A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

A Masterpiece!

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

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Based on the 1881 novel of the same name by Mark Twain and released in the US under the title "Crossed Swords", this is a very fun historical adventure film in spite of its flaws. The film has a slow start but it picks up momentum as it progresses. It has a good script by George MacDonald Fraser but the direction of Richard Fleischer is not up to his usual very high standard. Given that it was produced by the Salkinds, has several major cast members in common and was adapted by Fraser from a 19th Century classic, it is difficult not to compare it to "The Three Musketeers" (1973) and "The Four Musketeers". On that score, I found the film to be a little wanting. I couldn't help thinking that it would have been better if it had been directed by Richard Lester, who was more suited to the swashbuckling adventure genre than Fleischer. The film stars Mark Lester in not one but two very bad performances as the title characters Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VI) and his impoverished doppelgänger Tom Canty. As played by Lester, both characters are cardboard cutouts. The very occasional slight trace of a Cockney accent aside when playing the latter in the early scenes, he does absolutely nothing to distinguish between the two. They are supposed to be physically identical but not in terms of their personalities, which often seems to be the case here in spite of Fraser's efforts in the script department. The fact that Lester delivers 90% of his lines in a monotone and shouts the rest of them does not do him any favours either. At 18 years old, he was far too old for the roles, as both characters are supposed to be about nine in the novel. Other than all of these things, however, he was perfect casting. In spite of Lester's poor performances, Prince Edward and Tom are both likable characters, which is a testament to Fraser's writing and the strength of the source material. It is quite funny that the film would have been better with one Lester and without another. I found the scenes featuring Prince Edward trying to deal with the often merciless outside world to be far more interesting than those of Tom in Nonsuch Palace.The best performance in the film comes from Rex Harrison, who is wonderful as the kind, fiercely intelligent, witty and introspective Duke of Norfolk, who is condemned to the Tower of London by Henry VIII but finds a friend and ally in Tom. George C. Scott has little more than a cameo but he is sublime as the enigmatic, dishonest monk turned gang leader Ruffler. In contrast to Lester, his "Oliver!" co- star Oliver Reed was very well cast as Miles Hendon, a nobleman turned soldier of fortune. He takes pity on Edward, saving him from a mob and fighting off Tom's abusive father, but does not believe his claims to be the Prince of Wales for most of the film. Reed is an excellent actor and he imbues the hotheaded Miles with a great deal of pathos, particularly in the second half. I have always thought that Charlton Heston is a very underrated actor but he is atypically bad and forgettable as the dying Henry VIII, in contrast to how effective he was as the conniving Cardinal Richelieu in the aforementioned films.Ernest Borgnine is pretty decent as John Canty but I think that he may have been miscast. As Miles' beloved Lady Edith, Raquel Welch is billed second after Reed (and before Lester) in the opening credits but she does not appear until almost three-quarters of the way through the film and has only about 15 minutes screen time, if even that. Nice work if you can get it! Welch is better known for the way that she looks in a fur bikini or a tight spacesuit than for her mastery of Shakespeare but she still manages to give a better performance than Lester, which says a lot. David Hemmings was quite good in the small role as Miles' treacherous brother Hugh, which surprised me as I thought that he was very bad in "The Charge of the Light Brigade" (1968). It also features nice appearances from Harry Andrews as the new king's uncle Lord Hertford, Julian Orchard as St. John, Lalla Ward as a suitably imperious Princess Elizabeth, Murray Melvin as Edward's dresser and Hammer regular Michael Ripper as Lady Edith's servant.Overall, this is by no means a perfect film but it's good fun. The script and some excellent performances are able to paper over some of the more obvious cracks.

Don't get me wrong I loved this film as a kid, but after revisiting it after five or six years, it didn't quite gel for me. Of course the sets, costumes and cinematography are superb, and the score is rousing enough. And the story is delightful, despite the fact it has been done to death so many times, while there is some great acting from Oliver Reed, Rex Harrison, George C. Scott and especially Ernest Borgnine in very meaty roles. However, despite all the extravagance and the fine acting from the supporting cast, there are shortcomings. Mark Lester is very unconvincing in the lead double role, while Raquel Welch looks alluring but she is left with little to work with. The direction never feels solid enough, while the pacing is uneven and the action like the direction lacks solidity. Overall, disappointing but worthwhile film adaptation. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Not very good. This take on the Prince and the Pauper clearly wants to capture the swashbuckling lunacy of Richard Lester's THREE MUSKETEERS/FOUR MUSKETEERS but falls flat. This is due in large part to the fact that the director, Richard Fleischer, is resolutely unimaginative. Instead of slapstick, he offers up blandness. It's something that has dogged his long career. The casting of OLIVER's Mark Lester in dual roles doesn't help either. He has no personality as either prince or pauper. Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, Charlton Heston and Sybil Danning (all of whom appeared in the Lester films) head the large cast, but none manages to register as anything special. Nor does Ernest Borgnine...and any film that wastes Rex Harrison must be viewed as very dubious indeed (note: this film may be dull, but it's light years better than the previous Fleischer/Harrison train wreck: DOCTOR DOLITTLE).

