Great Film overall

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

There is a DVD of this movie that shows its excellent wide screen color cinematography. Another big plus factor of this movie is its basis in historical fact. The Black Prince, portrayed by Errol Flynn, was a real person, the Prince of Wales in old England of the 1300's. He really did marry a noblewoman named Joan, here portrayed by Joanne Dru. Many of the characters portrayed in this move were real, such as the King of France who is correctly mentioned as a prisoner of England, and the Dauphin of France who was suddenly forced by circumstance to rule in his father's absence. But the big ultimate winner of all the warfare was French hero Bertrand du Guesclin, Constable of France, who is portrayed in this film. Although depicted here as losing a battle, du Guesclin really did eventually regain almost all of France from the English and other assorted groups. These characters are chronicled more fully in a fine book called "The Distant Mirror" by noted historian Barbara W. Tuchman. The book also documents the constant wars, castle sieges, attacks, counter attacks such as those presented in "The Warriors". Believe it or not, these guys really did run around in a bloody, crazy, messy hundred years of warfare all over France and parts of Italy and the Habsburg Empire. And the English did have a claim on Aquitaine and fought for a long time to retain it.So the movie is not just swashbuckling for its own sake. For me, understanding that the circumstances and that the major figures presented here are historical adds a new perspective to what you might be tempted to call "just another swashbuckler". The only failing that I perceive to all this is that not much time can be allowed for character development (hence the Tuchman book for reference- its well written but really long).Errol Flynn's acting is good as it always was throughout his career, but alas he is too dissipated to be able to swash many buckles, although he or his double do participate in some action scenes. Dru is not effective in her part which is only secondary to this film's story, but Peter Finch and others including a young Christopher Lee do a fine job in supporting roles. Yvonne Furneaux steals the movie from all these stars with a lovely fun performance.So this film has a lot of action in a true historical perspective, is well made and features good wide-screen cinematography. I can't pigeon-hole this as "just a swashbuckler" because it is a historical film at the same time, and you can't just say "its another late Flynn" because in his late films he grew as an actor and still tried to deliver a performance while suffering the severe decline of his health related to alcoholism and heart failure."The Warriors" lacks depth but is overall a pretty good action movie.

For many viewers, perhaps a history lesson is due in order to understand this picture better. When William of Normandy felt he had a claim to the English throne, he crossed the English Channel from his lands in modern day France and defeated the English king, Harold. From 1066 up through much of the 15th century, the English Kings controlled not just England but much of their ancestral land in France. By the 14th century, the kingdom of France was small and weak...and the English king was not making a claim that he also had a right to the rest of France! And so, over the next century the French and English fought a series of wars collectively termed The Hundred Years War. The English were the early winners and it looked as if they'd take all of France but eventually the French not only regained lost territory but all of France....huzzah!This picture picks up partway through the Hundred Years War--when the English were clearly doing very well. After all, they'd captured the French king and forced him to cede them even more land. And, apparently, the theater audiences are supposed to root for the English and against the French--which is odd for two reasons. Folks in America had no stake in all this, so I can't see why American audiences would have cared for one side versus the other. Second, telling everyone apart is very difficult as EVERYONE has either an English accent or, with Errol Flynn in the lead, an Aussie/American accent. Because I had no dog in the battle, so to speak, I really didn't root for anyone though I know Errol (playing Prince Edward) was supposed to be the hero. And, rooting for no one makes the film tough to care about one way or the other.As far as the plot goes, Compte De Ville (Cruella's brother) is fighting on despite a truce ordered by the captured French King. Having the very English Peter Finch play De Ville was a bit odd and I would have preferred Jacques Tati or Marcel Marceau (at least they were French). Errol Flynn is Prince Edward (also called The Black Prince) and he spends much of the film posing as a mercenary in the hire of De Ville. However, instead of trying to save his life or England, he seems to spend all his energy trying to save a dumb Englishwoman who walked into a trap. You know that eventually the woman will be rescued...but it's a long and circuitous route until they get there. The film looks decent since they re-used costumes from "Ivanhoe", but the story itself was a bit dull despite the costumes and castles. Not a terrible film but one that really had me longing for Flynn's earlier (and better) movies...ones where he did more of the stunts and fighting instead of having him wear a helmet and having a stuntman do most everything. Of interest mostly to completists who insist on seeing all of the star's films (like me, actually)...or English folks. Otherwise easy to skip. My advice is to see "Ivanhoe", "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "The Vikings"--all much more enjoyable and interesting sword epics.

