source: Royal Flash

I have been a Flashy fan since the first novel, and have read them all. So back when the movie came out, i was exited. It sounded so well. GMF doing the script, Lester directing and featuring a great cast. Reed, Bates, Macdowell and Ekland. It all sounded good. After all, Fraser and Lester had made the best musketeer adaption ever. Unfortunately they picked the weakest of the Flashman books. (To be fair it's a very enjoyable read, but compared to the others it comes out not quite up to standard). I guess they picked it because it could be made within a certain budget. No large battle scenes and it could be made in European locations. One can always debate whether MacDowell was the right choice. He certainly lacked the stature, but on the other hand he did project that natural insolence one would expect from Flashy. But they made it too silly in my opinion. Flashman may be a coward, but he is a trained soldier and should have shown more skill in sword fights. Parts of the movie works well though, just don't expect too much.

No film with a cast that includes Oliver Reed as Bismark, Florinda Bolkan as Lola Montes and Henry Cooper as John Gully can be entirely without interest to the scholar. And directing this elaborately mounted adaptation from his own novel by George MacDonald Fraser, Dick Lester had at his disposal expensive locations photographed by Oscar-winning cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth and an amazing cast both old (Alistair Sim) and up & coming (Bob Hoskins, David Jason). Unfortunately Lester seems overwhelmed by the lavishness of the production, which goes on for far too long and has a noisy score by Ken Thorne that makes the frantic shenanigans less rather than more amusing. Presumably it was Fraser's original novel that returned once more to the plot of 'The Prisoner of Zenda', but that was hardly an original idea, since the story had already been pastiched only ten years earlier in 'The Great Race'; only to be soon followed by yet another mirthless parody starring Peter Sellars, also featuring, as here, Lionel Jeffries.

A visually excellent comedy, could be viewed for the amazing photography alone. (There was no "cheating" back then, no computers to artificially play around with the colours of the film, RF's colours are refreshingly real.) RF gets a little too goofy at times, i.e. too cartoonish, but a surprising number of gags actually work, thanks mostly to McDowell who could have been doing comedies his whole career were he not such an obvious choice for heavies. He steals the show from Bates and Reed, who are solid. The movie is fast-paced fun from the word go, without over-relying too much on dull action scenes. The only drawback is the moronic ending, too dumb even for a comedy, with McDowell actually going back to the trollop played by a rather homely actress (bad bad casting). This is moronic because it's quite obvious that it was she who delivered him to Bismarck in the first place. Until that point, there was little to indicate to the viewer that McDowell was a naïve imbecile, much less the type to fall in love, given that he was presented to us as the typical playboy type, hence him seeking out Lola and then being so easily played by her was totally out of character. (Yeah, yeah, it's just a comedy, fine.) Speaking of which, who could possible fall in love with that? That actress is quite ugly. It's a shame that a movie with such high levels of aesthetics would have such a poor-looking woman in the lead role. "Carmina Burana" should never be used in a comedy, no matter where or when it's set.

A British drama; A story about a conniving 19th-century military officer who is forced to impersonate a European noble as part of a plot to seize control of the country. Setting aside the success of the Flashman novels, which feature a cowardly scoundrel and womanizer Capt. Harry Flashman, this film adaptation of the second novel set in the early days of the Victorian period is a mixed bag. Mixing skittish buffonery and lightheartedness with seriousness and scenes of violence, tonally this film is awkward and uneven. With an array of gallant heroes, dastardly villains, pure maidens and lusty wenches introduced, the story loses purpose and pattern. McDowell loses the focus of his character, revelling in the outrage and menace yet coming up short on the more charming and sustaining aspects: tall, handsome, impeccable, caddish and projecting the charm and ego of a character we are supposed to identify with; so the story loses purpose too. There are brief moments of amusement and silliness throughout.

The first few Flashman books were just marvelous, then they started to lose their spontaneity and they became as if written to a formula. However they were still pretty good and it wasn't until the very last couple that it was obvious that George McDonald Fraser had really lost his touch. He could still write wonderful books however (The Border Reivers, The Candlemas Road, his Burma book) it was just with Flashman that he became stale. After having said that he had a strange inclination to write slapstick books such as The Pyrates, which were truly dreadful and practically unreadable. His talent for slapstick however proved worthwhile with the scripts of the first two of the three The Three Musketeer films, the last of the three being not up to the standard of the first two, but still, he basically provided scripts that were funny and clever. So he was unpredictable in terms of quality, especially as he got older. But overall he was one of the best novelists and writers of all time. Which makes it hard to understand how he got it so terribly wrong with this movie. This strange inclination to turn to slapstick which sometimes worked out and at other times didn't brought this film completely undone. He was at the height of his powers when he wrote the script and yet he presented a Flashman that was not the Flashman of the books. It was cornball and silly and so dependent on puerile slapstick humor that if fails completely. The choice of Roddy McDowall as Flashman was disastrous. McDowall was/is a small man whereas Flashman was big, strong and assertive and he used his strength to pander to his particularly liking of being a bully. He was cunning and could appear to be likable and admirable if it suited him. As a result he was popular and respected by those who had never seen his real side, that of a coward, cruel and vicious. Mcdowall just comes across as a contemptible poltroon right from the start, snivelling and whining whereas the Flashman of the book hid his cowardice as much as he could. There is still a film to be made of Flashman and if true to the behavior of Flashman as his devotees would have it, it could be a great movie. This film is a travesty of the Flashman we all know and appreciate.

