This Movie is Bad.


It made me want to wash my eyes out - with bleach.

reply

If you say so, troll.

reply

A troll is someone who insults a movie looking for a response. There are only TWO topics on this board - what sort of response would I expect? No, this is a warning to people who want to rent it. If you see it as a kid, it's probably great. But I saw it as an adult, and this was total waste of my time, and might have left me a little dumber for having seen it.

reply

First ... ignore the previous remark ... obviously a fan of this movie

My comment ... yeah ... it's bad, but in a fun camp sort of way. I'd recommend it as long as you didn't try to take it too seriously. After all, they didn't making it.

reply


Gotta agree with Enigma. If you're not a troll, you're doing a good impression. Your comment is clearly meant as a crude insult typical of the film-ignorant trolls who infest the board.

If you want to warn folks about about bad pirate movies, go post on THE PIRATE MOVIE. Polanski's PIRATES was kinda questionable as well, despite Matheau's presence.

reply

This movie was EXTREMELY entertaining, which is entirely the point, so therefore it's successful and good. Great action and to tell the truth some very good performances despite the admittedly vapid script. James Earl Jones and Robert Shaw had great chemistry and just oozed charisma individually. Geoffrey Holder was also a hoot. The action was practically nonstop and quite inventive and the locales were suitably exotic. The girl was inoffensive and even Beau Bridges did a decent job. Peter Boyle seems a little miscast though. He's an effective comic actor, but not a heavy (excuse the pun.)

reply

I just like when Sid Haig laughs in the tavern. I think my friends and I rewound that like 3764 times.

reply

I saw this film as a sneak preview when it was first released, and thought that it was a lot of fun. Haven't seen it in years, but will look it up now that it's on DVD. Yeah, it ain't "Captain Blood," but it also isn't "They Saved Hitler's Brain" either.

reply

Well, I didn't see Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory until I was eighteen, and I didn't like that, either. Maybe it's a flick you've got to see as a kid, but I don't know that I'd let my kids see it. It's got a lot of creepy sexual undertones, from the dirty limericks Darth Vader and Quint trade near the beginning to the young girl swimming naked off the boat to Peter Boyle's boy toy with the iron fingernails.

I haven't seen the Pirate Movie and don't want to, although I do want to see polanski's Pirates. I do love pirate movies, and bought this one sight unseen. I'm just trying to prevent someone from making the same mistake.

reply

Maybe there is something to your idea that you have to see it as a kid. I was 9 and saw it in the theatres and loved it. It is a "BIG" movie, best seen on a big screen.

It is not Oscar-worthy, but fun. Way better than "Pirates". I love Matthau but that movie is dreadful!

Robert Shaw is great in it. Lighten up and just have fun!

reply

i liked it. it was ok

reply

Hi do you remember the character and actor name of Peter Boyle's boy toy with the iron fingernails?

Thank you very very much.

reply

Peter Boyle in this film. Oh yes, it was. Why do I always think that part was played by Dom Deluise?

reply

If you don't view this movie as a bit campy, tongue in cheek, type...then
you will probably think it is bad.
I always view this as one of the best of the campy type movies, with
absolutely some of the best scenry (especially since it was made in the '70's)
and just a fun rolicking movie that had some of the best actors in it.
Check out how great James Earl Jones looks!!! Robert Shaw is also looking
darn sexy in the movie also.
Love this type of pirate movie..."Nate & Hayes" is an older movie along
the same lines, stars Tommy Lee Jones...fun movie.

reply

bottom line. WOrth seeing this film?

reply

I'd say yes. Saw it years ago and enjoyed - good fun

reply

dude, for when it was done this was a great movie. the plot line was well done, the acting was excellent, the costuming was phenomenally accurate, the make-up was well done, and it was fun. I have spent about the last 15 years learning how to look at movies from a very technical view, and what goes into makeing a movie, and I have very high standards for movies. this is one of the best ones I have ever seen.

reply

[deleted]

We saw this film in its original release and found it boring and tedious. Was a complete waste of a superior cast. They would have been better off remaking THE CRIMSON PIRATE. It may have been ludicrous but at least it was FUN!

reply

Lots of good action, lots of fun, with a little harmless off-colour humour, as well. If you require Oscar-calibre performances and material. go watch "The Bells of Portugal", or something.

reply

You do not require an "Oscar-calibre performances" to make an entertaining movie. This movie does not have "good action" nor is it "lots of fun" it is boring. Want to watch a good pirate movie see THE BLACK PIRATE (1926), TREASURE ISLAND (1934), CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935), THE SEA HAWK (1940) even THE CRIMSON PIRATE (1952) or any of the Johnny Depp films. You DO NOT see SWASHBUCKLER (1976) which only salient feature was its Poster.

reply

"This movie does not have "good action" nor is it "lots of fun" it is boring."