The Tudor dynasty has always been popular with makers of dramas based upon English history- we have, for example, "Anne of the Thousand Days", "Mary Queen of Scots", "Lady Jane", "Elizabeth" and the two versions of "A Man for All Seasons". "The Prince and the Pauper" (I will use the British title rather than the American one) falls within this tradition, the main difference being that it is based upon a fictitious story rather than historical fact, even if Mark Twain did try and suggest that his tale was based upon an old legend which may have had a kernel of truth. The idea is that Edward Prince of Wales, the only son of King Henry VIII, has an exact double in Tom Canty, a London street urchin and the son of a notorious thief. The two meet by chance when Tom, fleeing after stealing a purse, manages to break into the Tower of London. Edward, struck by the likeness, suggests that the two should exchange clothes for a joke, but the joke goes wrong when Tom is taken for the real Prince and Edward for a beggar. Edward is thrown out onto the street, leaving Tom behind in the Tower. Both find that they are unable to escape from their predicament; when they try to protest their real identities they are assumed to be mad. Edward is befriended by Miles Hendon, a soldier of fortune recently returned from the Continent. Although Miles does not really believe Edward's story about being the Prince of Wales, he takes pity on him. When Miles attempts to return to his family home, however, he finds himself in a similar predicament. He finds that his wicked younger brother Hugh has forged a letter purporting to contain news of Miles's death and has used this not only to steal Miles's inheritance but also to marry his sweetheart Edith. Now it is Miles's turn to find that he is not believed when he proclaims his identity. Miles and Edward have to find a way to undo Hugh's wickedness as well as ensuring that the rightful heir is crowned King of England, Henry VIII having died during his son's absence. The most curious thing about this film is the casting of Mark Lester in the dual role of Tom and Edward. As others have pointed out, Edward VI was only nine years old at the time of his accession, and only sixteen at the time of his death, so it was strange to cast the nineteen-year-old Lester in the role. Moreover, Lester was not convincing in either part, being too obviously well-bred and well-spoken for a Cockney guttersnipe and not regal enough for a Prince. The point of Twain's tale is that Tom, forced to assume the role of King against his will, finds himself growing in authority, whereas the haughty princeling Edward is humanised by his contact with the common people. There was no sense in this film of either of these developments taking place. This was Lester's last film, and it is clear why he joined the long list of child stars who did not go on to an acting career as an adult. Few of the other acting contributions, with two exceptions, stand out. Raquel Welch, despite her second billing, has very little to do as Edith except stand about looking glamorous, and Rex Harrison as the Duke of Norfolk looks as though he is not taking anything seriously, even being sentenced to death for treason. The two exceptions are Charlton Heston as the ailing, care-worn Henry (very different to the autocratic younger man portrayed by Robert Shaw in "A Man for All Seasons" or Richard Burton in "Anne of the Thousand Days") and Oliver Reed, who makes an attractive Errol Flynn-style hero as Miles. (I have not seen Flynn's own version of this story from 1937, so cannot make comparisons). Richard Fleischer was a very versatile director who could turn his hand to films in many different genres. His work also varied greatly in quality; he was capable of making a film as good as "Ten Rillington Place" but also one as laughably bad as "Red Sonja". "The Prince and the Pauper" falls somewhere between these two extremes. While never as bad as "Red Sonja" (few films are), it is a rather mediocre film which never succeeds either as a convincing recreation of Tudor England or as a swashbuckling adventure. 5/10Some goofs. The story is set during the winter of 1546-47; Henry VIII died in January 1547 and Edward VI, as the film informs us, was crowned King in February. The film, however, was clearly shot during the summer months as all the trees are in leaf. Henry states, not long before his death, that he has been on the throne for thirty-five years; he ascended the throne in April 1509, so at this point he would have been king for over thirty-seven years.