OK, so George Sidney's "Scaramouche" probably isn't the most historically accurate look at eighteenth-century France, but seriously, it's a fun romp! Lots of intrigue, sword-fighting, and romance. The best scene is certainly the sword fight at the end, but don't ignore the stage performances. I have no doubt that they had fun filming those.Stewart Granger gets top billing, but I feel compelled to talk about Eleanor Parker's and Janet Leigh's characters. These women provide a pair of fine love interests, both of them in resplendent dresses and dolled up to the max. Of course, Janet Leigh could've worn a burlap sack and she still would've been a real piece of eye candy.No, the movie isn't a masterpiece, but it's not supposed to be. The purpose is to provide two hours of entertainment, and it succeeds in every way. If ever you're looking for a truly enjoyable time, then this is the movie for you. Fun plot, cool score, clever dialogue, and Eleanor Parker and Janet Leigh showing off what babes they were. How can you not want to see it?

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Right from the start it is established that Andre is this witty fella who gets out of chaos by any means necessary. Stewart Granger does a wonderful job playing his character. He was like the Jack Sparrow of the 50's; actually I would not be surprised if the character of Sparrow was influenced by Andre or Scaramouche. Eleanor as Lenore does a great job too, she is almost as equally hilarious as Andre is, however towards the end she becomes more docile and 'damsel-like' which I'm a little annoyed at. But it wasn't so bad. Those two were the highlight of the show for me. Mel Ferrer was good but apart from his sword skills his acting didn't really stand out to me, nor did Janet Leigh's, it was kind of average.The screenplay is really well written and never has a dull moment. I was supposed to read the book for my literature course, but I decided to watch the film instead and I'm so glad I did. In my opinion, it does a wonderful job of condensing the novel into two hours worth of footage. I know that some events have been altered (the marriage of Marquis and Aline was not arranged in the novel), but overall I think that it is pretty accurate. But I'll have to read the book to find out.I don't really know what else to say about the film. It was engaging and comical, had action scenes (that felt a little long and repetitive sometimes), and great characters.Read more movie reviews at: championangels.wordpress.com

Stewart Granger spends most of this 1952 film hiding in the character of Scaramouche, a fool playing on the comedy stage of pre- revolutionary France. He is aided by Eleanor Parker, who plays an actress on stage. She loves him dearly.Granger seeks revenge for the killing of his friend, a writer of the famous Liberty, Equality and Fraternity who has been slain by nobleman Mel Ferrer. Nina Foch, as the queen, designates the Ferrer character to watch over subject Janet Leigh. Foch is hoping for romance to blossom between the two.Granger becomes adept at using the sword. He is hiding the secret that he can never love Leigh since she is his sister. (He was supposedly the illegitimate child of her father.)There is a tremendous duel between Granger and Ferrer at the play house and nothing is spared. Granger cannot bring himself to kill Ferrer and then learns a most shocking secret. He is not the brother of Leigh and guess who his real brother is? This frees him to pursue Leigh and Parker is most gracious in literally releasing him.Swashbuckling historical fun may best describe this period piece.

The most curious thing about Scaramouche is how much Stuart Granger resembles Mel Gibson in his looks and mannerisms. Has anyone else noticed this? I couldn't help wondering if Gibson had copied Granger. Thankfully, Granger doesn't go to such excesses as Gibson, so if you are not a Gibson fan, don't worry, you can still enjoy Scaramouche. This is a good story, with plenty of twists and turns, and a clever O'Henry type ending. It has its rough spots early on, but it's worth sticking with it. I stumbled on Scarmouche out of curiosity to see the younger Eleanor Parker, who played the Baroness in The Sound of Music. She certainly was beautiful. The acting all around is vintage 1952 Hollywood epic, though a major step up from earlier clunkers like Samson and Delilah and Quo Vadis. The Techicolor sets are wonderful, if not 100 percent realistic. The background music is sometimes obtrusively loud and not very good, which is interesting because in 1952 studios were just beginning to use reel to reel tape recorders, instead of recording sound on special film audio recorders. I wonder if this is why they got carried away?This film could have been better with less campy acting. For some reason, Hollywood took an odd turn in the Fifties. There had been so many great movies in the late 1930s, especially in 1939, with wonderful acting and sets. And then there was the war and whatnot, and it seems the studios lost the thread of making truly great movies and epics.I have mixed feelings about Mel Ferrer's acting ability. Here he is fine, though his performance lacks range. He seems to be a chameleon who can put on different masks, but under the mask there lacks subtlety. He plays the villain here, and delivers a suitably dislikable persona. The sword fight with Granger is one of the most entertaining, along with The Princess Bride. It's a little tricky to rate these old movies. By today's standards it might rate a 6 or 7, given its weaknesses. But by the standards of 1952, it would rate an 8 or 9. People paid their two bits and went into the theater and got elaborate sets, glorious color, plenty of action. It's still good entertainment, especially if you have a really good color monitor.