User reviews

My main trepidation when tuning in to this costumer was that there would be California accents ringing all around Richard Greene and Merrie England...but no! Everyone from lovely Barbara Hale to the slew of Hollywood western veterans that surround her (including Ray Teal, Harry Lauter, and the always excellent Myron Healy) all come up with admirable mid-Atlantic intonations. Yes, the plot is old as the hills, and the production values are B+ rather than A. But the technicolor is great, and the drama and thrills are definitely there. This overlooked movie is pure comfort viewing for anyone who enjoys ridiculous historical adventures from 1950s Hollywood. Loved it.

This Hollywood rendition of the British literary classic by R.D. Blackmore was dubbed "grotesque" by the late, eminent but notoriously conservative film critic Leslie Halliwell where, he opined, the narrative was treated "as if it were a Western"! Such a damning assessment did not augur well, to be sure – but, then, Leonard Maltin rated it higher than the director's best-regarded costumer i.e. the just-watched THE BRIGAND (1952). The truth, as often happens, lies somewhere in between: while the plot does feel like a typical 'terrorized homestead' scenario, it is nevertheless engaging (indeed, more so than the better-received 1934 version that had preceded this viewing!) and, to its credit, looks veritably gorgeous in the Technicolor print shown on Australian HD-TV I acquired (despite the "Back Soon" and "Now" announcements signalling frequent commercial breaks!). Still, it does not quite have the impetus to rise above the clichés – lacking the wit and verve that would characterize THE BRIGAND and substituting glumness, ill-matched stars (Barbara Hale and Richard Greene) and a decidedly anodyne villain (William Bishop)!

While the essence of the tale, at least as shown in the earlier adaptation, is there, a number of crucial differences are also on hand – which, again, can either work in its favour or against: first of all, the Doones (headed by siblings Carl Benton Reid and Onslow Stevens) reside in a castle and, rather than mere bandits, are overlords enslaving the people a' la Prince John in the Robin Hood legends; the male protagonist here is a soldier in King Charles II (not James!)'s army, so that the opposition he offers involves military tactics (a planned sneak attack by way of the waterfall which had introduced the hero to Lorna as kids) instead of just an impulsive personal vendetta; the character of Tom Faggus (played this time around by Ron Randell) is much more important here but, then, his romance with Greene's barely- registering sister feels contrived; a number of violent scenes (floggings, hangings) are incorporated, culminating in full-blown swashbuckling action at the climax; there is not one but two interrupted wedding ceremonies (in both of which Lorna is the prospective bride!), with the last semi-tragic one preceding the inevitable showdown between her two contenders – which, however, ends with the predictable fall from a great height and not a marshland drowning; Lorna's background (a spiteful kidnapping stunting her regal birthright), on the other hand, is more than adequately dealt with…since the King himself comes into play on a couple of occasions! With this, I am now left with the Silent 1922 filmization by Maurice Tourneur to check out – while marking the start of a three-movie mini-marathon dedicated to Greene as part of my current Epic Easter viewings.

I'm sure enough has been said about this rendition of the classic novel, so I'll just add a few of my own thoughts.

I loved the costumes, (I love any costumes from the 17th to 19th centuries, with some exceptions here and there), though the accents sure needed work! This was also the first time I've seen Barbara Hale in any role other than Della Street, and while I won't fault her acting, to me, she came across as too sophisticated to play Lorna Doone. I can picture Audrey Hepburn, but that's just my opinion.

Anyway: what I found outstanding was the waterfall scenes, first when the boy faces them bravely, then when he's a grown man, in a fight to the finish with his enemy/rival. That last scene put me in mind of the famous Holmes/Moriarity battle at the Reichenbach Falls.

Also, the wedding scene in the church (supposedly based on a real-life occurrence, according to the author of the book) was reminiscent of the one in the movie "Smilin Through". Was this movie inspired by those other sources, that in their turn were inspired by the book? Worth thinking about!

Don't expect Classic Hollywood at its best, but it's a pretty good movie to watch.

Looks good in lush, 1950s Hollywood deep colour and the backdrops, (e.g. the castle perched on the edge of the cliff and the thundering water fall which is the only other access to the castle beyond the one road and the drawbridge), look good as well. There is the usual collection of Hollywood support actors on hand to look aggrieved. angry or resentful on cue as well so you "feel at home" when they are on screen, knowing this is from the estbalsihed stable of 1940s/50s Hollywood swash-bucklers. Apart from that, though, this does not have much going for it. Seeing the lead players in action makes you realise clearly why they never made it to the Errol Flynn, (what would HE have done with the lead role???), or even Virginia Mayo league. Even their wooden appearances could have been compensated for, however, if the whole thing, (even just the fight scenes), had had some PACE and ZEST. As it is, the whole thing comes across as a "wheel 'em on", "let's get this scene over" affair, leaving you as glad at the end as the players apparently felt that the thing is finally over. Worth watching ONCE to remind you what Hollywood was ALSO capable of as well as Flynn as Robin Hood, Colman as the Prisoner of Zenda or even Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan!

The painful thing about this film is the grotesque distortion of the original novel. Unfortunately, this is what Hollywood used to do with great classics in the early 50s - there are numerous examples, like for instance Henry King's "King of the Khyber Rifles" with Tyrone Power, reducing him to a puppet and the story to shambles. Here at least the surroundings are true to the book - a recklessly romantic landscape with that stupendous waterfall as the centre of the stage, the music is also very well contrived, but all the rest is just common Hollywood artifice. They try to sugar it with some swashbuckling scenes, great sword fights, a royal intrigue (missing in the novel) and villains as wicked as possible. This was not worth seeing except for the colours, the settings, the romance (more for Barbara Hale than for Richard Greene) and the characters of Charles II and Ron Randell as Tom Faggus, the only fresh touch of humour in this depthless hollowness.

Following a long period of political turbulence in England, a powerful family known as the Doones has placed itself on the wrong side of the current government under the reigning monarch Charles II. However, the fact that they reside in a great castle that is impervious to direct assault, and quite comfortable in the knowledge that the English army is busy fighting wars overseas, their current status as bandits and outlaws doesn't bother them in the least. So much so that, under the leadership of the young heir to the family throne, the brutal "Carver Doone" (William Bishop) decides to dominate the surrounding countryside by waging acts of terrorism to keep the local farmers under his authority. Needless to say, when his father is shot and killed by these bandits, a young man named "John Ridd" (Richard Greene) eventually decides to do something about it. Complicating matters for him is a young woman named "Lorna Doone" (Barbara Hale) who, even though she lives in the castle, has captured his heart. Likewise, Lorna also feels the same way about John. And even she has been publicly betrothed to Carver, she is intent on helping John in any way that she can. Now, rather than reveal any more, let me just say that I have never read the book that this film is based upon and, as such, I do not know how faithfully this movie adhered to it. There was, however, a British film produced in 1934 that I did have the opportunity to view and, based upon that, I can honestly say that I prefer this updated American version somewhat better as it wasn't nearly as dated as its earlier predecessor. As far as the acting was concerned, while both Richard Greene and Barbara Hale performed in a solid manner, the absence of chemistry and passion between them was quite noticeable and limited the film in a certain regard. Likewise, I would have preferred a bit more style or panache from the lead character as well. But then, maybe I've seen too many Errol Flynn movies, and I am somewhat spoiled in that regard. Be that as it may, while I certainly don't consider this to be a blockbuster adventure movie by any means, it was still superior in some respects to the 1934 British version, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.