Hunt2546 Saw this 59 years ago and some of its images have remained buried in my unconscious, coming out at odd moments over the six tweener decades. Thus, when it hit DVD I had to check it out again. Yes, Flynn is 46 and looks like he just got stung by a jelly fish, and yes, when the swords and lances come out, the visor goes down so a real stud can do the man work, but it's a completely enjoyable romp. Unlike the Warner Bros costume pix, this one was filmed in real castles which add immeasurably to its interest; the English countryside, green and sunlit, also helps, as do first-class costumes, lots of horses and a stout cast of English yeoman actors playing English yeomen. Everyone's a pro and while Flynn hasn't the sparkle and elan of his younger days, he's a solid lad around which to build a medieval oater, even if Alan Hale had been dead five years when this one was before camera. Good music, good (but not great) fight choreography and toward the end a cast of at least a hundred make it a rouser. Plot is piffle, and it asks us to sympathize with English occupiers over French homeboys which isn't easy to do, but Peter Finch, mad as hell and not going to take it any more, makes a convincing Dastardly Villain. I've remembered him (SPOILER) getting a battle ax in the chest off a Flynn right hand pitch for 59 years, just as I've remembered the all the King's knights cheering at the end after they drove the Frenchies off. A nice revisit. One oddity: It was released in US as "The Warriors," which is certainly how it's known, to the extent that it's known at all. So why file it, Dr. IMDb, under the name "The Dark Avenger," since, btw, there's no avenging done anywhere in it, and it's so sunny and costume-crazed there's no dark here either.

henri sauvage During the Hundred Years' War, in the aftermath of the English victory at Poitiers King Edward the Third (Michael Hordern) lays down the terms of his truce to a group of captured French nobles: If they promise to submit to English rule in their province of Aquitaine, they'll be released and allowed to keep their lands and titles.Although the nobles are at first inclined to tell the King what he can do with his truce, even at the cost of their lives, the wilier Comte de Ville (Peter Finch) persuades them that the wiser move would be to appear to accept the truce while working on the sly against their English overlords.So the stage is set for nasty plots and feats of derring-do, as the King leaves his son, Prince Edward (Errol Flynn) to rule the barely-pacified province in his stead, while he returns to England. When Edward's widowed cousin and romantic interest Joan (Joanne Dru) is kidnapped by the Comte de Ville and held hostage, this hands-on monarch embarks on a quest to rescue her and her children.Flynn the actor doesn't seem to have much zest for this production, no doubt regarding Allied Artists as a B-list outfit (as they generally were) compared with the major studios for whom he'd once worked. The romancing here is decidedly muted, compared to the classic swashbucklers of his early career. But even though his years of high living have obviously told on him, Flynn's still a commanding presence, and this role as a middle-aged warrior prince suits him well.The story is nothing remarkable, with its share of duels and disguises and battles and hair's-breadth escapes. Although there's an interesting ambiguity to its being set during the Hundred Years' War: Here the conquering English prince is the hero, while the Comte de Ville and his French compatriots are the villains. Yet barely ten years prior to the release of this movie, who would have questioned the morality of resisting an invading army by fair means or foul? At least as regards Europe, and by this time colonialism had mostly fallen out of favor, too. So it seems to me a bit hard to believe that most viewers then or now wouldn't feel at least a little sympathy for the French conspirators, even if Edward's claim to the Aquitaine had some foundation in medieval law and custom.For an Allied Artists flick, though, this has unusually good production values. (I was lucky enough to catch it on TCM, in letterbox format in a near-pristine print.) Besides Flynn himself, and a brief role for stunningly beautiful Yvonne Furneaux, the best things about this film are the cinematography, the fine British actors, the sets and costuming, and the staging of the battle scenes, especially de Ville's assault on the castle where Edward and Joan take refuge. For once, the armor is appropriate to the era and in a scene that's pretty unique for the genre, a pair of authentically primitive-looking cannon (yes, they had them back then) protected by a kind of giant shield-on-wheels known as a "mantlet" are used to shatter a castle gate.This is the sort of movie that used to be called a "popcorn cruncher", before the reign of the frenetic, bloated, CGI-saturated summer blockbuster. It makes no pretense at being anything but what it is: A passable way to spend a rainy afternoon.

Kingum2341 But I think it's one of Flynn's best older films.Plot is good, solid medieval action. Edward Prince has won a battle over the French, now he stays in France to rule it. French Knights don't want English lords lording over them. So they first try to assassinate him, then kidnap his lady, Joan of Kent. Edward tries to rescue her, fails, has a sword fight, joins the enemy to learn their plans, tries to rescue her again, etc, until the final big battle where the good guys have to win if it's going to make sense.I do want to say that Errol is 46 in this film. That is not too old an age to fight as a knight. In the medieval times, the aged warrior was the most qualified to lead younger knights. He had the experience that was vital, for there was no professional Arny as we know it in those day. A man with experience in battle was more important than youthful energy. Nobles in those days would go into battle, on horseback in the front line, well past their 70th year. So Errol running around in armor at his age is not an error. In fact, The real Black Prince Edward was still fighting wars at Errol's age, albeit he died of illness when he was 7 days short of his 46 birthday. And Errol was a heavy drinker so maybe thats why he doesn't look the part. But I thought it was OK.The love story has stuff added in such as the kidnapping, but the love between Errol and Joanna is not contrived, as history tells us Prince Edward and Joan of Kent loved each other very much. Prince Edward had a crush on her since boyhood as they grew up together. but when he grew up he decided after he to marry her off to a lordly friend of his. But after he told Joan his intention, she professed her deep love for Edward, perhaps in a similar scene as the movie shows it. Edward decided Joan was better off as his wife, not his friend. They were first cousins so that was frowned upon, but the Pope gave his permission so they were married in England and THEN went to France to rule.In the movie Joanna Dru is too young compared to Errols age. The real Joan of Kent was two years the elder of Edward. So she should be 48 years old in the movie.Peter Finch is a great French Knight, not a demon rebel. You can feel sorry for him, how he hates seeing France under the thumb of Edward. But in the end, you don't shed a tear at his death. But you say, there were brave men on both sides and this movie jolly well shows that bravely.Watch it for a good time.

darth_sidious After 85mins, you will say "Seen it before" and you have. This is another swashbuckler starring Errol Flynn and it's pretty average, run-of-the-mill stuff.The story is okay, but I don't think Errol looked that good in this one. You have the love interest and the villain, end of story.The acting is okay, nothing bad, but not spectacular.The widescreen frame is beautifully done, the entire width is used with perfection. Shot in Cinema Scope. The photography is quite realistic, the British certainly know how to light a film.Overall, this is average stuff. You'd be better off watching The Sea Hawk.