What a waste of my time!!!

Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Despite its big reputation, not all Hammer Films are worth watching. In fact, "The Scarlet/Crimson Blade" fully deserves its reputation as a movie swashbuckler with lots of buckle but little swash. There is not a great deal of action, but plenty of plot machinations and lots of dialog. It was obviously filmed on a limited budget. The sets are attractive, but the costumes look too new to be real. Not much use is made of the wide screen. The emphasis is firmly on the players. Fortunately, they are made to look attractive by skillful photography. Lionel Jeffries' screen persona is usually that of a comedian, and he is hard to accept as a straight villain. The direction is capable but unimaginative and lacks the dash and pace a swashbuckler really needs for complete success. Director John Gilling can usually do much better than this. Maybe he was constrained by the producer's demand for speed.

Swashbuckler from the renowned Hammer studio who are more famous for their classic horror movies. This movie suffers from some poor casting decisions and a general lack of dynamic action to set the pace in a genre that demands excitement. Jack Hedley just doesn't suit as the hero and Oliver Read is much more interesting as the bad guy I think Reed could have done a better job in the lead role (he did go on to play Athos in Richard Lesters production of the Three Musketeers).The script is generally poor and no one comes out to well in the acting stakes but this could have been excused had there been some great set pieces but action is another element somewhat lacking in what is a fairly disappointing movie by any standards 4/10

Hammer studios are most fondly remembered for their horror output, but they occasionally dipped their beak into other genres. The Scarlet Blade (US title: The Crimson Blade) is an example of their non-horror releases. Made in 1963 and directed by Hammer veteran John Gilling, this English Civil War swashbuckler cracks along at a brisk pace and, at a mere 83 minutes, never taxes the patience. It also features an early appearance from the brooding Oliver Reed, here perfectly cast as a tough but charming villain. Reed would go on to die 36 years later during one of his countless drinking binges, and his death marked a sad but inevitable loss to the acting profession. It's always pleasant to look back at his early works and remind ourselves what a fine actor he was, especially before years of alcohol abuse took its toll on his features and figure. In fact, roguish Reed's villain is much more interesting in this film than the "good guys" portrayed by June Thorburn and Jack Hedley…. that, coupled with the fact that the other main villain played by Lionel Jeffries is also far more charismatic than the dreary heroes, is probably the film's principal drawback!Cromwellian soldiers Colonel Judd (Lionel Jeffries) and Captain Sylvester (Oliver Reed) capture King Charles of England (Robert Rietty). Colonel Judd has a beautiful young daughter named Claire (June Thorburn). Little does the Colonel suspect that his daughter is actually a Royalist supporter, totally opposed to her father's political sympathies. While Claire is seemingly intended for an eventual marriage to the handsome but ruthless Captain Sylvester, the reality of the matter is that she is very much in love with Cavalier adventurer Edward Beverly (Jack Hedley). Edward and Claire realise that they must gather the sparse Royalist supporters together in their struggle to rescue the king.The Scarlet Blade is pleasing enough whilst on, but soon forgotten afterwards. It paints a typically romanticised view of history, portraying the Cavaliers as whiter-than-white heroes with justice on their side, and the Roundheads as tyrannical baddies with few - if any - likable qualities. The film ends on a rather sour note, much more downbeat than expected, and the decision to do this should be applauded. Happy and convenient endings can sometimes be a bit too conventional, so it's nice to come across a film from time to time which reminds us that things don't always work themselves out perfectly. On a less positive note, the performances are generally wooden and unconvincing (only Jeffries and Reed escape this criticism). Much of the dialogue is unconvincing too, but this is more to do with the film's innocent, old-fashioned charm than anything and provides some unintended pleasures. I'm not going to stand here and claim that The Scarlet Blade is a lost classic, nor am I going to slate it as a lesser-quality time waster. This film is brisk, lively and perfectly forgettable, a period adventure flick that fills a little time harmlessly enough if you're in the mood. If you're lucky enough to find it, give it a go.

This Hammer swashbuckler is one of the few films to be set during the English Civil War. Unfortunately, its treatment of the conflict is fairly simplistic ; the Roundheads are the baddies, intent on killing the king, and the Cavaliers are the romantic good guys, led by Jack Hedley, looking slightly too old to play the Robin Hood like hero.The film suffers from the fact that the "villains" (Lionel Jeffries, Oliver Reed) are much more charismatic than the "heroes" (Hedley and an insipid June Laverick). The downbeat ending is also a surprise. Nevertheless, like most Hammer films, it is well-mounted and richly-photographed by Jack Asher. Watch out for the sequence in which the outlaws, disguised as bushes (!), creep ever-closer to the Roundhead guards. It looks like a scene from Monty Python!