My main trepidation when tuning in to this costumer was that there would be California accents ringing all around Richard Greene and Merrie England...but no! Everyone from lovely Barbara Hale to the slew of Hollywood western veterans that surround her (including Ray Teal, Harry Lauter, and the always excellent Myron Healy) all come up with admirable mid-Atlantic intonations.
Yes, the plot is old as the hills, and the production values are B+ rather than A. But the technicolor is great, and the drama and thrills are definitely there. This overlooked movie is pure comfort viewing for anyone who enjoys ridiculous historical adventures from 1950s Hollywood. Loved it.
Add a Review
-
screenman3 May 2010I say it's a great story, but like so many great stories (Lord of the Rings, for example) it would never get published today. In truth; it's the plot that's really great: Blackmore's telling of it is the the most long-winded lump of verbosity I've ever encountered.
Cut to the chase. Here we have the story told in a fairly minimalist though typical way of the time. It would run for at least another 30 minutes if brought to the big screen today. British telly-hunk Richard Greene plays the spirited yeoman John Ridd besotted by his darling Lorna. Unfortunately, She is of the dreaded Doone clan, a hell-raising ruthless family who have used their position of landed status to impose a reign of terror on the countryside that is their titled dominion.
A juvenile Ridd first encounters his girlish desire after scaling the supposedly unclimbable waterfall to the Doone lair. It is love at first sight. A young man about his own age, aptly called Carver, and destined to be heir to the Doone estate has similar sexual ambitions, and you can see what's coming.
The Doone fortress is practically unassailable. But there's an Achille's heel: the waterfall...
I saw this movie ages ago when I was a kid and enjoyed it immensely. A particular exchange stuck in my memory. Young Ridd is discovered where he shouldn't be by the Doone clan and threatened by Carver. But the old patriarch restrains his impetuous heir-apparent and invites Ridd to visit them by more conventional means. It goes something like this:
Patriarch:'You must come back and see us when you are tall enough to cast a shadow on our door.'
Carver: 'Aye; come back then and cast your shadow if you dare.'
Ridd: That I shall, Carver, And I hope you're standing before me.'
That's not word-perfect, but it was good, portentous stuff like it. If the rest of the script was no worse, I think it would still be fun.
Another commentator has posted a rather disappointing critique and his memory may be better (or fresher) than mine. But if it was no worse that ITV's similarly-vintaged 'Adventures of Robin Hood' also starring Mr Greene then I'd still be willing to give it a go. After all; you can't blame the actors if the sword-fighting was poorly choreographed.
Any who visit 'Doone Valley' in the south-west of England will find the landscape far less dramatic than depicted in story or movie. -
mark.waltz10 October 2017This fantasia on British peasant life during the time of King Charles II is fun for what it is, but it's more of the same, especially from the stable of swashbuckling historical epics coming out of the vault of producer Edward Small. The man who gave us various Counts of Monte Cristo and various men and women in iron masks now takes on the legend of the wealthy Doone family, a ruthless band of dukes who took a good majority of crops and livestock on the lands they leased as rent, and have ruthlessly pillaged the countryside. The narrative makes it clear that they were enemies of the monarchy, apparently trying to increase the amount of land they own in a presumed effort to take over the country. Young John Ridd witnesses his father being killed by the Doones, and climbs up a waterfall to a cave entering the Doone's private lands to plead for mercy. There he meets young Lorna and two other young male relatives whom it is obvious he will grow up to fight and try to bring down in adulthood. Years go by and the peasant life hasn't improved, only worsened. As the two younger members of the family become men, they strive to keep the peasants down even more, and Ridd (Greene) vows to bring them down, even as he falls more in love with the beautiful title character (Hale) who has a birth secret even she isn't aware of.
