James Hitchcock Swashbuckling movies in the best Douglas Fairbanks/Errol Flynn tradition enjoyed something of a revival in the fifties, probably because they provided the colour and spectacle which the cinema needed as a weapon in its battle with television, and Rock Hudson was one of several actors (others included Stewart Granger and Burt Lancaster) endeavouring to prove themselves the heir to Flynn. In "Sea Devils" Hudson plays Gilliatt (we never learn his Christian name), a Guernsey fisherman-cum-smuggler during the Napoleonic wars. The plot is nothing particularly original; it is essentially a basic Cold War or World War II espionage story sent back in time to an earlier period of British history. Gilliatt agrees to transport a beautiful woman to France in return for payment. She tells him that she is a refugee from the Revolution and that she needs to return to rescue her brother, who is being held captive in a dungeon, but he later comes to suspect that she may in fact be a spy for the French. Gilliatt may cheerfully disregard British law, at least as regards the evasion of import duties, but remains a patriot at heart, so is horrified that he may have played a part in assisting the enemy. Or is the lady in fact a double agent who has been working for the British all along? A sub-plot involves Gilliatt's rivalry with another smuggler, the villainous Rantaine, who has no qualms about helping the French provided he is paid enough.Hudson's leading lady here is Yvonne De Carlo who (like a number of his leading ladies from the fifties, Jennifer Jones in "A Farewell to Arms" being another example) was slightly older than him. Although the age difference in this case was not great (Rock was 28 in 1953, Yvonne 31), this perhaps made him unusual in a decade when Hollywood's leading male stars were often cast against much younger women. I certainly can't agree with the reviewer who found Yvonne too old for the part; in the early fifties she was one of Hollywood's loveliest female stars. "Sea Devils" is reasonably entertaining, but it has no great action set- pieces and it cannot compare to the really great swashbucklers like the Errol Flynn "Adventures of Robin Hood" or "The Sea Hawk". It does, however, remain watchable today, if only for the charisma of its two leads. 6/10Some goofs. Although the film is set in 1800, Napoleon is referred to as "Emperor" of France. He did not become Emperor until 1804; in 1800 his title would have been First Consul. The French name "Lethierry" is consistently mispronounced as "Letheery".

MARIO GAUCI After a bit of trial-and-error, I managed to acquire a workable copy (unlike another Rock Hudson vehicle in the same vein, CAPTAIN LIGHTFOOT [1955]!) of this swashbuckler set in the Napoleonic era – with the Emperor himself played by Frenchman Gerard Oury; incidentally, I had intended to close off 2008 by revisiting the latter's most popular directorial effort i.e. the WWII farce DON'T LOOK NOW – WE'RE BEING SHOT AT! (1966), but had to forego it due to time constraints! While I can't say that SEA DEVILS is very well-regarded within the genre (Leonard Maltin dismisses it with a :star::star: rating), in spite of the revered Walsh's involvement, I have to admit that I rather enjoyed it. Hudson is an impetuous rum-shipper, flanked by an amusingly grumpy Bryan Forbes, who's constantly clashing with rival Maxwell Reed; their quarrel comes to a head when they involve a woman (Yvonne De Carlo) whose activities as a spy, however, are jeopardized when Hudson misconstrues the situation! De Carlo's contribution here is far more engaging than when she played the BUCCANEER'S GIRL (1950), which I watched earlier in the month; for the record, she and Hudson had already been teamed for SCARLET ANGEL (1952), yet another costumer but which I'm not familiar with.By the way, despite American leads, director and studio (RKO), this is a British-made effort – with typically reliable supporting cast (including Dennis O'Dea as De Carlo's superior and Michael Goodliffe as her contact in France) and production values (ensuring stunning color photography throughout and a suitably rousing score). As expected, then, we get plenty of action and intrigue – spiced with equally obligatory bouts of romance and comedy relief; the result hardly makes for a classic film but, in this agreeable company, it's perhaps more satisfying than such hokum has a right to be!

junk-monkey 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.

dinky-4 The early 1950s were a sort of Golden Age for those modest but entertaining costume adventures set within pirate ships, French Foreign Legion forts, lost cities in the jungle, medieval castles, Arabian courts, etc. These "costumers" were always in color, the better to lure viewers away from black-and-white TV sets, and they featured such names as John Payne, Maureen O'Hara, Alan Ladd, Jeff Chandler, John Derek, Arlene Dahl, Tony Curtis, and Burt Lancaster.This 1953 swashbuckler from RKO features a top-billed Yvonne de Carlo and an up-and-coming Rock Hudson under the competent but uninspired direction of veteran film-maker, Raoul Walsh. It's a minor effort, diverting enough to pass the time but lacking flair and style and unlikely to linger in the memory. A bit more action and a dash of humor would have been welcome additions.The movie's main fault, however, lies in the relationship between leading man and leading lady. They're supposed to be falling in love during the course of the story but there's no passion or feeling here, merely some dutiful lines of romantic dialog. De Carlo seems too old and matronly for Hudson who needs someone sprightlier to play off against.Hudson hadn't yet reached star status but it's pleasant to see him here before the "movie star" gloss hardened around him. His acting abilities are no more than average but he's attractive and likeable and the script finds several excuses for him to take off his shirt. At one point he's not only bare-chested but in bondage with his hands tied behind his back and a with a length of rope looped twice around his torso. This being the early '50s, his pants are worn high enough to mostly cover his navel, but those ropes passing just above and just below his nipples impart a fetishy quality which is probably sexier than many of today's nude scenes.