Gilliatt, a fisherman-turned-smuggler on the isle of Guernsey, agrees to transport a beautiful woman to the French coast in the year 1800. She tells him she hopes to rescue her brother from... See full summary »
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
Gilliatt, a fisherman-turned-smuggler on the isle of Guernsey, agrees to transport a beautiful woman to the French coast in the year 1800. She tells him she hopes to rescue her brother from the guillotine. Gilliatt finds himself falling in love and so feels betrayed when he later learns this woman is a countess helping Napoleon plan an invasion of England. In reality, however, the "countess" is an English agent working to thwart this invasion. When Gilliatt finds this out, he returns to France to rescue the woman who's true purpose has been discovered by the French. Written by
dinky-4 of Minneapolis
British soldiers did not wear shakos (hats) like those depicted. The shakos of the time tended to be plain black hats with only a regimental number badge at the front. See more »
The dialogue in this movie is ploddingly pedantically awful - and there is so much of it! Maybe it is because the film is set the early 19th Century and people are trying to make it look classy but everyone in this film gives full weight to every syllable of their every line. There is not a single "ain't," "shalln't," "can't," or "won't" in the whole thing. Everything is delivered in a very stagy mock-formal manner that, had it been camped up might have been amusing, but, as it wasn't, is merely grindingly dull.
The writer, Borden Chase, was obviously much happier with westerns - he wrote the classic Red River amongst others - and seems to have been overawed by the language when adapting a novel by such a revered writer as Victor Hugo (who also wrote Les Misrables) - or he was just plain out of his depth when attempting to write a 'period' piece. For whatever reason, the dialogue is stilted and clumsy; sounding at times like a dubbed Italian movie rather than a film written by someone who's first language was English.
Not as bad as some - but dull.
6 of 16 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
The dialogue in this movie is ploddingly pedantically awful - and there is so much of it! Maybe it is because the film is set the early 19th Century and people are trying to make it look classy but everyone in this film gives full weight to every syllable of their every line. There is not a single "ain't," "shalln't," "can't," or "won't" in the whole thing. Everything is delivered in a very stagy mock-formal manner that, had it been camped up might have been amusing, but, as it wasn't, is merely grindingly dull.
The writer, Borden Chase, was obviously much happier with westerns - he wrote the classic Red River amongst others - and seems to have been overawed by the language when adapting a novel by such a revered writer as Victor Hugo (who also wrote Les Misrables) - or he was just plain out of his depth when attempting to write a 'period' piece. For whatever reason, the dialogue is stilted and clumsy; sounding at times like a dubbed Italian movie rather than a film written by someone who's first language was English.
Not as bad as some - but dull.