Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

redx1708 I have been a Flashy fan since the first novel, and have read them all. So back when the movie came out, i was exited. It sounded so well. GMF doing the script, Lester directing and featuring a great cast. Reed, Bates, Macdowell and Ekland. It all sounded good. After all, Fraser and Lester had made the best musketeer adaption ever. Unfortunately they picked the weakest of the Flashman books. (To be fair it's a very enjoyable read, but compared to the others it comes out not quite up to standard). I guess they picked it because it could be made within a certain budget. No large battle scenes and it could be made in European locations. One can always debate whether MacDowell was the right choice. He certainly lacked the stature, but on the other hand he did project that natural insolence one would expect from Flashy. But they made it too silly in my opinion. Flashman may be a coward, but he is a trained soldier and should have shown more skill in sword fights. Parts of the movie works well though, just don't expect too much.

fedor8 A visually excellent comedy, could be viewed for the amazing photography alone. (There was no "cheating" back then, no computers to artificially play around with the colours of the film, RF's colours are refreshingly real.) RF gets a little too goofy at times, i.e. too cartoonish, but a surprising number of gags actually work, thanks mostly to McDowell who could have been doing comedies his whole career were he not such an obvious choice for heavies. He steals the show from Bates and Reed, who are solid. The movie is fast-paced fun from the word go, without over-relying too much on dull action scenes.The only drawback is the moronic ending, too dumb even for a comedy, with McDowell actually going back to the trollop played by a rather homely actress (bad bad casting). This is moronic because it's quite obvious that it was she who delivered him to Bismarck in the first place. Until that point, there was little to indicate to the viewer that McDowell was a naïve imbecile, much less the type to fall in love, given that he was presented to us as the typical playboy type, hence him seeking out Lola and then being so easily played by her was totally out of character. (Yeah, yeah, it's just a comedy, fine.) Speaking of which, who could possible fall in love with that? That actress is quite ugly. It's a shame that a movie with such high levels of aesthetics would have such a poor-looking woman in the lead role."Carmina Burana" should never be used in a comedy, no matter where or when it's set.

bayster912 As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.

Dantalion If you haven't read any of the Flashman series, go out and find one. Rollicking good read, with the protagonist being an absolutely selfish, cowardly, mean-spirited ass of a man who nonetheless finds himself considered a dashing hero by the public at large. Fraser does a good job of converting his book to the screen (writing Three Musketeers was probably good practice), re-teaming with Richard Lester. MacDowall is good as ol' Flashy, glossing over the fact that Harry is supposed to a large, strapping Brit, and not a skinny little guy like Malcolm. :)Enjoyable on its own merit, but I'd say read one of the other Flashy books and then see this.