The final sword fight between Ned Lynch and Lord Durant is very good, in my opinion.

I can see how some people might think this is boring -- it's mostly set at the sea port, not at sea. There are no sea battles, just the cannons firing on the fort. And there's the carriage chase which ends with a terrific stunt. But it's obvious it was all done for a fairly low budget. At least they didn't use a miniature boat, like a lot of those films you mention.

The important thing about Swashbuckler is that the pirates are the good guys. In almost every other pirate movie, the hero is either a nobleman pretending to be a pirate, etc., and the pirates are ultimately bad guys. This is one of the few movies that actually embraced the fantasy of pirates that is so popular today. Even PotC is mostly bad pirates.

reply

gnome-5; My Brother and I went to see it when it first came out. With that cast we were expecting a-lot more and the ending duel was of little redemption. Particularly when you compare it with others like the MARK OF ZORRO or THE SEA HAWK. No change in our opinion, it is still a bore.

reply

Well, there's no doubt that it's its own special beast, and if you can't dig it -- you can't dig it.

reply

gnome-5; Now that's how to leave things off. Too many times it gets into personalities, which we have both avoided. Have good day.

reply

You too.

reply

Thanks for that willowwoman...I also loved this movie and am a little more than disturbed by people today who, simply put, can't just enjoy a movie for the sheer fun of it. I thought it was absolutely great...

reply

Some types of criticism, just like certain types of praise, simply aren't useful. It's not enough to hate or love a movie and then expect everyone else to feel the same way. Unfortunately, standard IMDB post #3 seems to be "I loved/hated this movie! Who agrees?"

I say, "Who cares?"

If people would express a little of what they connected with (or not), then these boards would be a lot more useful.

I hope this doesn't inspire standard IMDB post #4: "Dude! You're an idiot!"

reply

This is valid, and I wish I'd thought of it before I posted.

reply

[deleted]

Nope.

Just a great pirate movie.Take it for what is.Just a great pirate movie :)

reply

It's sad to see that so many folks feel that their opinions are valid only when backed up with insults and cruelty towards anyone with an opposing viewpoint, no matter what is being discussed.
This board is for those who respect and enjoy films as well as their filmmakers. Simply stating that something or someone is 'bad' as such is merely shouting to be heard in an empty room. If a person, any person can actually give valid, intelligent reasoning for their conclusions, minus the vitriolic hyperbole, please do so.
Unreasoning animosity serves no one's interest good or bad. Needless to say, I really loved 'Swashbuckler' and I saw it in a theater when I was in my 20's (I'm 56 now ) My personal favorite was Geoffrey Holder as Cudjo, with his leather vest laden with daggers. Can't help but wonder with their mutual love of 'older' films that both Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez were thinking of this when they came up with the vest that Danny Trejo wore in 'Desperado'. Much later I taped 'Swashbuckler' off cable and showed it several years later to my husband of 26 years. He loved it as well and said he wished could have seen it in a theater as it was meant to be seen. No, he did not say this to please me, we believe in trust, first, last and always.
P.S. As to the matter of Peter Boyle being 'known only for comedy'; look up a few of his earlier films in the early '70's, such as 'Crazy Joe' in which he plays a character loosely based on Mafioso 'Crazy' Joe Gallo.
There is another film, simply titled 'Joe' where the character he plays makes Archie Bunker seem like the founder of Democratic Underground, as far caring, open-mindedness is concerned. Those two films will show how much range the sadly late Mr. Boyle actually had.

reply

Did you wash out your eyes with bleach? Bleach is readily available so you could have easily washed your eyes out with bleach. Did you?

reply