Sangue e Espada

George Plympton and two others wrote it, so the script is not to blame.

The cast members are among the best, but in the first chapter, only Wheeler Oakman is the least bit believable.

Apparently the director, Derwin Abrahams, is to blame -- and I've never heard of him before -- but this is one of the worst acted bits I've seen in MONTHS. Maybe years.

Let me repeat, so you can judge this review accurately: I turned it off less than 20 minutes into the first chapter. It's just too terrible for me to bear.

Music is by the talented Lee Zahler, using some motifs from Wagner, so that's OK, too, but not enough to save it. I admit maybe it gets better as it goes along. Certainly others have rated it higher. But, despite my usually generous standards. I just cannot abide this.

If you watch anyway, and like it, I do hope you write a review and let me know that I was just too impatient. Thank you.

Coming relatively late in the life of movie theatre serial (starting in October of 1946!), the production values on this version of the Robin Hood story are remarkably high, but one has to question Columbia's cynical(?) choice of their title after MGM had so famously exploited the Molnar play THE GUARDSMAN - both with Lunt & Fontanne repeating their Broadway roles in a 1931 film and again in 1941 when, with great publicity, they had out maneuvered the great George Bernard Shaw (the 1938 Oscar winner for his screenplay for PYGMALION who was asking "too much" to release the rights to his play ARMS AND THE MAN which served as the plot for the operetta THE CHOCOLATE SOLDIER which MGM intended to film) by using the Molnar play as the on screen plot for their screen version of the operetta (using only the score from the original).

If MGM had basically used THE GUARDSMAN to hijack a work which Shaw had an obvious interest in, I suppose there is a certain rough justice in Columbia using the title to hijack audience interest for their new Robin Hood story - but one has to pity any literate kids in the audience who looked in vain for a follow-up to the famous story of an acting couple where a jealous husband masquerades as a lover to trick his wife! I recently found a second or third generation DVD of the serial (to be honest, having not heard of it, MY interest was piqued because of that apparently Molnar related title), and despite feeling a little misled, thoroughly enjoyed the strong production and narrative values Columbia found in the classic story they chose to hang their series on. I grew up on the old syndicated Richard Greene ROBIN HOOD TV series, and found this version - while as loose with the original story as the TV series was (or, for that matter, bearing as much relation to it as the John Wayne THREE MUSKETEERS movie serial had to Alexandre Dumas' famous novel!) - even more entertaining.

SON OF THE GUARDSMAN is well worth a look despite the sometimes frustrating "serial" format which moves in all too brief fits and starts. This was, for the ones I've seen so far, among the best of the Columbia serials, and one of the few which actually holds the interest as well as the classic Flash Gordon episodes which may be the nonparallels of the serial genre.

When I saw "Son of the Guardsman" as a serial film it enthralled me as a child, I had to go back to the movie theater to see each of the episodes no matter what the bill. The concept of a Medieval European setting with cliff-hangers that were highly imaginative (stone walls closing in on our hero) and combining the concepts of serial films and the days of chivalry was unique. Ray Bennett as the villain was memorable. The movie increased my hopes of being involved in film-making.