Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Kidskycom It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

edwagreen This film needed to be somewhat longer and more scenes needed to be with the Napoleon character, as Yvonne De Carlo, a British spy desperately tries to learn military secrets from the French.Rock Hudson is a smuggler who falls in with DeCarlo and then thinking that she is against England, kidnaps her. The film could have used much more swashbuckling. There is intrigue and treachery, buy it is under stated tremendously.Nice to see the carrier pigeon at work delivering messages to the British. The butler is an interesting character in the film, but too bad his character wasn't developed more.

rave195 I would definitely agree with the majority of reviewers here, a buckler without much swash. :o Really wasn't feeling it between Rock Hudson and Yvonne DeCarlo and he just seemed much too young for her, IMO. The dialogue between them just seem forced and stunted. I did appreciate the scenes with his shirt off though, no one can deny Rock Hudson was a handsome, well built man.However, as a nautical fiction/ history fan, this movie hit on 7 out of 8 cylinders and I DVR'd it just to be able to see it again on that note.First of all, it is loosely(very) based on Victor Hugo's 1866 classic "The Toilers of the Sea". (He wrote Les Miserables, 1862)Some of the main characters have the same names from the story, Gilliatt(the Cunning!),Rantaine, Lethierry, and Deruchette, the Yvonne DeCarlo role. Secondly, it was filmed in the same locale as The Toilers of the Sea was based on, Guernsey of the The Channel Islands off of France. This location is also where Victor Hugo lived(while writing) and of which he writes of extensively in the book. (Still used today as the most detailed account of that coastal/island geography).As I have yet to visit those islands, it was wonderful to see in the movie the intermingling huge blocks of boulders/rocks, unique grasses and surrounding sea so beautifully depicted. The rocky points, towering cliffs and walls of an old harbor are all shown, in color no less although some scenes are at dusk and dark on purpose. My next viewing will be to solidly identify which of the castles or low built fortifications they actually filmed on. What fun for a nautical fan! :>This is why I gave it a 5 out of 10. (obviously not on the merits of the movie itself, but it's quasi story origin and filming location!) Enjoy! :D

JoeytheBrit This is a disappointing minor swashbuckler considering it was written by a fairly competent screenwriter (Borden Chase) and directed by the usually dependent Raoul Walsh. Rock Hudson plays a fisherman turned smuggler during the Napoleonic wars who becomes embroiled in some routine espionage shenanigans after falling for Yvonne De Carlo. Hudson has a sidekick in the bizarre diminutive form of Bryan Forbes, who looks faintly ridiculous in the role of a spirited, hard-drinking smuggler. Their relationship put me in mind of the great Errol Flynn and Alan Hale flicks of the 30s and 40s, which was a bad thing for this film because Hudson and Forbes are no Flynn and Hale.Hudson's character is as dislikeable as it's possible for a movie hero to be. he has the moody, impetuous temperament of a lovesick schoolboy for much of the film, and it's no coincidence that the film livens up only when he is off-screen. He spends much of his time on-screen dramatically baring his nipples and striking manly poses which should, when you think about it, lend this effort a fairly high camp quotient, but strangely the film stubbornly refuses to develop any kind of character. The ending, when it finally, belatedly arrives, is as rushed and anti-climactic as you are likely to find...

MARIO GAUCI After a bit of trial-and-error, I managed to acquire a workable copy (unlike another Rock Hudson vehicle in the same vein, CAPTAIN LIGHTFOOT [1955]!) of this swashbuckler set in the Napoleonic era – with the Emperor himself played by Frenchman Gerard Oury; incidentally, I had intended to close off 2008 by revisiting the latter's most popular directorial effort i.e. the WWII farce DON'T LOOK NOW – WE'RE BEING SHOT AT! (1966), but had to forego it due to time constraints! While I can't say that SEA DEVILS is very well-regarded within the genre (Leonard Maltin dismisses it with a :star::star: rating), in spite of the revered Walsh's involvement, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed it. Hudson is an impetuous rum-shipper, flanked by an amusingly grumpy Bryan Forbes, who's constantly clashing with rival Maxwell Reed; their quarrel comes to a head when they involve a woman (Yvonne De Carlo) whose activities as a spy, however, are jeopardized when Hudson misconstrues the situation! De Carlo's contribution here is far more engaging than when she played the BUCCANEER'S GIRL (1950), which I watched earlier in the month; for the record, she and Hudson had already been teamed for SCARLET ANGEL (1952), yet another costumer but which I'm not familiar with.By the way, despite American leads, director and studio (RKO), this is a British-made effort – with typically reliable supporting cast (including Dennis O'Dea as De Carlo's superior and Michael Goodliffe as her contact in France) and production values (ensuring stunning color photography throughout and a suitably rousing score). As expected, then, we get plenty of action and intrigue – spiced with equally obligatory bouts of romance and comedy relief; the result hardly makes for a classic film but, in this agreeable company, it's perhaps more satisfying than such hokum has a right to be!