To me, this movie is perfection.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

*Spoiler/plot- 1953, A young nobleman comes back to his ancestor's home only to find problems are happening for his estates and his subjects. He fights for justice and fairness against the corrupt officials put in charge of his estates.*Special Stars- Richard Greene *Theme- Good and well meaning aristocrats will help in times of oppression.*Trivia/location/goofs- Portugal filmed, lead character, Richard Greene much before his British 'Robin Hood' TV series.*Emotion- An enjoyable but rather low budget film that showcased Mr. Geene in his best 'happy go lucky' character that later became important in his Robin Hood 50's show.

I fear that other reviewers have failed to recognize this movie for what it is: a fine example of a 1950s Saturday afternoon double feature film. The principal actors are obviously enjoying themselves, and we should too. Yes, there's lots of filler, yes much is predicable. That's why I just relaxed and enjoyed it. Here's an analogy from another movie: Errol Flynn is in Queen Elizabeth's castle. An enormous piece of dark cloth hangs on a bare stone wall near the top of a steep stone stairway. The cloth serves no purpose that an Elizabethan interior decorator would accept. A few scenes later, Mr. Flynn is about to descend these stairs when he sees three miscreants with drawn swords waiting for him. What does Mr. Flynn do? Why he grabs hold of that cloth, swings down upon those extras, and … Besides, as a student of history I learned several things about France after Napoleon's defeat. Day and night switched back and forth unpredictably. As one was pursued by horsemen this might happen several times during a single pursuit. Small orchestras accompanied these horsemen but never interfered with the pursuit. (This, of course, was also true in the Old West, but Restoration France's orchestras were slightly larger.) Clothing never got dirty, even though one wore it day after day. Expensive seeming scarlet (a.k.a. scarlett) cloaks were so readily available that at least six of them could be lent to local villagers who sought to imitate our hero. As is still sadly true, men (well, one man … our hero) pursued women who never would become properly submissive wives and whose conversation would cease to be interesting after a very few years. Men who had pistols usually forwent their use in order to fight each other with dueling swords. (For some reason this wise practice didn't continue in the Old West, despite that one almost never hit anyone no matter how many shots one fired at them from Old West pistols, whereas with a trusty sword …) Internet Archive offers this film free. As a still-loyal member of ABCDEFGHI, I recommend it for late-evening viewing. ("What's this alphabet stuff?" American Boys Concerned to Defend Errol Flynn's Good Honorable Intentions, that's what!)

I began watching this thing 30 minutes ago. I stopped watching this thing 15 minutes ago. I couldn't take it any longer. It has nothing going for it. You'd have to be drunk out of your mind to even laugh at this 'film'....except the 2 Munchkin soldiers bound together and swinging from a tree limb and yelling "Help!!!" like little girls.First appearance of Richard Greene had his head tilted at an odd angle like a pud trying to escape from someone's trousers on a sunny day....and it grins.Terrible directing, casting, music, color, acting, dialog, fencing, wit, choreography, costumes - even the scenery is awful.Greene fences like a Clydesdale - clump clump clump."I am a stranger only to those who do not know me." Whoa. Great stuff.I can't watch the rest. Even the chick is ugly.Useless. At least back in VHS days, I could have taped over the film. With a DVD, all I have is a round pocket mirror or a frisbee of death.Not worth what it cost me which was nothing.

This is a bad film and, although it's not quite bad enough to be good, it was clearly made on the cheap for undemanding schoolboys with only scant regard paid to logic or character development.Richard Greene was no major talent when it came to acting but he towers above everyone else here - especially the pretty but wooden Leonora Amar. Naturally the perfunctory script makes it impossible for anybody to deliver a believable performance that they'd wanted highlighted on the CV, but some performances are little better than school nativity standard.The storyline is the familiar one about a nobleman returning to his homeland to discover his estate has been claimed by some unscrupulous tyrant. Greene's Captain Scarlett jovially sets about recovering what his rightfully his with he help of a similarly displaced nobleman and the princess he has rescued from one of the tyrant's cronies. The manner in which Scarlett and his sidekick escape from wall shackles is particularly memorable: With their hands shackled either side of them, they manage to retrieve the keys to their tethers from a guard using only their feet. In the next shot they are free with no explanation given as to how they managed to unlock themselves when their wrists were manacled to the cell walls.Scarlett finally manages to defeat the cruel tyrant by having half-a-dozen locals distract his guards by running around in scarlet cloaks. Obviously a resourceful chap, we can only assume he rides around the countryside with a dozen or so neatly folded in his saddle...Avoid unless you are prepared to leave all critical faculties at the opening credits.