NekoHomey Purely Joyful Movie!

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

edwagreen This film needed to be somewhat longer and more scenes needed to be with the Napoleon character, as Yvonne De Carlo, a British spy desperately tries to learn military secrets from the French.Rock Hudson is a smuggler who falls in with DeCarlo and then thinking that she is against England, kidnaps her. The film could have used much more swashbuckling. There is intrigue and treachery, buy it is under stated tremendously.Nice to see the carrier pigeon at work delivering messages to the British. The butler is an interesting character in the film, but too bad his character wasn't developed more.

rave195 I would definitely agree with the majority of reviewers here, a buckler without much swash. :o Really wasn't feeling it between Rock Hudson and Yvonne DeCarlo and he just seemed much too young for her, IMO. The dialogue between them just seem forced and stunted. I did appreciate the scenes with his shirt off though, no one can deny Rock Hudson was a handsome, well built man.However, as a nautical fiction/ history fan, this movie hit on 7 out of 8 cylinders and I DVR'd it just to be able to see it again on that note.First of all, it is loosely(very) based on Victor Hugo's 1866 classic "The Toilers of the Sea". (He wrote Les Miserables, 1862)Some of the main characters have the same names from the story, Gilliatt(the Cunning!),Rantaine, Lethierry, and Deruchette, the Yvonne DeCarlo role. Secondly, it was filmed in the same locale as The Toilers of the Sea was based on, Guernsey of the The Channel Islands off of France. This location is also where Victor Hugo lived(while writing) and of which he writes of extensively in the book. (Still used today as the most detailed account of that coastal/island geography).As I have yet to visit those islands, it was wonderful to see in the movie the intermingling huge blocks of boulders/rocks, unique grasses and surrounding sea so beautifully depicted. The rocky points, towering cliffs and walls of an old harbor are all shown, in color no less although some scenes are at dusk and dark on purpose. My next viewing will be to solidly identify which of the castles or low built fortifications they actually filmed on. What fun for a nautical fan! :>This is why I gave it a 5 out of 10. (obviously not on the merits of the movie itself, but it's quasi story origin and filming location!) Enjoy! :D

MARIO GAUCI After a bit of trial-and-error, I managed to acquire a workable copy (unlike another Rock Hudson vehicle in the same vein, CAPTAIN LIGHTFOOT [1955]!) of this swashbuckler set in the Napoleonic era – with the Emperor himself played by Frenchman Gerard Oury; incidentally, I had intended to close off 2008 by revisiting the latter's most popular directorial effort i.e. the WWII farce DON'T LOOK NOW – WE'RE BEING SHOT AT! (1966), but had to forego it due to time constraints! While I can't say that SEA DEVILS is very well-regarded within the genre (Leonard Maltin dismisses it with a :star::star: rating), in spite of the revered Walsh's involvement, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed it. Hudson is an impetuous rum-shipper, flanked by an amusingly grumpy Bryan Forbes, who's constantly clashing with rival Maxwell Reed; their quarrel comes to a head when they involve a woman (Yvonne De Carlo) whose activities as a spy, however, are jeopardized when Hudson misconstrues the situation! De Carlo's contribution here is far more engaging than when she played the BUCCANEER'S GIRL (1950), which I watched earlier in the month; for the record, she and Hudson had already been teamed for SCARLET ANGEL (1952), yet another costumer but which I'm not familiar with.By the way, despite American leads, director and studio (RKO), this is a British-made effort – with typically reliable supporting cast (including Dennis O'Dea as De Carlo's superior and Michael Goodliffe as her contact in France) and production values (ensuring stunning color photography throughout and a suitably rousing score). As expected, then, we get plenty of action and intrigue – spiced with equally obligatory bouts of romance and comedy relief; the result hardly makes for a classic film but, in this agreeable company, it's perhaps more satisfying than such hokum has a right to be!

dinky-4 The early 1950s were a sort of Golden Age for those modest but entertaining costume adventures set within pirate ships, French Foreign Legion forts, lost cities in the jungle, medieval castles, Arabian courts, etc. These "costumers" were always in color, the better to lure viewers away from black-and-white TV sets, and they featured such names as John Payne, Maureen O'Hara, Alan Ladd, Jeff Chandler, John Derek, Arlene Dahl, Tony Curtis, and Burt Lancaster.This 1953 swashbuckler from RKO features a top-billed Yvonne de Carlo and an up-and-coming Rock Hudson under the competent but uninspired direction of veteran film-maker, Raoul Walsh. It's a minor effort, diverting enough to pass the time but lacking flair and style and unlikely to linger in the memory. A bit more action and a dash of humor would have been welcome additions.The movie's main fault, however, lies in the relationship between leading man and leading lady. They're supposed to be falling in love during the course of the story but there's no passion or feeling here, merely some dutiful lines of romantic dialog. De Carlo seems too old and matronly for Hudson who needs someone sprightlier to play off against.Hudson hadn't yet reached star status but it's pleasant to see him here before the "movie star" gloss hardened around him. His acting abilities are no more than average but he's attractive and likeable and the script finds several excuses for him to take off his shirt. At one point he's not only bare-chested but in bondage with his hands tied behind his back and a with a length of rope looped twice around his torso. This being the early '50s, his pants are worn high enough to mostly cover his navel, but those ropes passing just above and just below his nipples impart a fetishy quality which is probably sexier than many of today's nude scenes.