L'armure noire

Once you survive the numbing and typical pageantry which marks the beginning of the picture, the intrigue gets rather interesting. The lousy dub on this commercially purchased VHS tape is another obstacle. Alas, no DVD is available (though there are some crumby DVD dubs out there, too!).

However, once I adjusted the contrast, brightness and beefed up the color level (a lot), it was a viewable tale the got very slowly more interesting as time went slowly on. This picture marks Finch's rise and Flynn's decline (no more to swash and buckle after this). Compare his "Captain Blood" twenty years previous and you can see what time and booze did to poor Errol.

Joanne Dru certainly DID look bored throughout, as was mentioned earlier. Perhaps the whole thing was just a costume romp for her.

It's such a shame when a decent copy of the film is apparently unavailable from which to make copies. I find the same problem with the 1940 version of "Our Town."

The reviewers here are full of semi-dismissive 'average, seen it before' type criticisms. Well now, I think if you take a good look at this thing you'll find a good amount of bone jarring, armor clanking broadsiding. Even the talk is entertaining- I guess I have a weakness for truculent knights shouting at each other about their 'rights' and 'honor' and so forth. Good stalwart English cast adds to the authenticity. Yeah, I know Joanne Dru is the boring weak link, but this is a guy flick and unless the ladies actually get naked the guys aren't going to care about them that much. And Errol sure did look every one of his 46 years; but Errol's still Errol to me, no matter. The VHS print is very crummy, too. If they could find a clean, widescreen print of this film and put it out on DVD, I'd snap it up in a minute!

After 85mins, you will say "Seen it before" and you have. This is another swashbuckler starring Errol Flynn and it's pretty average, run-of-the-mill stuff.

The story is okay, but I don't think Errol looked that good in this one. You have the love interest and the villain, end of story.

The acting is okay, nothing bad, but not spectacular.

The widescreen frame is beautifully done, the entire width is used with perfection. Shot in Cinema Scope. The photography is quite realistic, the British certainly know how to light a film.

Overall, this is average stuff. You'd be better off watching The Sea Hawk.

Years ago I read a book on the Hundred Years War by an English historian named Desmond Siward. The author's premise was that there is indeed an English and a French interpretation of the conflict. The English see it as a great period of glory and conquest in their history. The French look on it as a century of agony for their people. Professor Siward came down pretty hard on his fellow countrymen and said the French version is far closer to the mark.

Case in point is Edward, Prince of Wales, eldest son of Edward III of England and military genius bar none. He was in fact the architect and inspiration of their military victories at Crecy and Poitiers. Edward was also a pretty bloodthirsty guy who led a massacre at Limoges and also negotiated an alliance with the Castilian Ruler Pedro the Cruel. I'll let his name speak for itself.

The movie here has the English as liberators as Edward comes to the continent to enforce his father's claim on Aquitaine. In fact that had been part of the English crown through their descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine. In point of fact the Black Prince was there trying to enforce Dad's claim on the throne of France itself through his mother who was a daughter of the French king Philip IV the Fair. That was what the whole Hundred Years War was about, the English trying to conquer France, pure and simple.

An aged Errol Flynn who's dissipation is plainly showing is the Black Prince. He looks older than Michael Hordern who appears briefly as Edward III. I think Flynn may very well have been older than his "dad."

Joanne Dru plays Joan of Kent, widow of Sir John Holland and beloved of the Black Prince. The love story is one of the great medieval legends of Merrie Old England and maybe they should have made a film on just that. But Ms. Dru looks bored throughout. She was soooo much better in Red River, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and All the King's Men.

Peter Finch plays the "villain" Count Robert DeVille, deputy of the Constable of France, DuGuesclin who waged a successful guerrilla war against the English although it wasn't called that then. Finch is a villain because he and other nobles won't accept a peace treaty with England that their King John has signed in captivity. How rude of them. Finch is the best one in this film and he could easily have been written as the hero.

This was the last of Errol Flynn's swashbucklers and he was clearly getting too old for believable swordplay.

There is a DVD of this movie that shows its excellent wide screen color cinematography. Another big plus factor of this movie is its basis in historical fact.

The Black Prince, portrayed by Errol Flynn, was a real person, the Prince of Wales in old England of the 1300's. He really did marry a noblewoman named Joan, here portrayed by Joanne Dru. Many of the characters portrayed in this move were real, such as the King of France who is correctly mentioned as a prisoner of England, and the Dauphin of France who was suddenly forced by circumstance to rule in his father's absence. But the big ultimate winner of all the warfare was French hero Bertrand du Guesclin, Constable of France, who is portrayed in this film. Although depicted here as losing a battle, du Guesclin really did eventually regain almost all of France from the English and other assorted groups. These characters are chronicled more fully in a fine book called "The Distant Mirror" by noted historian Barbara W. Tuchman. The book also documents the constant wars, castle sieges, attacks, counter attacks such as those presented in "The Warriors". Believe it or not, these guys really did run around in a bloody, crazy, messy hundred years of warfare all over France and parts of Italy and the Habsburg Empire. And the English did have a claim on Aquitaine and fought for a long time to retain it.

So the movie is not just swashbuckling for its own sake. For me, understanding that the circumstances and that the major figures presented here are historical adds a new perspective to what you might be tempted to call "just another swashbuckler". The only failing that I perceive to all this is that not much time can be allowed for character development (hence the Tuchman book for reference- its well written but really long).

Errol Flynn's acting is good as it always was throughout his career, but alas he is too dissipated to be able to swash many buckles, although he or his double do participate in some action scenes. Dru is not effective in her part which is only secondary to this film's story, but Peter Finch and others including a young Christopher Lee do a fine job in supporting roles. Yvonne Furneaux steals the movie from all these stars with a lovely fun performance.

So this film has a lot of action in a true historical perspective, is well made and features good wide-screen cinematography. I can't pigeon-hole this as "just a swashbuckler" because it is a historical film at the same time, and you can't just say "its another late Flynn" because in his late films he grew as an actor and still tried to deliver a performance while suffering the severe decline of his health related to alcoholism and heart failure.

"The Warriors" lacks depth but is overall a pretty good action movie.