During the Hundred Years' War, in the aftermath of the English victory at Poitiers King Edward the Third (Michael Hordern) lays down the terms of his truce to a group of captured French nobles: If they promise to submit to English rule in their province of Aquitaine, they'll be released and allowed to keep their lands and titles.Although the nobles are at first inclined to tell the King what he can do with his truce, even at the cost of their lives, the wilier Comte de Ville (Peter Finch) persuades them that the wiser move would be to appear to accept the truce while working on the sly against their English overlords.So the stage is set for nasty plots and feats of derring-do, as the King leaves his son, Prince Edward (Errol Flynn) to rule the barely-pacified province in his stead, while he returns to England. When Edward's widowed cousin and romantic interest Joan (Joanne Dru) is kidnapped by the Comte de Ville and held hostage, this hands-on monarch embarks on a quest to rescue her and her children.Flynn the actor doesn't seem to have much zest for this production, no doubt regarding Allied Artists as a B-list outfit (as they generally were) compared with the major studios for whom he'd once worked. The romancing here is decidedly muted, compared to the classic swashbucklers of his early career. But even though his years of high living have obviously told on him, Flynn's still a commanding presence, and this role as a middle-aged warrior prince suits him well.The story is nothing remarkable, with its share of duels and disguises and battles and hair's-breadth escapes. Although there's an interesting ambiguity to its being set during the Hundred Years' War: Here the conquering English prince is the hero, while the Comte de Ville and his French compatriots are the villains. Yet barely ten years prior to the release of this movie, who would have questioned the morality of resisting an invading army by fair means or foul? At least as regards Europe, and by this time colonialism had mostly fallen out of favor, too. So it seems to me a bit hard to believe that most viewers then or now wouldn't feel at least a little sympathy for the French conspirators, even if Edward's claim to the Aquitaine had some foundation in medieval law and custom.For an Allied Artists flick, though, this has unusually good production values. (I was lucky enough to catch it on TCM, in letterbox format in a near-pristine print.) Besides Flynn himself, and a brief role for stunningly beautiful Yvonne Furneaux, the best things about this film are the cinematography, the fine British actors, the sets and costuming, and the staging of the battle scenes, especially de Ville's assault on the castle where Edward and Joan take refuge. For once, the armor is appropriate to the era and in a scene that's pretty unique for the genre, a pair of authentically primitive-looking cannon (yes, they had them back then) protected by a kind of giant shield-on-wheels known as a "mantlet" are used to shatter a castle gate.This is the sort of movie that used to be called a "popcorn cruncher", before the reign of the frenetic, bloated, CGI-saturated summer blockbuster. It makes no pretense at being anything but what it is: A passable way to spend a rainy afternoon.

Years ago I read a book on the Hundred Years War by an English historian named Desmond Siward. The author's premise was that there is indeed an English and a French interpretation of the conflict. The English see it as a great period of glory and conquest in their history. The French look on it as a century of agony for their people. Professor Siward came down pretty hard on his fellow countrymen and said the French version is far closer to the mark.Case in point is Edward, Prince of Wales, eldest son of Edward III of England and military genius bar none. He was in fact the architect and inspiration of their military victories at Crecy and Poitiers. Edward was also a pretty bloodthirsty guy who led a massacre at Limoges and also negotiated an alliance with the Castilian Ruler Pedro the Cruel. I'll let his name speak for itself.The movie here has the English as liberators as Edward comes to the continent to enforce his father's claim on Aquitaine. In fact that had been part of the English crown through their descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine. In point of fact the Black Prince was there trying to enforce Dad's claim on the throne of France itself through his mother who was a daughter of the French king Philip IV the Fair. That was what the whole Hundred Years War was about, the English trying to conquer France, pure and simple.An aged Errol Flynn who's dissipation is plainly showing is the Black Prince. He looks older than Michael Hordern who appears briefly as Edward III. I think Flynn may very well have been older than his "dad."Joanne Dru plays Joan of Kent, widow of Sir John Holland and beloved of the Black Prince. The love story is one of the great medieval legends of Merrie Old England and maybe they should have made a film on just that. But Ms. Dru looks bored throughout. She was soooo much better in Red River, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and All the King's Men.Peter Finch plays the "villain" Count Robert DeVille, deputy of the Constable of France, DuGuesclin who waged a successful guerrilla war against the English although it wasn't called that then. Finch is a villain because he and other nobles won't accept a peace treaty with England that their King John has signed in captivity. How rude of them. Finch is the best one in this film and he could easily have been written as the hero.This was the last of Errol Flynn's swashbucklers and he was clearly getting too old for believable swordplay.