Los bucaneros

I first saw this film when it came out in the late 50s,and watched it every time it came on tv for decades afterward.It might say something about my tastes,because I thought it was a rousingly good adventure story.I still feel that way-for a pirate and battle film,it's first-rate.Where,then are my criticisms?First;a.)The battle of New Orleans was fought about 3 weeks after a peace treaty had been signed,and was,technically,irrelevant;b.)Unlike what they imply in the film,the British and the American forces were evenly matched-when the citizens of New Orleans and the pirates joined Jackson,the British were out-numbered;c.)The reason Laffite was not appreciated by the American government was not the PIRACY,per se,(they had legal commissions as privateers issued by Simon Bolivar)but because of the smuggling;d.)Laffitte had to leave,not because of the actions of a renegade captain under his command,but because he had returned to smuggling after he had received a presidential pardon;e.)Dominique,who was Laffite's much older brother,was an earthy,warm-hearted man who stayed behind and became a political hack under the Americans.Boyer is giving a reprise of an earlier portrayal on Napoleon;.I get the feeling that,with the big production,the large number of stars and well-known character actors who were doing supporting parts,the elaborate sets and props,and routines,they were trying to duplicate the success and magnitude of "The Ten Commandments"several years earlier.The big scenes-the pirate captains' conference;the pirate market;the taking of the"Corinthian"and the scenes at Barataria are well-done.(One bogus sequence,however-when Laffite challenges the pirate captains to kill Miggs before they can divy up the gold,and they back down-give me a break.Given the opportunity to get the loot-they would have lined up to slit the kid's throat.)The Battle of New Orleans is exteremly well-handled.Numerous viginettes of men preparing a variety of activities leading into the final fight-adds up to an impressive fourth act.And the love scenes do drag.This is not what De Mille was known for.So,enjoy this film on it's own merits,and realize that nothing is ever perfect.

I always enjoyed watching this when it came on television during prime-time every year in the 60's. It's a typical Hollywood history epic, dramatized, stylized and full of inaccuracies but so what, it's an entertaining movie and a good looking film. Cecil B. DeMille at the end of his life is the executive producer of this remake of his 1938 film. His son-in-law actor Anthony Quinn who had the supporting role of Beluche in the '38 film is the director in his directorial debut and swan song as he had never directed a film before and never would again. DeMille assembled a crew who had recently worked on his 10 Commandments to help Quinn pull it off including longtime DeMille associate producer/actor Henry Wilcoxon overseeing the project. Also from the 10 Commandments are screenwriter Jesse Lasky, cinematographer Loyalk Griggs, assistant director Francisco Day, 2nd unit director Arthur Rosson, art directors Walter Tyler and Hal Pereira, set directors Sam Comer and Ray Moyer, costume designers Edith Head, John Jensen and Ralph Lester who as a costume design team received The Buccaneer's only Oscar nomination. A great cast here from team DeMille headed up by Yul Brynner as pirate Jean Lafitte and Charleton Heston as future President General Andrew Jackson. Also in the cast are Charles Boyer, E.G. Marshall, Lorne Greene, Claire Bloom and Inger Stevens. At just over two hours it drags in some spots but makes up for it with some excellent battle scenes. I would give it a 7.5 out of 10.

In 1938, Cecil B. De Mille directed "The Buccaneer", a retelling about Jean Lafitte and his assistance in winning the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. The story was part fact, part fiction. In 1958, De Mille's son-in-law, Anthony Quinn, directed a remake of the 1938 film. And, perhaps as a homage to the original film, De Mille himself does a prologue. Oddly, at no point in the prologue and throughout the story did they mention that the battle actually occurred about a monthAFTER the peace treaty was signed between the USA and Britain! The reason...the British fleet and American forces hadn't yet received word of the end of the war!

A major player in the battle and in this film is Jean Lafitte (Yul Brynner). Lafitte is considered in the movie and in history books to be a pirate, though I don't think he ever captained a vessel. Instead, he was the boss of a fleet of pirate ships operating in the Gulf of Mexico...making a fortune smuggling items into the US and nearby countries.

Much of the film is spent with the British trying to woo Lafitte into working for them...offering him a fortune and the captaincy of his own ship. He strings them along for some time and eventually approaches the Americans...offering to help them AND divulging the British invasion plans to them as well. The film follows these events and Charlton Heston plays General Andrew Jackson, the man most often credited with the victory...though he might have lost had he not had the help of Lafitte and his men who were experts with artillery.

So is this film any good? Well, considering that very, very few movies even mention the War of 1813, then it is a must-see for history buffs. Just don't consider it to be a perfect representation of what occurred...though it's closer to the facts than you'd find in a typical De Mille film! Add to this excellent acting, lovely sets and a decent script and it's an enjoyable flick...even more so than the 1938 version.

By the way, according to IMDB trivia, Quinn had intended to make the film much more historically accurate. This would have eliminated some romances that simply never occurred as well as showing the American forces being much more ready for the British troops. However, his interfering father-in-law did much to undo this.

As Cecil B. DeMille said in a theatrical trailer of this, his last movie, see the movie to determine whether or not Jean Lafitte during the War of 1812 is a hero or villain. Nobody could have portrayed the buccaneer LaFitte better that Yul Brynner, which is why he did play that part.(Brynner was not one bit bald-headed in the movie.) And, nobody could have portrayed better General Andrew Jackson than did Charlton Heston, and so he did. Inger Stevens was adorable as LaFitte's love interest. Brynner and Heston clicked well together as they did in The Ten Commandments.

The battle of New Orleans in this movie is hot in more ways than one, with plenty of gunfire and small rockets flying around in the muggy, hot, swamp there in the New Orleans area.

To be sure, the War of 1812 is, again, depicted well, so convincingly. As always, the champion movie director Cecil B. DeMille made here a great directing feat and, since this was his last major production, "left on a good note."

If you're at all interested in pirates, pirate movies, New Orleans/early 19th century American history, or Yul Brynner, see this film for yourself and make up your own mind about it. Don't be put off by various lacklustre reviews. My reaction to it was that it is entertaining, well acted (for the most part), has some very witty dialogue, and that it does an excellent job of portraying the charm, appeal and legendary fascination of the privateer Jean Lafitte. While not all the events in the film are historically accurate (can you show me any historical film that succeeds in this?), I feel the film is accurate in its treatment of the role Lafitte played in New Orleans' history, and the love-hate relationship between the "respectable" citizens of New Orleans and this outlaw who was one of the city's favorite sons. Don't worry about what the film doesn't do, but watch it for what it does do, i.e., for its study of one of New Orleans', and America's, most intriguing historical figures.