ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

A_Different_Drummer For the record, this film when released was shamelessly called The Prince and the Pauper.Do you remember the 70s? It helps if you do.Having survived the post-war era, rock and roll, and the chaos the 60s, the 70s ushered in big hair, big disco, big cars, big meals and ... well you get the drift.Especially big Hollywood productions like this one.Against such a backdrop it is easy to imagine a bunch of studio suits looking at the wonderful 1947 version of the Prince and the Pauper (a version your humble reviewer has seen over a dozen times) and saying something like .. bah humbug we can do better.No in fact, they could not. They could do it bigger and more lavish. But better is hardly a word I would use to describe a version so different in every way that, years after release, they even changed the title (presumably to avoid reviews just like this one.) The 1947 version is sweet and clever and constantly interesting. And very true to the original story.This version, aside from the interesting attempt to cast Reed against type, is worth one watch, maybe and my guess is you will never want to see it again.Advice? See the original. Accept no imitations.

parsifalssister While many have mentioned the young Tom/Edward was poorly played or cast, I found that this seeming parody of Twain's Prince and the Pauper undoubtedly needed an older version to meet head-on with the presentation.It has many laugh out loud moments, stylised performances by Reed, Harrison, Heston and others, all of whom support the young 19 year old Mark Lester, as he leads a thoroughly miserable few days as a pauper. His portrayal of the Prince is sturdier, but both sides of the role are engrossing and satisfying. Scott is outstanding as the Ruffler and Borgnine is true to his reputation as nasty John Canty. In fact, it is these performances, over-sized and bold that add to my notion of it's parody quality.Reed is terrific as the rough and ready, but not always successful Miles Hendron, and the few scenes in which Harrison appears as the notorious Duke of Norfolk are nearly as hilarious as his claim to fame role as Professor Henry Higgins. The plot line moved quickly across the screen, the costumes and scenery added to the character of the film, which in some ways nearly appeared as a theatre piece and a mighty good one at that. We owe Mark Twain much credit for the concept, but this production makes it glow with humour and originality.

moonspinner55 Rather chintzy retelling of Mark Twain's "The Prince and the Pauper", though one with a good director (Richard Fleischer) and a fine cast behind it. Mark Lester has the dual roles of the Crown Prince of England and his lookalike pauper who exchange places, and he's a decent young actor if a bit colorless. Older children might enjoy the film, though a comic rendering of the material may have been more successful. Fleischer is too literal and reverent to the text, and his pacing is often stilted. Audiences at this point were eager for a little broad satire and, while Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch do grace us with their presence, one waits in vain for someone like Marty Feldman or the Monty Python troupe to invade the territory and give it some juice. *1/2 from ****

James Byrne The major stumbling block in this all-star version of Mark Twain's classic children's story is Mark Lester, he just does not convince as a begging urchin, he lacks the street-wise cunning of a young man who has been dragged up, beaten up and abused by his monster of a father. There is no disguising his cultured and well-spoken dialect when attempting the pauper's lower class diction, and the Harpo Marx hairstyle doesn't help his cause. Charlton Heston, the only American actor ever to play King Henry VIII, gives a towering performance as the gout-ridden Tudor monarch and completely dominates every scene he is in. Oliver Reed is great as Miles Hendon, and proves to be a rollicking good swashbuckler in his clash with fellow British 60's hell-raiser David Hemmings.(It's sad when viewing GLADIATOR and seeing what twenty years of hell-raising did to these two talented actors). Coincidentally, Errol Flynn, the daddy of all hell-raisers, made a better version of THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER in the 30's, and also a terrible turkey called CROSSED SWORDS, which was the American title used for this film in 1978. What this version has over all the others is the marvellous supporting cast, not just Rex Harrison, George C. Scott and Ernest Borgnine (who is frightening as the pauper's father) but the excellent British character actors who keep cropping up in the minor roles. Michael Ripper, veteran of countless Hammer horrors, does a fine turn as the servant of Raquel Welch; Ripper also appeared in the very good Walt Disney 1962 version of this tale, as a broom merchant. THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is excellent family entertainment, the sets and costumes are superb, and this movie may inspire younger viewers to pick up and read the wonderful Mark Twain classic story.