Tracy Winters Why are all contemporary pirate movies the same? It's the repetitive schtick of adventuresome music accompanied by a daring hero, the token wench, and the typical gay pirate rigamarole.Bob Shaw is such a wild guy. Gee, he's so wild. He steals bananas, almost kills the wench when he drives a wagon off a 200-foot cliff into the ocean surf below, and runs around on land doing nothing in particular except to fill his days with wasteful loafing. Gosh, he's such a wild-- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.You've seen it all before, but I'm hesitant to say you'e seen anything better. These movies are all the same, the same old schtick.

Jonathon Dabell "Swashbuckler" seems to be a love-it or hate-it kind of film. Almost every professional review of the film you come across ranks it as an unmitigated disaster. Yet almost every armchair critic who has seen it seems to reserve a soft spot for the film, hailing it as an entertaining guilty pleasure. In this particular debate, I feel compelled to throw in my opinion (for what it's worth). And, sadly, I think the professionals got it absolutely right on this occasion. Possibly the most misguided movie ever made, a cringe-worthy embarrassment that fails profoundly to recreate the heyday of those wonderful '30s and '40s pirate flicks, "Swashbuckler" is simply staggering in its awfulness.Roguish buccaneer Ned Lynch (Robert Shaw) sails the Caribbean seas with his motley crew in search of adventure. Having rescued his friend Nick Debrett (James Earl Jones) from the gallows, he next finds his path crossed with wronged lady aristocrat Jane Barnet (Genevieve Bujold). Although initially Jane and Ned can barely stand each other, they soon find themselves united in their struggle to rid Jamaica of its corrupt governor Durant (Peter Boyle). After various adventures - sword-fights, duels, rescues and romances - they complete their mission and, of course, the bickering hero and heroine finally realise they're in love.Shaw is criminally wasted as the roguish Ned Lynch, given nothing to do other than look dashing. Any actor with a touch of charisma could have pulled off the role - it's just a boring part for an actor who looks rightly bored with it. Bujold is equally wasted as a thoroughly helpless, irritating and unresourceful leading lady. But by far the worst of the main parts - and one which left me genuinely embarrassed for the actor involved - falls to Peter Boyle. Poor Boyle is left to deliver some of the worst dialogue imaginable as the villain of the piece, his terrible lines further heightened by the campy approach in which he is asked to indulge himself. While the music and the location photography deserve a better showcase, every other aspect of the film royally stinks! It is scripted with naive ineptitude; plotted without originality; directed without the slightest sense of spirit or period; and presented so unevenly that it is impossible to tell whether we are watching something serious or slapstick. Those who have found things to enjoy in "Swashbuckler" are welcome to it.... personally, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

inspectors71 Only the most deadly serious of us can stay mad at Swashbuckler, a ludicrous popcorn sack of a movie, made to capitalize on the star power of Robert Shaw, on the high seas as a pirate. I saw this movie when it made the rounds on HBO almost thirty years ago.The memory is fuzzy except for three things: Robert Shaw had enough charisma to carry a movie on his own, pirate movies-by nature--are usually fun, and Genevieve Bujold jumps off a ship, stark naked.Now, seeing Bujold naked is not a bad thing, but it's hardly the reason to track this movie down. I'd stick with the whole shiver-me-timbers, ship models blasting away at each other, eye-patches, and stuffy Royal Navy officers thing to justify the search.Besides, the full frontal of Genevieve is for about a second anyway. They must have thrown that in to keep the movie from being pure vanilla.

preppy-3 Pirate Ned Lynch (Robert Shaw) and his gang (including James Earl Jones) help Jane Barnet (Genevieve Bujold) fight evil Lord Durant (Peter Boyle).This film has a very bad reputation. Critics hated it and it was a financial disaster at the box office. I can't figure out why. It's not perfect but it's not horrible. The bad things in it: Shaws' Irish accent makes some of his dialogue unintelligible; the scripts dialogue is aimed at kids; the character of Cudjo (Geoffrey Holder) is introduced--and then disappears for an hour!; ditto with Major Folly (Beau Bridges); the treatment of Bujold is horrible (and she acts very lost in this movie); there are some really strange kinky touches such as Bridges almost being tortured, Bujold's pointless nude swimming scene and Durant's bath with a young boy and having Anjelica Huston in the film...and giving her NO dialogue!The good: With the exception of Bujold the cast is having a whale of a time (Bridges especially is enjoying himself); it's fun to see Jones so young and full of life; there's plenty of action (with some great sword fights); it's very lavishly produced and there's a rousing music score by John Addison.Basically it's a fun way to kill of 100 minutes--I was never bored. This is one of Hollywoods many failed attempts to revive the pirate movie. Through the 1980s and 90s they gave us --"The Island", Polanski's "Pirates", "The Pirate Movie" and "Cutthroat Island". All big budget bombs. Maybe Hollywood should give up (I'm not counting "Pirates of the Caribbean"--that was not a movie-it was an ad for a Disney theme park.)Worth catching.