dbrayshaw Here it is, sixty-five years after the filming of Scaramouche and I have just completed my first viewing of this gem. It was born the year of my birth.I had no clue, convincing swordfighing could last as long as seven minutes in any film. Having never met a fencer, I grew to consider the sport lacking in swordsmen. After all, this is 2017, not 1952. The genre of swashbuckling, obviously, was more in step with former viewers. At least, that's what I thought.After some reading, my view has changed.I discovered, to my surprise, the sport has returned to the U.S. and is being labeled an exercise to relieve stress, tone up the body and mind, and to give a great workout.This motion picture is certainly the one to watch if one needs that extra push to learn fencing. I enjoyed the fighting scenes immensely, especially the offense and defense that moved André Moreau (Stewart Granger)and Marquis De Maynes (Mel Ferrer) from every inch of the theater balcony, down the stairs, into the fully seated auditorium, to the rear props storage rooms, then onto the stage, to finish with a surprising end.I also discovered Jean Heremans, a European fencing champion, was hired by MGM in 1948 to supervise the swordfighting on The Three Musketeers. I feel all the swordplay sequences in Scaramouche were superbly staged by Heremans.Not knowing anything about pre-French revolution attire, I found the costumes, although elaborate and layered, well able to accentuate the best of one's body. The young women certainly liked to show off their thin waists and cleavage, although I wonder just what was under those dresses to cause their waists to be as thinly attractive and convincing.How most of the cast managed not to sweat profusely amazes me.Both actresses, Aline (Janet Leigh) and Lenore (Elaine Parker) were dressed to stand out in every scene.The storyline is realistic enough and believable to a point. Escapes seemed contrived, a bit deus ex machina, especially the trapdoor scene. Still, I felt satisfied at close of the film.It was two hours well spent.

beez1717 I absolutely love this movie. I first saw it on the final day of my fencing class in college. Having learned fencing I could see just how accurate the swordplay is in the movie. I think the plot is very exciting, the characters are well rounded out, and I absolutely love how funny Scaramouche is. Overall, I was on the edge of my seat during some of the fencing scenes. I will never forget those scenes. I think that this movie is a classic that will stand the test of time, and it will always be a movie that I will hold dear to myself. If you like swordplay, comedy and romance then you will love this movie. I would recommend this movie to anyone.

edwagreen Stewart Granger spends most of this 1952 film hiding in the character of Scaramouche, a fool playing on the comedy stage of pre- revolutionary France. He is aided by Eleanor Parker, who plays an actress on stage. She loves him dearly.Granger seeks revenge for the killing of his friend, a writer of the famous Liberty, Equality and Fraternity who has been slain by nobleman Mel Ferrer. Nina Foch, as the queen, designates the Ferrer character to watch over subject Janet Leigh. Foch is hoping for romance to blossom between the two.Granger becomes adept at using the sword. He is hiding the secret that he can never love Leigh since she is his sister. (He was supposedly the illegitimate child of her father.)There is a tremendous duel between Granger and Ferrer at the play house and nothing is spared. Granger cannot bring himself to kill Ferrer and then learns a most shocking secret. He is not the brother of Leigh and guess who his real brother is? This frees him to pursue Leigh and Parker is most gracious in literally releasing him.Swashbuckling historical fun may best describe this period piece.

dimplet The most curious thing about Scaramouche is how much Stuart Granger resembles Mel Gibson in his looks and mannerisms. Has anyone else noticed this? I couldn't help wondering if Gibson had copied Granger. Thankfully, Granger doesn't go to such excesses as Gibson, so if you are not a Gibson fan, don't worry, you can still enjoy Scaramouche. This is a good story, with plenty of twists and turns, and a clever O'Henry type ending. It has its rough spots early on, but it's worth sticking with it. I stumbled on Scarmouche out of curiosity to see the younger Eleanor Parker, who played the Baroness in The Sound of Music. She certainly was beautiful. The acting all around is vintage 1952 Hollywood epic, though a major step up from earlier clunkers like Samson and Delilah and Quo Vadis. The Techicolor sets are wonderful, if not 100 percent realistic. The background music is sometimes obtrusively loud and not very good, which is interesting because in 1952 studios were just beginning to use reel to reel tape recorders, instead of recording sound on special film audio recorders. I wonder if this is why they got carried away?This film could have been better with less campy acting. For some reason, Hollywood took an odd turn in the Fifties. There had been so many great movies in the late 1930s, especially in 1939, with wonderful acting and sets. And then there was the war and whatnot, and it seems the studios lost the thread of making truly great movies and epics.I have mixed feelings about Mel Ferrer's acting ability. Here he is fine, though his performance lacks range. He seems to be a chameleon who can put on different masks, but under the mask there lacks subtlety. He plays the villain here, and delivers a suitably dislikable persona. The sword fight with Granger is one of the most entertaining, along with The Princess Bride. It's a little tricky to rate these old movies. By today's standards it might rate a 6 or 7, given its weaknesses. But by the standards of 1952, it would rate an 8 or 9. People paid their two bits and went into the theater and got elaborate sets, glorious color, plenty of action. It's still good entertainment, especially if you have a really good color monitor.