Il ladro del re

How bad is this thing? Well, let's just say Robert Z Leonard was brought in to rescue it. Just think about that for a second. I mean, to paraphrase George Clooney in "Michael Clayton", Robert Z Leonard isn't the guy you bring in to RESCUE a piece of crap. He's the friggin guy you FIRE so you can bring in a guy (like Vince Minnelli on "The Bribe") to rescue a piece of crap. Also, it's most disconcerting to see David Niven in a moustache twirling villain part. He's such a good actor that he's ok but it speaks volumes about how his career was languishing at this mid 50s point, before Hecht Hill Lancaster rescued him and it in "Separate Tables", that he was consigned to parts that Christopher Lee would have spat upon. C minus.

PS...A previous reviewer wrote that this is his favorite Robert Z Leonard film. That's like saying Chad is your favorite poverty stricken nation.

Under the reign of Charles the Second , his counsellor ,the Duke of Brampton is making things rough all over ; in a screenplay taken by force from Robin Hood, complete with a band of nobles deprived of their possessions and a lady Mary(an) , it's nevertheless an entertaining sword and sandal yarn ,with glittering colors. George Sanders,as usual ,has style in his royal part ,athough I wished he had been cast as the villain .....played by cast against type David Niven ; both easily steal the show from bland Edmund Purdom. Gorgeous Ann Blyth provides the love interest .

Forget history : Cromwell replaces the crusades and the counsellor the sheriff of Nottingham.

Edmund Purdom plays "Michael Dermott" a petty crook and the hero in this tale of a 17th Century plot by the evil, ambitious "Duke of Brampton" (David Niven) to amass a fortune by denouncing as many wealthy nobles as he can before he can depose the weak Charles II (George Sanders) and rule Britain. Ann Blyth is the daughter of one such man who was hung for treason. She enlists the help of Purdom and they set out to foil these dastardly plans with the aid of the Duke's self-incriminating little black book. It's a fine looking film, and Niven and Sanders put some class into it. Otherwise, though, the leads are quite feeble as is the script.

Filmdoms most notorious cad, George Sanders, makes a second film appearance as King Charles II of Great Britain, the first being in Forever Amber. Charles II has come down in history as a pleasure driven hedonist, he's not called the Merry Monarch for nothing.

Hedonist he was, but that was also so much image management as well. He had a good head on his shoulders, he survived the defeat of his father and a decade of exile to return as King in 1660. The man that has come down to us in history is hardly likely to have been taken in the Duke of Brampton as played by David Niven.

But that's what this film asks us to believe. We're given no real reason why Charles has placed such confidence in the fictional Duke, but he has. So Niven's got himself a real nice racket going, he denounces folks as traitors and Charles believes him and executes them. And their property goes to him.

In fact Niven's got himself as little black book with a Restoration Dun&Bradstreet rating on all the richest and loyalest of Charles's subjects. The book unfortunately falls into the hands of highwayman Edmond Purdom. Then Purdom makes an alliance of more than one dimension with the daughter of one of the late nobility, Niven's had done in, Ann Blyth.

Niven looks very uncomfortable in the part of villain one of the few, maybe the only one he ever did. Purdom and Blyth are reunited from the film they did the year before, The Student Prince, which was far better than this. Sanders saunters his way through Charles II again. If he had been this dumb, the Popish Plot which occurred later on in his regime would have knocked him off the throne.

One of the dumber swashbuckler films I've ever seen. Only for the quality of the players which includes Roger Moore as one of Purdom's gang does it get as high a rating as it does.

I watched The King's Thief for one reason only, and that was that I am a bit of a Roger Moore fan. Alas, Roger isn't in the film very much, though what little he does he does well enough. However, I still enjoyed it as an easy-on-the-brain swashbuckler, the type of thing that Errol Flynn might have starred in twenty years earlier.

The plot is brisk and simple. It involves a plot to overthrow the king of England, recorded in a notebook which falls into the hands of a woodland bandit. The bandit is a bad man, but when he realises what is going on, he knows that he must do something to protect the monarch. In this way, the villain actually becomes the good guy. After a lot of swordplay and treachery, the bandit and his merry men save the king and catch the deceivers.

There's not much to remember about the film once it's over. There's one particularly suspenseful escape sequence, in which two bandits get out of Newgate prison, but besides that it kind of floats out of your head as quickly as it floated in. All the same, this is fun. It is the kind of movie your kids could watch without being exposed to blood and gore, sex and swearing. Yet at the same time it deals with action, murder, treachery and brigandry. I can't honestly recommend the film as a great viewing experience (it certainly isn't some kind of forgotten classic, so don't think it is), but if you want to pass an hour and a half on a Saturday afternoon, you could do a lot worse.