davefaux-03371
This movie suffered, IMO, from being sandwiches between "Jaws" (with Robert Shaw) and "Star Wars" (with the voice of James Earl Jones). It moves along at a quick pace with great sword work, snappy lines, and amazing performances from one of the best ensembles of talent ever put together on the screen. Red Ned's character development has layers (from "I'm a pirate," to "I'm an Irishman," to "Revolutionaries, pirates . . . we're all men"), Genevieve never looked better, and the look JEJ gives Peter Boyle is punctuated by one of the best social justice lines this side of the Seventies. You CANNOT go wrong with this movie!
innocuous
No, this is not a terrible movie. But it's a bit of an endurance test to watch it. Echoing some of the reviewers (and in contrast to some others), I like the score and most of the actors/actresses. On the other hand, I don't care for their performances here. When you add to this the quite silly plot and action sequences, you come up with not much of anything. (Seeing Bujold nekkid would be some sort of compensation, but you can watch any of her other films and see a lot more than you do here.) In spite of using "The Golden Hinde" (a replica of the original) to stand in for "The Blarney Cock" and having some beautiful (Mexican) scenery, the remainder of the film is so totally unrealistic as to be insulting. It's just silly, but not in the slapstick way that POTC is. It earnestly tries to generate some tension at a few points and fails miserably.Finally, I find it saddening to see Robert Shaw on the screen just two years before his death in such a role. He was immensely talented, but tortured by many personal demons (and the Tax Bureau). Knowing this just sucks out whatever fun the film might have generated.In short, I wouldn't bother with this.
traderviqz
If one can simply recall that movies are to take us away, whether from or to is personally specific, then it would take a profoundly negative person to think poorly of any well made and well acted movie. This is such a flick, decently focused relative to plot, well chosen costuming and locations, great cinematography . . . what more can you ask? If you want a 'film', with all its highbrow silliness, it's true you might not wanna go there with this one, but jeez, does anyone who only goes to 'films' even tell anyone else they know that they're painfully pretentious? This one has no pretensions, and since when is Genevieve in any state of undress a minus? Good entertainment, which is what I want when i spend money on a movie, and Swashbuckler delivers with aplomb.JGS
Ravenswing
... then and now.Alright, I saw this flick as the opener for a circus in Radio City Music Hall on my first trip to NYC in 1976. I thought it grand then, and I haven't much changed my mind.I do agree with those who think that a better villain and ingenue could have been found than Peter Boyle and Genevieve Bujold (one of the most overrated actresses of the time), but the Shaw-Jones pairing sparkles. I loved the score so much I bought the soundtrack on vinyl -- dare I hope that it may be out on CD somewhere? The flick isn't long on plot, really, but the cinematography and action are spiffy, the characterizations work, and man, is Geoffrey Holder a bad ass! It's a sprightly movie and you'll spend a fun time watching it. Who knows, you might even have limerick contests with your mates the next time you're escaping from the local militia.Rating: 7/10
AD
