Eine Prinzessin verliebt sich

Richard Todd was a Disney star for a short while, but he certainly didn't disappoint. He and Glynis Johns were in more than one movie together and I have to say that this is their strongest collaboration. Richard Todd is dreamy, eloquent and enchanting. Glynis Johns is strong, ethereal and flawless. The story is fun and surprising. I had never even heard of this movie and am so happy to have gotten the opportunity to watch it. I HIGHLY recommend this film. It's a proper treat!

Amazingly, although this film is 62 years old, having come out when I was a teenager, and stars a load of some of my favorite English actors (Glynis Johns, James Robertson Justice and Michael Gough, to name only three), I had never seen it until tonight. I was absolutely amazed at how delightful it was, how great and authentic every scene in it looked, how seriously the actors took their very excellent dialogue - it's a bit more of a comedy than anything else, but it has its dramatic moments - and just the general air of intelligence that permeated what was, of course, a Disney film primarily intended for young audiences. Yet much in the screenplay was quite adult, perhaps most especially Mary Tudor's idea of getting the old French King (and her new husband) to imbibe liberally of the wine at their wedding festivities in order to incapacitate him and not have to consummate their marriage that night. That may not be very much in 2015, but in 1953 it was nearly licentious and quite a great deal to put into a Disney film meant primarily for kids. Of course, the trick here is that if one accepts the overly romantic nature of the film, it is one that will appeal to most intelligent adults, too, if only due to the excellence of the dialogue in the hands of Johns and Justice. And at the start I actually thought Michael Gough was going to play somebody truly noble - Michael Gough, noble? - but by the middle of the film he was deep into his usual villainy; one should never trust Michael Gough any more than one might have trusted Victor Jory a decade or two earlier! Anyway, the wrestling scene, the Mary Tudor ball and the dance introduced into it, the hunting scene, etc. looked totally authentic to me, whether they really were or not, and remember folks, this is all make-believe and made to be enjoyed rather than examined too closely. All in all, I think this has immediately become my favorite Disney live-action film (certainly of the "costume-variety" ones) thanks to the wonderful give-and-take of the dialogue. I think it achieves 100% of what was intended by its makers, and it's hard to find fault with that!

I really think Disney, when doing period films, did best when sticking to the musical comedy vein, as in "Mary Poppins" or the lesser-known (but hilarious) "Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin." When they tried to play it straight, the results are usually nothing to write home about, such is the case in "The Sword and the Rose." Now, Glynis Johns is beautiful and provides a very fine performance, and James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII, doing his best Falstaff impersonation, is quite amusing. I also enjoyed many of the supporting players, from the pratfalling King of France to his evil Pepe le Pew successor, Francis.

Unfortunately, Richard Todd as Charles Brandon is dull, dull, dull. One thing is for certain, he is no Errol Flynn. I kept thinking- why would Princess Mary want to run off with this guy? Todd is unfortunately typical of many 1950s leading men, like Cornel Wilde and Rory Calhoun, who seemed to substitute square jaws and blank stoicism for actual charm, charisma, and talent. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the film more if there had been more action scenes and swashbuckling, but there were so many scenes of Brandon and the Princess cooing over each other that I found myself getting restless. At times like this, a vaudeville number would be much appreciated.

However, the movie is relatively fast paced enough, so I wasn't too bored. The costuming, for a '50s Disney movie, is okay, although of course no one will be surprised to hear that it actually bears little resemblance to early Tudor fashions circa 1514. Justice is way too old to be playing Henry (Henry would have been in his mid 20s at the time) and all of his clothes look to be taken from the Holbein portraits from the 1530s and 1540s. All the women are wearing farthingales (not introduced until later), and most annoying, is that Catherine of Aragon, who was really a plump, sweet-natured redhead, is portrayed as a dour stick-thin black-haired hag who flounces around in a succession of horrifically gaudy outfits. Well, what else can be expected of a Disney movie, I suppose. It's a reasonably pleasant, inoffensive way of passing the time, and I very much liked Glynis Johns, although I constantly expected her to burst out singing: "Well done, Sister Suffragette!"

Disney was,of course,the best one for family entertainment.He really did create the market for films and television programs designed specifically for children.My only observation that can be seen as at all less than glowing is that,while violence per se is never eschewed,moral ambiguities are.Evil,for example,is portrayed in a relatively straightforward fashion,but bias,bigotry,and viciousness usually aren't.Consequently, the characterizations seen in his films are often less than 3 dimensional.His good characters,consequently,lack the flaws and failings that would round them out.

It's my understanding that Disney himself came from an emotionally and physically abusive background,characterized by alcoholism and a lack of love.I think,therefore,that his OWN search for nurturing figures,safety,and security show up in many of his films,reflected in the struggles and psychological journies of his protagonists.Not at all unusual,and indeed,perhaps inevitable.Nonetheless,as a result,his films need to be interpreted with this in mind.

This splendid,well-done,and highly enjoyable romance gives a delightful performance by Mr. Justice,which is historically less than accurate.Justice's portrayal of King Henry is that of a hearty,virile,good-natured and larger than life figure,who possess not only a sense of humor,but one of fun.He's both lovable and loving.This is the monarch that we wish Henry HAD been!And,sad to say,he wasn't.The really Henry VIII was a selfish,lustful,bloodthirsty,and boorish tyrant and monster,who crushed anyone who stood in his way.So,enjoy Justice's performance,based on the lusty,witty,drunken Falstaff.

This is not an action picture, but an enchanting historical or pseudo-historical romance taken from a Charles Major novel which was very popular, especially with women, many decades ago. It tells the story of Mary, the sister of Henry VIII who was married to king Louis XII of France. But the movie tells chiefly of his love for a commoner, Brandon, and how it eventually succeeded. An excellent reconstruction of the ambiance and ways of living,of the English Court in the 16th century, a screen play full of humor (incidentally, what became of the scenarist, Lawrence Edward Watkin, whose thirties novel "On Borrowed Time" was such a delight?), magnificent photography, all this contributes to make The Sword and the Rose one of the better Disney films. But what makes it exceptional, is the magnificent performances of Glynis Johns and James Robertson Justice. In Miss Johns' hands, Mary is a woman every man would be proud and satisfied to fall in love with. And the Henry VIII of Mr Justice justifies comparison with Charles Laughton's.