Wordiezett So much average

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

MARIO GAUCI This is one of those films whose poster I had admired (in an old scrapbook of my father's filled with such vintage ads) long before I ever had the opportunity to watch it; as it happened, I first acquired a mediocre pan-and-scan VHS-sourced edition, which I eventually upgraded to a much superior (but still imperfect) HDTV rip – for the record, the movie was released on R2 DVD not too long ago. Incidentally, it was also known on its home ground back in the day as BLOOD ON THE SWORD and, obviously enough, has nothing whatsoever to do with the much later James Bond extravaganza.It is a typically handsomely-mounted British historical epic, offering a familiar plot line (set at the time of Oliver Cromwell and Charles Stuart), standard thrills (including plenty of intrigue, disguises, chases, swashbuckling action and, of course, a hesitant romance between people emanating from warring factions), attractive scenery and costumes, etc. Another plus is the sturdy cast: led by George Baker (as the titular avenging figure, at times he bore an uncanny resemblance to Roxy Music's Bryan Ferry!), with Sylvia Syms, Marius Goring (the latter two are engaged to be married and side with the oppressor but, when she learns to respect the enemy and aids in his ultimate escape, her humourless intended – his pride hurt – opts to free the woman from any obligation rather than consign her to the authorities!), Peter Arne (dressed-up for much of the proceedings as a minister, but inevitably emerging a villainous character whose climactic showdown with the hero – starting in the dining-hall of an inn, descending to its cellar and culminating on a rocky shore – leaves both a bloody mess!), Gary Raymond (curiously unbilled during the opening credits – which made me think his was going to be a bit part rather than a pivotal one! – as the hunted royal), John Le Mesurier (surprisingly turning up briefly early on as Cromwell), Patrick Troughton, George Woodbridge and child actor Michael Anderson Jr., among others. A portly and annoyingly cranky traveler also eventually proves heroic and a martyr to the Royalist cause he shamelessly sympathizes with in the face of the enemy. For what it is worth, the fact that the second half takes place almost exclusively within the confines of an inn betrays the script's origins as a stage play.As I said, the film – which evidently uses "The Scarlet Pimpernel" as a template, down to "The Moonraker" having his own popular ballad reprised throughout the film! – deals with a turbulent period in history that was much in vogue throughout the heyday of British cinema, numbering such disparate films as BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE (1948; though it deals with a different Charles Stuart!), THE SCARLET BLADE (1963; the one it comes closest to in narrative, style and even quality), WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1968; in which Cromwell is, again, no more than a marginal presence) and CROMWELL (1970; a large-scale biopic of the controversial Roundhead leader and Parliamentarian). For what it is worth, as had been the case with the recently-viewed CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS (1949), I also have a Vittorio Cottafavi-directed Italian TV mini-series dating from 1969 dealing with the exploits of Oliver Cromwell in my unwatched pile...

rogerblake-281-718819 There are comparatively few films about the English Civil War,the best being Ken Hughs' Cromwell which features Richard Harris as Oliver Cromwell.This gives both sides a fair hearing,although personally I do not believe in the divine right of kings and like Cromwell believe that kings should rule through Parliament.Oliver Cromwell was very much a warts and all character and though still reviled in Ireland turned the Parliamentary Army into one of the finest armies the world has ever known.They were known as the Ironsiders,and were far removed from the incompetent swordsmen that they are usually shown as,e.g.The Scarlet Blade and the film under review here.By far the most realistic film of the Civil War was The Witchfinder General,an extremely unpleasant violent though realistic film which didn't pull its punches.The Moonraker is a much gentler film which gained a "U"Certificate and on its own level quite exciting.George Baker plays, as another reviewer puts it. a scarlet pimpernel type character helping Royalists escape to France.Although Baker is no Cornel Wilde he is rather good in the role.There are many other pleasures to be found not least John Le Mesurier's take on Cromwell.The plot concerns the Moonraker's attempts to help the future King Charles 2nd (rather well played by Gary Raymond) to escape to France.They are ensconced in an inn,all in disguise of course,while the Moonraker tries to arrange passage on a ship.Among the other guests is the lovely Sylvia Sims who is waiting for her Roundhead fiancé to turn up,he is scouring the countryside looking for the future King.When Baker puts on the old charm she soon melts.Also present is one Edmund Tyler,a Roundhead secret agent,a thoroughly nasty piece of work and a superb classic villain.Peter Arne,a poor mans Robert Douglas,specialised in such roles,always very hissable.The chap who saves the day is a cavalier gentleman by the name of Mr Parfitt whose one purpose in life is riotous living,a very loud larger than life man who without giving away too much gives his life so the King can escape.The wonderful character actor Paul Whitson Jones steals all the scenes he is in.The climatic sword fight between Tyler and the Moonraker is brilliantly staged and there are no prizes for guessing who wins.Sylvia Sims fiancé turns up,Colonel Beaumont played by Marius Goring,who unusually for a Roundhead is portrayed as a decent honourable man and when he realises the King has escaped he allows his fiancé to join the Moonraker.He is certain that the Innkeeper,his wife and son were implicated in the plot and in an act of mercy he does not press charges against them.All in all a perfect film for a wet afternoon to watch while armed with a cup of tea and the biscuit tin.Why don't they make films like this now?