I loved this movie when I saw it on HBO in the Seventies. That's because I only caught the bedroom scenes where Flashman seduces an innocent German princess, who goes from chaste and unresponsive to eager and passionate in about five minutes. That part was absolutely fabulous! But the whole rest of the movie was very, very bad slapstick, set ups that drag on for hours (the raid on the casino) and then payoffs that are all prat falls and silly pile ups. The humor is never funny, and adventure moves at a snail's pace. Malcolm McDowell is legendary for playing brutal teen psycho Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so I suppose someone assumed he'd be perfect for a cad, liar, and coward like Flashman. But it doesn't work, because where Alex just wants to rape, beat, and steal, Flashman has to keep acting like a horse's ass, saying stuff like "damme, an Englishman shouldn't have to talk to foreigners! Have the girl stripped naked and brought to my bed!" Maybe, fifty or sixty years ago, someone found it shocking and subversively thrilling to have a British officer talk like a stuffed shirt while acting like a teenage hoodlum on a rampage. But looking back it's just painfully unfunny, and McDowll is strangely listless in the role. It's not the violence that he can't sell -- it's the ham-handed social satire. Flashman is a snob. We get it. Move on!

ROYAL FLASH is another enjoyable historical romp from writer/director George McDonald Fraser and Richard Lester following on from their earlier in the decade outing in the form of THE THREE MUSKETEERS. This one's made in the same lively spirit, with lots of intrigue and humorous heroics as our ne'er-do-well hero Flashman gets involved in a European plot that sees him masquerading as a prince due to the machinations of the scheming Otto von Bismarck. Malcolm McDowell proves a fitting choice for lead, even enjoying himself in a dual role later on in the proceedings, while Oliver Reed's Bismarck is a real scene-stealer.

As a fan of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman series I have seen this film many times and it's a treat to finally own a widescreen transfer on DVD. Royal Flash is the 1975 film based on the second "Flashman" novel of the same name. It stars Malcolm McDowell as Captain Harry Flashman, Oliver Reed as future German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Alan Bates as Rudi von Sternberg, Britt Ekland as the chilly Princess Irma, and Florinda Bolkan plays the actress/mistress of mad Bavarian King Ludwig. Lola Montez. It also features the best Scrooge ever, Alastair Sim, and a pre-"Roger Rabbit" Bob Hoskins in minor but memorable parts. Fraser wrote the screenplay and the film was directed by Richard Lester. It is very similar in style to their collaboration on The Three/Four Musketeers films of 1973/1974, which also featured great locales, swordfighting galore and an ideal cast. OK, first, the BAD news: although I saw a 1975 preview screening in Ottawa I have never seen the original longer version, which apparently was released and trimmed to 102 minutes shortly after. Sadly, this footage, which apparently featured Lester regular actor Roy Kinnear in some scenes, does NOT appear on the DVD. There are some special features, including the theatrical trailer and a couple of mini-documentaries made around 2004. Another quibble some Flashy purists have expressed is that McDowell is not "stout" enough to play Harry. I think the natural devilment in Malcolm's performance more than makes up for his stature, and they even try to make him broad-chested in the film. I'm a Flashy purist too, and I prefer the tall lancer figure portrayed by Barbosa on the original book covers to the rather fat portraits on the current book covers. Finally, some have objected to the "slapstick" nature of the film, and perhaps these readers are more interested in Flashy's military campaigns than his rollicking amorous adventures. How much you like Lester's use of muttered quips and style of shooting will perhaps guide you: if you like "A Hard Day's Night", "Help!" or the Musketeers films you should enjoy this one. If you're looking for Kubrick, move along. Here's the GOOD news: the widescreen transfer is fine, the outdoor location shots still gorgeous and the movie is great fun. It is still a puzzle to me why such a fine film stiffed at the box office and was hard to find on TV or video for so many years. But you don't even have to be a fan of the books to enjoy this movie, or know the fascinating actual histories of Bismarck or Lola Montes to enjoy the larger-than-life characters. P.S. any resemblance to the classic "Prisoner of Zenda" is entirely deliberate. Eight out of ten stars, only because I hope the "lost" footage has survived and may be available in a (Blu-Ray, please!) version soon.

Plot: A cowardly Englishman is kidnapped by Otto Bismarck and forced to impersonate the king of a small country. This is the third of four collaborations between director Richard Lester and screen writer George MacDonald-Fraser, combining the former's manic energy and ad-libbed humour with the latter's skill at weaving an adventure tale. The story is essentially a re-mix of 'The Prisoner of Zenda', with the addition of a historical background (the 1848 Revolutions and Otto Bismarck's attempts to unify Germany). The genius of the Flashman protagonist (this is adapted from a terrific series of books) is that in public he is a war hero but in private he is a lecherous coward. Cue instant entertainment (with a uniquely reluctant hero) as he is dragged into the dangerous plot. Fans of the novels have quite rightly complained that Malcolm McDowell isn't dark or beefy enough for the character - but it doesn't much matter as he turns in a terrific performance anyway. The film is full of good actors (David Jason, Bob Hoskins, Oliver Reed) who are uniformly excellent, with even Britt Ekland doing a stand-up job. This ability extends to every other part of the production. The locations and costume are stunning and unusual - Victorian Mitteleurope looking beautiful and strangely exotic (to this Englishman). The key however is the plot, which is stuffed with intrigue, love-affairs, pursuits, assassinations, humour and darn good characters. Also look out for much period-authentic slang and all sorts of odd historically accurate details. The 1970s was also a perfect time for such a film, with social rebellion breaking down the stuffiness of many prior historical films, yet without the stultifying political correctness present in so many modern historical films. It zips along with pace, making best use of the historical background to magnify the drama (zip-wiring down a telegraph line) until it's thoroughly satisfying conclusion. Worth two or more viewings.