Charge of the Lancers

After Paulette Goddard ran afoul of Cecil B. DeMille when she was in his Unconquered, Paramount dropped her as a player quite abruptly. As a result the woman was scratching for work.

Which brings us to Charge Of The Lancers, a film set during the Crimean War so that the Russians can be cast as villains fighting against the NATO forces of the day, the French, the British, and the kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont which eventually got to rule all of Italy. The war is one of aggression against peace loving Turkey.

With the Crimean War nicely historically rewritten for the Cold War audience taste, the British have developed a new breech loading cannon that the Russians want to get their hands on. Officers Jean Pierre Aumont and Richard Stapley are bringing a prototype for demonstration. The Russians don't get the gun, but they do capture Stapley.

Aumont's mission now is to get Stapley out of Russian hands before he spills the beans. Circumstances put him in the hands of some passing gypsies with one of them being Paulette Goddard.

Why the gypsies decide to help Aumont is beyond reason. You're supposed to accept the proposition that gypsies are natural born intriguers plus Paulette likes what she sees in Aumont.

As for Aumont his French accent is explained by the fact that he's a French officer detached to British service. He must have felt real silly doing this role.

In fact the whole film is pretty silly. Don't charge for the remote when this one is broadcast.

Paulette Goddard's career was tumbling ever downward by the time she did CHARGE OF THE LANCERS.

Indeed, about a half-hour of plot is developed before she even makes an appearance as a gypsy girl in a caravan, helping JEAN PIERRE AUMONT escape being captured by the Russians during the Crimean war. She takes an immediate fancy to Aumont (in his red boxing tights) and eventually helps him rescue his buddy (RICHARD STAPLEY), captured by the Russians who hope to get plans about a new cannon the British are planning to use against their enemy.

Despite the silly script, Jean Pierre Aumont gives a lively and likable performance but Goddard is clearly too old to be addressed as "that girl" and looks rather harsh in some of her Technicolor close-ups. Karin Booth has a thankless role as a Russian spy.

Most favorable aspect of the film is the bright Technicolor which gives it a high-budget look most of the time. William Castle's direction is never able to lift the material above routine. The story, after a fairly lively start, starts to fall apart soon after Goddard's entrance.

Not recommended.

Apart from the lovely color cinematography, "Charge of the Lancers" is a pretty dull film. That didn't surprise me much, as it was made late in Paulette Goddard's film career...and many of these latter films had one thing in common...dull scripts. Now you'd THINK a film set during the Crimean War would have lots of action and excitement...but no...it's hard to care about the story or the characters.

The plot is pretty slim. The combined British, French and Ottoman forces are at a stalemate with the Russians who are well dug in and control the port of Sevastapol. But a new breech loading cannot will apparently turn the tide...if the folks who know the secret can manage to get out from behind enemy lines. To help them is a Gypsy lady (Goddard).

Dull but colorful. Not much more to say about this, but there MUST be other films about the Crimean War that are more interesting than this!

This 1954 film certainly isn't one of her best. Playing opposite Jean-Pierre Aumont in a rather silly flick about a gypsy girl who shields an escaped soldier during the Crimean War is sadly lacking the Goddard touch. It's almost like she was held back from even making this a campy movie like BABES IN BAGDAD, also one of her last films. However, as a fan of hers, it's always good to see her in any film. I had not seen this movie before and was fortunate to get it, rather inexpensively, over Ebay. I now can say I own 41 of her films on VHS. Not counting her silent films, she made 42! Still searching for BABES IN BAGDAD, in case someone knows where I can get a copy.

CHARGE OF THE LANCERS is in Technicolor and produced for Columbia Pictures by William Castle. Paulette still is an attractive woman, with a lovely figure and captivating smile. Several of her films are now coming out on DVD, such as GHOST BREAKERS, REAP THE WILD WIND, THE WOMEN and POT O' GOLD.

This is director Castle's weakest epic offering that I have watched so far, devoid even of the hokey qualities that rendered SERPENT OF THE NILE (1953) tolerable and the entertaining campiness that marked SINS OF JEZEBEL (1953), from the same producer (Sam Katzman) and star (Paulette Goddard)!

As the title suggests, this is one from the fictionalized cinematic files of the British Empire (we even get to see Florence Nightingale do her thing!), except that the titular attack only turns up at the very end and, what is worse, is a direct replica of its own opening skirmish (though, instead of coming off as audacious – as Luis Bunuel's deliberate repetition of one particular sequence in THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL {1962} would eventually be – here it smacks of cheapskate tactics)! Besides, for whatever reason, the male lead was French Jean-Pierre Aumont (it is just possible that no British, or at least one who naturally spoke English, actor was prepared to lower his standard by appearing in such low-brow fare!) – we are also supposed to believe him as an amateur boxer! As for Goddard, she was on her last legs anyway as an actress, so she probably would have welcomed any part at this point – but it still does not excuse her embarrassing performance (as a gypsy) here!

The plot is quite dreary (involving romantic antagonism which eventually unveils a traitor, and there is also trickery with respect to a secret weapon coveted by the enemy, as the hero's best friend feigns amnesia so as not to spill the beans when captured, while Aumont himself naturally dons gypsy garb to move unnoticed in enemy territory when a General unsurprisingly takes a shine to the earthy and deliberately flirtatious Goddard) and the handling thoroughly dull (as if the director were somehow uncommitted to – certainly uninspired by – the material at his disposal). In the end, at just 70 minutes, the film makes for harmless enough (if decidedly unendearing) viewing…though the overall poor quality of the TCM-sourced print (especially when viewed on a 40" monitor) only serves to notch yet another point against it!