GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

robertguttman Those who are familiar with the well-known 1952 remake of "Scaramouche" might find it difficult to recognize it in this 1923 silent version. The story in this earlier and seldom-seen version is quite different in many respects. Many of the plot points are different, the names of some of the principal characters are not the same and some of the principal characters in this earlier version do not even appear in the remake. The earlier version is also quite different in tone, being rather more in the nature of Historical-Melodrama or Historical-Fiction than the later version, which is much more of a mere swashbuckler. However, the fact is that this earlier version is actually much more faithful to the original book than the remake.Don't be put off by the fact that this is a silent film produced 90 years ago, because it's production values are excellent. Clearly no available expense was spared to make this production as lavish and authentic to the period (France during the French Revolution), as possible. The director, Rex Ingram, was about as good as one could find at the time. The cast also features some first rate performers, including perennial MGM favorite Lewis Stone, who was probably with the studio longer than any other actor, so long that he appeared in the 1952 remake. The title role is played by Ramon Navarro, who was a major star in the 1920s. Like Rudolph Valentino, Navarro was a major leading man in the films of the 1920s, and had the title role in the silent version of "Ben Hur". However, unlike Valentino, who died young, Navarro continued to work for many years, though his career as a leading man waned after talkies came in. Navarro's problem in talkies was that he happened to be Mexican, and spoke with an accent.All in all, "Scaramouche" comes off as a lavish and well produced melodrama set against the background of the French Revolution. The plot points and tone are so different that it should be rated alongside, rather than above or below, the better-known swashbuckling remake. This film is very well worth a look, especially to the many fans of the 1952 version.

zpzjones This is a well known film to most silent film buffs. Rex Ingram films his scenes like a painter. Ingram uses his camera like a paint brush. Indeed some of the scenes look like paintings come to life. This film is based on the novel by Rafael Sabatini and stars Ramon Novarro, one of Ingram's favorite actors. It costars Ingram's wife Alice Terry. This film boasts a cast of many well-known silent film supporting actors. An historical subject, Ingram gives great care to accuracy of costumes & history. The score for the film is adequate but tends to drone a bit. Surprisingly Ingrams camera can still be quite static which reminds one of DW Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm"(1921). Both 'Orphans' and 'Scaramouche' take place at the same tiime so a similarity is logical. The picture was made at Metro Studios just prior to the famous merger with Goldwyn & Mayer. Luckily this film survives today to be enjoyed. Rex Ingram, Metro Pictures.

mukava991 Hats off to Rex Ingram. Scaramouche, like his other gorgeously mounted adventure sagas The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Prisoner of Zenda, or Ben-Hur (which he co-directed) illustrate clearly how the art of cinema took a body blow with the coming of sound, recovery from which took several years. The kinds of stunning compositions and environmental detail that were possible before the soundtrack era had to be jettisoned just for the sake of miking, so we lost much of this intensive artistry. Visually this film is every bit as impressive as Selznick's A Tale of Two Cities, or Korda's The Scarlet Pimpernel, both made well into the sound era over a decade later. Ingram was a visionary, right up there with Griffith, Stroheim and early DeMille. This film is beautiful right down to the title cards.In this tale of the French Revolution we are treated to large doses of "The Masses," as in the later Selznick Tale of Two Cities. In fact, these masses are so vividly presented that one suspects that Selznick borrowed some of his imagery from Ingram. Like The Scarlet Pimpernel, Scaramouche is a participant in the events of the era. But whereas the Pimpernel used ingenious disguises and impersonations to save selected aristocrats from the guillotine, Scaramouche uses his position as popular comedic stage actor and skilled swordsman to rouse the masses to revolutionary action and successfully duel to the death with reactionary members of the National Assembly. Ramon Novarro, who plays the title character, was second only to Valentino as a heartthrob of the silent era but his countenance and manner were gentler. Lewis Stone, best known for his stern but benign elder patriarch roles in talkies, was once the dashing, chiselled-featured leading man on display here. Alice Terry as the love interest reminds us of how cinematic standards of beauty have changed. Her costuming and coiffure notwithstanding, there is a pre-20th-century quality to her, as if she stepped out of a painting or daguerrotype.

Dick-42 This 1923 adaptation of a mid-1921 novel is one of the most faithful-to-the-original screenplays I have ever seen. Granted, large blocks of the book are omitted or greatly condensed, but who wants a 20-hour movie? The basic story line is retained and well developed.The cinematography is superb, and the print we saw on cable was sharp and clear. It shows there is no excuse for the foggy, low-contrast prints we see in so many of the early thirties films. The sets, costumes, performances, and overall production are outstanding for any era. The silent film has been provided with a fine score, and even with its limitations is infinitely superior to the 1952 so-called "remake," which is virtually no relation to the book.The two-hour-plus production moves along briskly (with perhaps a few too many minutes of the final mob scenes) and is exciting. Suspense is maintained very well, though my wife anticipated the ending. It was hard to keep my previous knowledge of the plot to myself.I loved this production and give it an enthusiastic and unqualified 10.