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.

Guy Plot: A cowardly Englishman is kidnapped by Otto Bismarck and forced to impersonate the king of a small country.This is the third of four collaborations between director Richard Lester and screen writer George MacDonald-Fraser, combining the former's manic energy and ad-libbed humour with the latter's skill at weaving an adventure tale. The story is essentially a re-mix of 'The Prisoner of Zenda', with the addition of a historical background (the 1848 Revolutions and Otto Bismarck's attempts to unify Germany). The genius of the Flashman protagonist (this is adapted from a terrific series of books) is that in public he is a war hero but in private he is a lecherous coward. Cue instant entertainment (with a uniquely reluctant hero) as he is dragged into the dangerous plot. Fans of the novels have quite rightly complained that Malcolm McDowell isn't dark or beefy enough for the character - but it doesn't much matter as he turns in a terrific performance anyway. The film is full of good actors (David Jason, Bob Hoskins, Oliver Reed) who are uniformly excellent, with even Britt Ekland doing a stand-up job. This ability extends to every other part of the production. The locations and costume are stunning and unusual - Victorian Mitteleurope looking beautiful and strangely exotic (to this Englishman). The key however is the plot, which is stuffed with intrigue, love-affairs, pursuits, assassinations, humour and darn good characters. Also look out for much period-authentic slang and all sorts of odd historically accurate details. The 1970s was also a perfect time for such a film, with social rebellion breaking down the stuffiness of many prior historical films, yet without the stultifying political correctness present in so many modern historical films. It zips along with pace, making best use of the historical background to magnify the drama (zip-wiring down a telegraph line) until it's thoroughly satisfying conclusion.Worth two or more viewings.

greens-10 The first few Flashman books were just marvelous, then they started to lose their spontaneity and they became as if written to a formula. However they were still pretty good and it wasn't until the very last couple that it was obvious that George McDonald Fraser had really lost his touch. He could still write wonderful books however (The Border Reivers, The Candlemas Road, his Burma book) it was just with Flashman that he became stale. After having said that he had a strange inclination to write slapstick books such as The Pyrates, which were truly dreadful and practically unreadable. His talent for slapstick however proved worthwhile with the scripts of the first two of the three The Three Musketeer films, the last of the three being not up to the standard of the first two, but still, he basically provided scripts that were funny and clever. So he was unpredictable in terms of quality, especially as he got older. But overall he was one of the best novelists and writers of all time. Which makes it hard to understand how he got it so terribly wrong with this movie. This strange inclination to turn to slapstick which sometimes worked out and at other times didn't brought this film completely undone. He was at the height of his powers when he wrote the script and yet he presented a Flashman that was not the Flashman of the books. It was cornball and silly and so dependent on puerile slapstick humor that if fails completely. The choice of Roddy McDowall as Flashman was disastrous. McDowall was/is a small man whereas Flashman was big, strong and assertive and he used his strength to pander to his particularly liking of being a bully. He was cunning and could appear to be likable and admirable if it suited him. As a result he was popular and respected by those who had never seen his real side, that of a coward, cruel and vicious. Mcdowall just comes across as a contemptible poltroon right from the start, snivelling and whining whereas the Flashman of the book hid his cowardice as much as he could. There is still a film to be made of Flashman and if true to the behavior of Flashman as his devotees would have it, it could be a great movie. This film is a travesty of the Flashman we all know and appreciate.

dea-syria No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.Not so Royal Flash.I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.