Mercenários de um Reino em Chamas

The plot is older than the ancient Greeks--twins mixed up at birth. But the stars are a scream. And the notion that Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland grew as twin brothers (one pair noble and the other a disgrace), is just one of the many bits of comedy of absurd that fill this slight but hysterical little movie.

The wife of the noble version of Gene Wilder is also priceless, forever dressing up in costumes in vain efforts to satisfy his somewhat odd collection of sexual fetishes.

But the real reason to see this gem is Hugh ("I thought it was a costume ball") Griffith as King Louis. He outclasses anyone within walking distance, even the great Sutherland. And absolutely effortlessly. The device that uses Orson Welles may or not work -- you have to decide. (Don't be too hard on Orson -- this was from the "We will serve no wine before its time" phase of his career.) But if you come across this on cable late some night, have a good time. It's obvious everyone who made the movie did.

France - 1789! The king is befuddled. The queen is aroused. The duke hatches a new plan. The peasants are near revolt. And just when it looks like things are normal, here come the Corsican brothers! Or is it really them? Perhaps they are actually filthy peasant swine. Perhaps, when two sets of twins were mismatched at birth, things took a really strange turn in Europe's history. When things can't seem to get much stranger, who else would show up but 'The Man in the Iron Mask?' And just who the hell is Orson Welles supposed to be in this picture, anyway? (Oh, wait, he calls himself Orson Welles...I see, aha!).

I've long thought this to be the perfect period comedy and wondered why it didn't have universal appeal. Perhaps it's difficult for many viewers to fully embrace an old style costumed spectacle as debacle - events taking place about 200 years ago have the smell of a historical lesson and moviegoers tend to avoid classes when picking out a film. But what if a film throws out much of what we think as historical in favor of a hysterical plot playing on the age-old tensions between the poor and the rich? (the peasantry & the aristocracy). Most of the actors here are usually winking slyly during their performances - they're not really immersing themselves in the period. The exception may be Spinetti as the villainous d'Escargot; he does seem a product of his time while everyone else concentrates on making the gags and clever dialogue as rich and enjoyable as possible. But even this works in the film's favor: the villain is played kind of straight (if you don't count his very odd attempts at metaphor), stuffy and consumed by his plots and intrigue, as the others sort of roll their eyes at the absurd turns in the story.

But why is this perfection? The reason has to be Gene Wilder. Wilder had many great comedic roles in his career but this is my personal favorite. He plays two characters in this one (as does Sutherland, almost as great), an arrogant 'aristo' and a sneaky but timid peasant. Wilder's Philippe de Sisi, the high bred one, has to be seen to be believed. Born a peasant but raised as 'superior,' Philippe is prone to wild mood swings and berserk rages. He's quite insane and Wilder turns him into the craziest, most spellbinding character ever committed to celluloid. Very early in the film, the audience begins to wonder what nutty monologue or wacky stunt the unpredictable Philippe will pull in the next scene. It's probably this performance that made Mel Brooks realize Wilder would be the ideal lead actor for all his films ("Young Frankenstein," etc.).

The rest of the cast in this revolutionary comedy are top notch, as well. Sutherland, as mentioned, is terrific - his two characters were both meant to be nobility - he has that aristocratic air down pat. All the others also understood the sly, sometimes subtle farcical elements of this piece. Many of the confrontational scenes, with the eccentric turns of phrase, are instant classics - it's a shame not more film viewers are aware of them. The sets and costumes are great - much of this takes place in the palace of King Louis and everything looks quite authentic. I also don't have any problems with the ending as some others do. It just delivers on the already fantastic absurdity we've come to realize the entire film is embedded with.

At its best, this classy-looking, fast-paced spoof of the literary classic The Corsican Brothers, is brilliant, and even the stuff that doesn't quite work is still fairly entertaining. Oddly, the movie bombed in its day, and this was surely a quirk of timing. If this movie had come out a couple of years later, in the wake of Sutherland's star- making turn in MASH, it would have been a huge hit. As it was, the stars were not yet well known, and the cutesy comedy spoofs of the 60s had not quite given way to the satiric, anarchic, nihilistic Robert Altman-style comedy of the early seventies, and the wild zaniness of Mel Brooks. This one sort of straddles the gap, not quite fitting the older mold, but pre-dating the hits soon to come. As a result, audiences were not quite ready for this one, but more modern audiences should be. There is a lot of very clever historical, literary and even movie satire and spoofery going on here and everything is served up at breakneck speed, as zany comedy properly should. The historical look of the film is uniformly excellent, almost distractingly good - no anachronistic gags here, as everything is kept period accurate. Wilder and Sutherland are a brilliant team and surprisingly they never worked together again, despite being two of the most popular stars of the 70s. Enjoy this, their single teaming.

This film takes slapstick and douses it with farce at absurd proportions. It delivers laugh after laugh with no thought as to its higher purpose. Its Brechtian nature turns the fourth wall into a comedian's stage and pokes fun not only of the story, but of the conventions used to tell it. Fabulous performances by Gene Wilder and Donald Sutherland are even more exciting when we think of the nuances they bring to each of their characters. Hugh Griffith turns in a charming performance as a King who is nothing more than a chicken with a crown.

This is a must see for anyone excited by classic slapstick-style comedy.

I loved this movie and it's one of my all-time favorite comedies, though I realize it is NOT for everyone's taste.

To enjoy this movie, you MUST have a high tolerance for the weird and silly. So, this means that the movie would go over well with Monty Python fans but would not appeal to most teenagers or those who MUST view only conventional comedies.

The plot is a hopeless mish-mash of both Alexander Dumas' books and French history. Is it historically accurate? Not even close!! But, its non-stop energy and weirdness is VERY infectious if you give it a chance. The story begins with the Count DeSisi and his wife stopping at a country doctor's home as the Countess is about to give birth. Only minutes later, a commoner, Mr. Coupe arrives with his extremely pregnant wife as well. BOTH women give birth to identical twins but the babies are mismatched and both families raise both a DeSisi AND a Coupe child.

Years pass until the poor Coupes are mistaken for the highly dangerous (and psychotic) DeSisis--and then the fun begins!!! People who would like this film are also those who love The Producers, Monty Python and the Hold Grail and Strange Brew. If any of these movies make your head hurt or just don't make sense, then avoid Start the Revoluition Without Me--because it WILL hurt your head and make NOT ONE BIT OF SENSE.

"Are you HAPPY?!.......You've Broken My Bird!!!"