Liebe unter schwarzen Segeln

Gordon Douglas at the time was redoing Erroll Flynn's adventures movies :for instance "rogues of Sherwood" showed Robin Hood's son (!)battling against his wicked uncle ;Hayward was sluggish but Mc Ready was delightful as the villain.

Another character portrayed by Flynn (gloriously) :another Hayward /McReady pairing and another battle.Six men from captain Blood's crew have been sold as slaves and they have got to dive for pearls in waters infested with sharks (too bad,those scenes are not shown;it would have added some suspense to a story which is terribly in need of it) The story is barely entertaining ,compared to the great Blood of Flynn and De Havilland (replaced by Patricia Medina who tries her best but who is not Olivia )

The previous poster is mistaken if she remembers seeing Hayward in glorious color--this is a black and white movie---and a less glorious B&W than that supplied Warner Brothers' Captain Blood by Ernest Haller and Hal Mohr. In fact, Fortunes often looks like a TV production--and not just because of the poor model work. What isn't typical of a TV movie is the surprising amount of violence--Blood's crew is bludgeoned mercilessly when they are captured, whipped by the Marquis and his overseers, and forced to listen to Alfonso Bedoya's idiosyncratic line readings.

I remember seeing Louis Hayward in The Black Arrow when I was about 10, and thinking that movie a great swashbuckler. Yet when I read the posts about it on IMDb, I wonder if my memory is playing tricks on me as well. Watching a bit of Fortunes on TCM, I rather suspect it is--this movie is pretty tepid, with the chief excellence being Hayward's performance, even though he gets no help from the script or director.

I'm writing this in response to the plea for a review; if anyone has seen it more recently, please chime in. I saw this a decade or two ago on TV, and remember rather liking it, but being disappointed that it didn't follow Sabatini's book more closely. It wasn't quite as weak as I'd expected from a sequel, and Louis Hayward wasn't as weak as I'd expect from a replacement for Errol Flynn. All in all, a reasonably good standard-issue pirate movie; sorry I can't be more definite than that. There was also a sequel to the sequel, based on Sabatini's _Captain Blood Returns_, entitled for some reason _Captain Pirate_, which I remember as being, surprisingly, somewhat better than this one.

I was in love with Louis Hayward and there is no more ardent love than a seven year old for a Pirate. I saw every film with Louis Hayward that came to the local cinema and I imagined I was the heroine of course! We had American friends and they had a home cinema and I saw this film and thought it was wonderful.

53 years later, what would I think - I hope it would transport me back over the years when the handsome Louis Hayward would be as dashing and romantic as he was when I first saw him. Good swashbuckling adventure. Must have made an impression when I remember it after 53 years.

I know Errol Flynn was the original "Peter Blood" in talking movies but Louis Hayward was the actor whom I saw in the 1950's in glorious colour. Yes, the colours in those movies in the 1950's were wonderful breathtaking after so many black and white movies.

A Columbia swashbuckler starring Louis Hayward from the forties without George McReady as the villain is like a hamburger without the meat: I mean absolutely impossible to imagine. So this early fifties - late forties aadventures flick has nothing to envy from Warner Bros productions for which Gordon Douglas also worked in the same period, or maybe after this period. He then missed the awful Sam Katzman producer if he had stayed in Columbia Pictures. Lucky guy. This movvie is a very good entertaining yarn, full of action but bringing nothing exceptional either. Everything is predictable; after all it was the Hollywood system. Gordon Douglas's directing is, as usual, flawless, no matter the plot itself.