Purely Joyful Movie!

Masterful Movie

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

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

New top Universal Pictures leading man Rock Hudson was sent on a loan out to RKO to co-star with Yvonne DeCarlo in Sea Devils. Though the film is somewhat at sea there aren't any real devils in this picture.It's a spy story set in the Napoleonic era with spymaster Denis O'Dea trying to implement a plan to send Yvonne DeCarlo over to hostile France from the Channel island of Guernsey. The guy who was going to take her over Maxwell Reid gets himself indisposed after a brawl with Rock Hudson in a tavern.Reid and Hudson are rival smugglers who make a good living trading with the continent and breaching Napoleon's continental blockade on one side and avoiding the customs folks on the other. They also hate each other passionately and steal frequently from each other. But now Hudson has the only boat in town and DeCarlo has to use him.As for the rest of the film, Hudson is not so much a romantic figure, but something of a lout who up to the end seems more of a hindrance all around than a help. As for DeCarlo although she's a spy she's no Mati Hari and it ain't clear just who she's a double or triple agent for until the end.This is a minor league swashbuckler directed by the always good Raoul Walsh that didn't hurt Rock Hudson's career any, but I don't think it especially helped.

This is a disappointing minor swashbuckler considering it was written by a fairly competent screenwriter (Borden Chase) and directed by the usually dependent Raoul Walsh. Rock Hudson plays a fisherman turned smuggler during the Napoleonic wars who becomes embroiled in some routine espionage shenanigans after falling for Yvonne De Carlo. Hudson has a sidekick in the bizarre diminutive form of Bryan Forbes, who looks faintly ridiculous in the role of a spirited, hard-drinking smuggler. Their relationship put me in mind of the great Errol Flynn and Alan Hale flicks of the 30s and 40s, which was a bad thing for this film because Hudson and Forbes are no Flynn and Hale.Hudson's character is as dislikeable as it's possible for a movie hero to be. he has the moody, impetuous temperament of a lovesick schoolboy for much of the film, and it's no coincidence that the film livens up only when he is off-screen. He spends much of his time on-screen dramatically baring his nipples and striking manly poses which should, when you think about it, lend this effort a fairly high camp quotient, but strangely the film stubbornly refuses to develop any kind of character. The ending, when it finally, belatedly arrives, is as rushed and anti-climactic as you are likely to find...

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.