Igenlode Wordsmith 'The Moonraker' is a somewhat lacklustre swashbuckler with certain touches of originality. The beginning, based loosely around the final stages of Charles II's famous oak-tree escape after the Battle of Worcester, is frankly tedious, despite all the galloping horses and hack-and-slashery. Neither the King nor those who aid him -- including the "Moonraker" himself -- seem to come to life, and the action, as elsewhere in the film, gives the impression of being done by numbers. The swashbuckling elements of this film are really not its strong point: no matter what it tries, it manages somehow to come across as working down a list of clichés to be ticked.Hero swings across the room? Tick. Precarious rope bridge spanning a chasm? Tick. Doublet slashed open to reveal wadding -- branch of candles cut in half -- rolling dive through window frame: tick, tick, tick. And I've never seen so many swords clapped obviously under the victims' armpits before!All this is the stuff of tradition, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it's the business of the film to make it feel joyous -- fresh and new -- and instead it contrives to make it dull.Events pick up as soon as the character work begins, with a public coach of assorted travellers... and what with the amount of recapitulation around this point, one gets the impression that the film could just as well have been started here, and probably have benefited by it. With hindsight the script's stage-play origins can be perceived, given the narrowly-confined setting from this moment on: almost all the scenes take place within the four walls of the inn. And since it is in the dialogue and the interplay of the characters that almost all of the enjoyment lies, I have a melancholy suspicion that this film's good qualities are due to its original, while its faults lie largely in the added material.For it is not until his arrival among the others at the inn that I found the Moonraker himself at all interesting. George Baker, handicapped by a dodgy contemporary haircut, really doesn't have the charisma to persuade in the dashing hero role, but conveys a real sense of mischief in his assumed Puritan disguise, where he is far more fun to watch. The innkeeper and his wife, who ultimately play only a small part in the plot, come to life from their initial appearance, and are the first characters whose troubles actually arouse our concern. And Parfitt, whose ultimate fate goes undeservedly all but unnoticed, is a fine comic foil who serves to push the plot along.But perhaps the best-developed character is that of Anne Wyndham, whose principles drive her first to betray the Moonraker and then her lover, the worthy but dull Cromwellian Colonel. Swashbuckler conventions require that she first scorn the hero and then fall passionately in love and be rescued by him; but here convention is subverted. She faces a very real divided tug of loyalties, between the man she has known, liked and admired since she was a child and the politics they both believe in, and the Cavalier who makes her laugh and dares against the odds, but espouses the cause that killed her father and brothers. And her gallant lie is all too swiftly found out.It would be easy to have her fall at the Moonraker's feet. But she doesn't, and is all the more interesting for that. The play does not demonise its Puritan characters, with the exception of Major Gregg, who is disavowed by his fellow officers at the beginning and made to demonstrate sufficient obligatory sadism to label him as the villain we are intended to hate. Colonel Beaumont, Anne's intended husband, is portrayed as a competent commander and not unsympathetic man, and we cannot help but feel for their situation when he discovers her shielding the Royalists.So far, so good -- and the human drama lasts almost to the end. But as soon as it breaks into action again the film reverts to being second-rate. I don't understand why. But the power of the piece doesn't lie in Gregg and his quarry scrambling improbably across the cliff-face stabbing at each other, or in troopers tumbling into the abyss; it lies in Colonel Beaumont's final quiet interview with Anne as his prisoner. I'd be very interested to see the script of the original play, for this film feels as if it is trying to force a character study into a glossy adventure format it was never intended to support.I'm not sure if the problems are with the budget and its inadequate (and occasionally risible!) special effects, the casting of the title role, or the failed attempts to expand out from what is essentially a restricted stage set. As a swashbuckler, this lacks charisma... as a chamber piece it could have been quite interesting.

noelcox "The Moonraker" is an account of the escapades of a dedicated Cavalier gentleman, Anthony Earl of Dawlish, aka Mr Rice, pursued by Roundhead soldiers seeking King Charles II after the Battle of Worcester in 1651. George Baker, as Dawlish, brings to life a Scarlet Pimpernel type character, who skillfully manages to assume the identity of a puritan scholar whilst rescuing supporters of the late King's son from the army of Cromwell.This is a neglected film, which deserves more attention than it has received. Although in the second half it tends to restrict action to the environs of an inn, there is much to enjoy in the detail. The personal motivations of protagonists are also laid bare, and more than one is called to question their convictions.