this is why they got carried away?
This film could have been better with less campy acting. For some reason, Hollywood took an odd turn in the Fifties. There had been so many great movies in the late 1930s, especially in 1939, with wonderful acting and sets. And then there was the war and whatnot, and it seems the studios lost the thread of making truly great movies and epics.
I have mixed feelings about Mel Ferrer's acting ability. Here he is fine, though his performance lacks range. He seems to be a chameleon who can put on different masks, but under the mask there lacks subtlety. He plays the villain here, and delivers a suitably dislikable persona. The sword fight with Granger is one of the most entertaining, along with The Princess Bride.
It's a little tricky to rate these old movies. By today's standards it might rate a 6 or 7, given its weaknesses. But by the standards of 1952, it would rate an 8 or 9. People paid their two bits and went into the theater and got elaborate sets, glorious color, plenty of action. It's still good entertainment, especially if you have a really good color monitor.