Steineded How sad is this?

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

bawdybill I can't believe I'm the only one who has read the book!. And, boy, was it different. Read before the movie was made, too.But, as to the movie and considering how the film industry takes all kinds of liberties when transferring story to film it was a pretty good spectacle. Older folks will recall the "spectacles" with their "casts of thousands" etc. Okay. Jack was an alright Tristam, but in the book he became outlawed in England and died as such (from starvation, as I recall); the girl was oriental and followed Walter back to England separately. As I recall, all she could say was "Walter" and "London", but it got her back to Walter and the folks at Gurnie who had all turned merchants and were producing linen paper, etc. from tricks Walter learned in the far east.The book was so much better than the movie, especially since your can cast your own stars (if you want) and the author usually gives you pretty good descriptions of his characters. Sadly, no one in the movie comes close to my idea of what the characters looked like.

funkyfry What did Tyrone Power do to deserve appearing in a movie like this? Orson Welles might have angered some god of cinema or other, but I really can't understand why poor Power was condemned to this kind of slop. The movie is practically unwatchable. It's amazing that a lot of the same talent was at work on this film as on the excellent "Prince of Foxes" starring the same two talents. Even the inexplicable presence of Cecile Aubry as the leading lady is not enough to explain the complete idiocy and boredom of this picture, which was enough to put me to sleep the first time I tried to watch it.But Aubry is a wonder to behold. Her obnoxious voice paired with a ridiculous backstory about her being part English and part Arab is an insult to the audience's intelligence. I knew nothing about Cecile Aubry before seeing the movie, but it's completely obvious that she's a 20th century French girl. There's also nothing sexy or intriguing about her whatsoever. There's not even a tiny spark of chemistry between Power and Aubry.Orson Welles in the movie... oh boy. He looks like some kind of weird caricature, some doll for tourists of what an "oriental" person looks like. As it is, his performance brings some of the only human warmth to the film. Jack Hawkins also displays some humanity, although it would be a crime if he didn't given the amount of screen time.The conclusion of the film is like the final insult to the audience. In a war film that showed us long lines of medieval garbed troops, we've seen not a single battle scene. The strangest thing about the essential dynamic of the film is the way that Power's character is played against the racist pride of the Hawkins and Aubry characters. He wants nothing but to free himself of England's grasp because he feels betrayed by the Normans, but he's drawn back by personal honor to the desire of Hawkins' "bowman" to spread the science and knowledge of the Chinese to the British instead of to Welles' Mongolian type. Welles' character rewards him -- because he respects his conviction (bourne of loyalty to a deluded racist friend?) -- and returns his lady love to him. Queue closing music and credits roll.

thebb1951 The Black Rose is an extremely uninvolving film, due both to its unfocused script and the miscasting of Tyrone Power and Cecile Aubrey. Power is far too old to play an Oxford student who has dropped out of college. A 20 year old in the part might have made the hot-headedness of the character acceptable, but Power was 36 when he made this, and watching him behave this way simply made me think he was immature or nasty and vindictive. Cecile Aubrey is truly awful. She comes across as a child, and has no sex appeal or chemistry with Power. It's doubly curious that she's called "The Black Rose" but has blonde hair and a light complexion. Orson Welles has some enjoyable moments as the warlord, and Jack Hawkins is solid as the best friend. There is some nice production value, but there are no battle scenes that actually take place on screen. This is a movie in which things just happen, but not because the characters are driven to make them happen. All in all, it's rather dull and definitely not recommended.

MARIO GAUCI I know this was shown on Italian TV during my childhood but I'm not sure whether I had watched the film in its entirety - after this viewing, I certainly didn't recollect much of anything and, therefore, consider it as a first!Anyway, I decided to catch up with it now as an accompaniment to star Tyrone Power's most popular vehicle - THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940). Unlike that one (shot in black-and-white on studio sets), however, this was splashed with color and had the benefit of location photography: still, it's a much inferior spectacle, and the main reason for this is that the plot itself singularly lacks excitement - despite being basically an amalgam of Ivanhoe (starting off in medieval England with our Saxon hero opposing the Norman rulers) and Marco Polo (he eventually travels to the Orient and brings back samples of their exotic heritage). Also, despite the imposing presence of Orson Welles as a fearsome but noble Mongol warrior, there's precious little action in this two-hour film (though it's never actually boring)!Despite the Fox banner, this was a British-based production and, consequently, the supporting cast and technical credits are nothing to sneeze at - the former including such stalwarts as Jack Hawkins (an unlikely but amiable bowman and Power's sidekick), Michael Rennie, Finlay Currie (as Power's proud and cantankerous grandfather), Herbert Lom, James Robertson Justice and Laurence Harvey (impossibly young as a Norman prince), as well as Alfonso Bedoya (whose voice was allegedly dubbed by Peter Sellers!) and child actor Robert Blake; behind the camera were such talents as legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, composer Richard Addinsell and production designer Paul Sheriff. The weakest link in the film is clearly leading lady Cecile Aubry, who struggles too hard to be winsome but results only in being irritating most of the time (not surprisingly, her career wasn't a long-lasting one).While certainly watchable and generally entertaining in itself, Power was better served by some of his other historical epics (among them the film that directly preceded it, PRINCE OF FOXES [1949], another - though more modest - collaboration with Orson Welles).