Scaramouche

1952 "The Company that made "Quo Vadis" brings the world another spectacular romantic triumph!"
7.5| 1h50m| NR| en| More Info
Released: 08 May 1952 Released
Producted By: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

In 18th-century France, a young man masquerades as an actor to avenge his friend's murder.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!
ShangLuda Admirable film.
Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.
Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.
JohnHowardReid Director: GEORGE SIDNEY. Screenwriters: Ronald Millar, George Froeschel, based on the 1921 novel by Rafael Sabatini. Film editor: James E. Newcom. Cinematographer: Charles Rosher. Color by Technicolor. Art directors: Cedric Gibbons, Hans Peters. Set decorators: Edwin B. Willis, Richard Pefferle. Special effects: A. Arnold Gillespie, Warren Newcombe, Irving G. Ries. Make-up: William Tuttle. Costumes: Gile Steele. Technical adviser for magic acts: Dante, the Magician. Montages: Peter Ballbusch. Music: Victor Young. Technicolor color consultants: Henri Jaffa, James Gooch. Master of arms: Jean Heremans. Hair styles: Sydney Guilaroff. Sound supervisor: Douglas Shearer. Western Electric Sound System. Producer: Carey Wilson.Copyright 7 May 1952 by Loew's Inc. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 8 May 1952 (ran three weeks). U.S. release: June 1952. Australian release: 22 September 1952. 10,323 feet. 115 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A nobleman who is also an excellent swordsman takes delight in provoking duels. Setting: 18th century France. NOTES: A re-make of Metro's 1923 version starring Ramon Novarro, Alice Terry and Lewis Stone, directed by Rex Ingram from a screenplay by Willis Goldbeck.COMMENT: Not as exciting the fourth time around, though repeated viewings cannot dim the brilliance of Rosher's Technicolor photography. True, the climactic fencing duel is also as thrilling as ever. In fact, Granger remains in fine form throughout. Stewart performs some of his own acrobatic stunts, though a double is noticeably used for chases on horseback. The stand-out performer is, however, Mel Ferrer — not only a mean hand with a sword but a villain with charm and social finesse. In the support cast, count Roubert Coote's buffoon, a more than usually animated and even stylish Henry Wilcoxon, an appropriately radiant and queenly Nina Foch, and a characteristic cameo from Howard Freeman. Our old favorite Douglass Dumbrille does what he can with a piddling part as president of the parliament.Alas, Janet Leigh and Eleanor Parker prove poor substitutes for Elizabeth Taylor and Ava Gardner, respectively, who were originally announced. Rosher does what he can with these ladies, especially the former who has the double advantage of more attractive costumes.On repeated viewings, the screenplay does seem a bit over-talkative at times. Fortunately, rich costumes and sets, actual location lensing and a zestful music score by Victor Young help offset much of the needless cackle on the sound track.And, yes, I know "Scaramouche" is an "A" production, but I first saw it on a neighborhood double bill with "Wagon Master", in which the Ford western was billed as the main attraction. Why? Because this was a working-class area where patrons simply didn't like period pictures (unless, of course, they were set in the old American West).
richard-1787 I saw this movie the day after I saw, for the nth time, Errol Flynn/Erich Korngold/Michael Curtiz's masterpiece, The Adventures of Robin Hood. This movie doesn't stand up well in comparison. It's the same genre, the historical costume action drama. But while Robin Hood holds up wonderfully even after repeated viewing, this movie, for me, fell flat.I'm not sure that I can tell you why. The script, certainly, is not as clever. Granger, certainly, doesn't have the flair Flynn did. The director here did not know how to create excitement the way Curtiz did. Certainly one big difference was the lack of a score that helped create excitement, as Korngold's did and this one does not. Part of the problem, for me, is that too often Granger lacks the sort of self-confidence that makes Flynn's Robin Hood so winning. Perhaps there are other reasons. In the end, however, I found this movie of no interest. I could definitely never get myself to sit through it again.
radomski-2 I used to enjoy watching this film on TV as a teenager back in the late 60s. Not having seen it since then, I bought the DVD a couple of years ago to see if it still held up to my memories.When I first started watching, I cringed at all these 18th-century "Frenchmen" speaking with twangy American accents. But, after about 5 minutes, you get used to it and enjoy the fun. What one realizes, after all, is that ANY historical film is not telling you so much about the period in which it is set as it is telling you about the period in which it was made. And, so, Scaramouche captures the self-confidence, the unashamed glamor, the bravura of the U.S. after World War II. This is a costume-drama at its best. Stewart Granger, Eleanor Parker, Janet Leigh, Mel Ferrer are all perfectly cast.A great movie is loved for its memorable "moments"—and Scaramouche is full of them: the "revelation scene," the Marquis pinned to the wall, André and Leonore's poignant farewell, etc.The film owes much of its success to the superb score by Victor Young. He manages to capture the spirit of the 18th century, but in a "Hollywood" guise. He provides delightful humor in the various commedia dell'arte skits but reaches Romantic heights with his soaring strings in the revelation scene. Victor Young was known for his gift in composing beautiful tunes. This gift is particularly evident in Scaramouche.
blanche-2 The robust Stewart Granger is "Scaramouche" in this 1952 adaptation of the Sabatini novel, and it's a good example of the kind of film MGM excelled at - it's a fast-moving adventure in beautiful color, with great production values.Granger plays Andre Moreau, who watches a friend killed in a sword fight with the Marquis (Mel Ferrer). Andre, alas, can't go after the Marquis - he can't handle a sword anywhere close enough. Instead, he joins a traveling company of actors and becomes "Scaramouche." He encounters romance, but he has plenty of time to learn how to use a sword. Finally, he and the Marquis meet again, in a long, exciting, swordfight that takes place in a theater, the highlight of the film.Very exciting movie in spots, gorgeous to look at, with strong performances by the well-cast Granger, Mel Ferrer, and the beautiful Eleanor Parker. A rousing adventure - if you like swashbuckler movies, don't miss this one!