While this was considered a B film, the colorful photography often tries to hide that fact, and what comes out of this is a pleasant historical action film that while not quite "Ivanhoe" or "Knights of the Round Table" is compact and possibly even more entertaining. Greene and his band of men strive to take down the Doones' army and eventually plead with King Charles II (Lester Matthews) for aide. Charles, one of the most noble of kings, hears him out, and this leads to a union between Greene and Hale which sends the remaining Doones on a course of revenge that ends up with the two old rivals battling Greene, leading back to the entrance to the waterfall cave and a final battle that is riveting and suspenseful. Not a great film by any means, it's a pleasant time filler, and a good opportunity to see the lovely Hale long before she became Della Street and the Amana spokeswoman. Greene gets to show off his fine physique, bronzed by the colorful cinematography. Carl Benton Reid gives a wise, sensitive performance as the older Doone, betrayed by his own family, and William Bishop and Onslow Stevens make delightfully hissable villains. There are other versions of this story out there that might give truer portrayals, but this one is interesting from the viewpoint that it takes. -
dcheet2 October 2019Completely wrong setting for this film. Its set in Devon and Somerset around Exmoor and Porlock. Saw this film when I was about 9 or 10 years in late 1950s at the the Rivoli cinema which is actually in Tiverton Devon, not very far from where John Ridd in the book went to Blundels school. Even went to the church mentioned where John and Lorna got married in Exmoor.
-
Bunuel19762 April 2014This Hollywood rendition of the British literary classic by R.D. Blackmore was dubbed "grotesque" by the late, eminent but notoriously conservative film critic Leslie Halliwell where, he opined, the narrative was treated "as if it were a Western"! Such a damning assessment did not augur well, to be sure – but, then, Leonard Maltin rated it higher than the director's best-regarded costumer i.e. the just-watched THE BRIGAND (1952). The truth, as often happens, lies somewhere in between: while the plot does feel like a typical 'terrorized homestead' scenario, it is nevertheless engaging (indeed, more so than the better-received 1934 version that had preceded this viewing!) and, to its credit, looks veritably gorgeous in the Technicolor print shown on Australian HD-TV I acquired (despite the "Back Soon" and "Now" announcements signalling frequent commercial breaks!). Still, it does not quite have the impetus to rise above the clichés – lacking the wit and verve that would characterize THE BRIGAND and substituting glumness, ill-matched stars (Barbara Hale and Richard Greene) and a decidedly anodyne villain (William Bishop)!
While the essence of the tale, at least as shown in the earlier adaptation, is there, a number of crucial differences are also on hand – which, again, can either work in its favour or against: first of all, the Doones (headed by siblings Carl Benton Reid and Onslow Stevens) reside in a castle and, rather than mere bandits, are overlords enslaving the people a' la Prince John in the Robin Hood legends; the male protagonist here is a soldier in King Charles II (not James!)'s army, so that the opposition he offers involves military tactics (a planned sneak attack by way of the waterfall which had introduced the hero to Lorna as kids) instead of just an impulsive personal vendetta; the character of Tom Faggus (played this time around by Ron Randell) is much more important here but, then, his romance with Greene's barely- registering sister feels contrived; a number of violent scenes (floggings, hangings) are incorporated, culminating in full-blown swashbuckling action at the climax; there is not one but two interrupted wedding ceremonies (in both of which Lorna is the prospective bride!), with the last semi-tragic one preceding the inevitable showdown between her two contenders – which, however, ends with the predictable fall from a great height and not a marshland drowning; Lorna's background (a spiteful kidnapping stunting her regal birthright), on the other hand, is more than adequately dealt with since the King himself comes into play on a couple of occasions! With this, I am now left with the Silent 1922 filmization by Maurice Tourneur to check out – while marking the start of a three-movie mini-marathon dedicated to Greene as part of my current Epic Easter viewings. -
I'm sure enough has been said about this rendition of the classic novel, so I'll just add a few of my own thoughts.
I loved the costumes, (I love any costumes from the 17th to 19th centuries, with some exceptions here and there), though the accents sure needed work! This was also the first time I've seen Barbara Hale in any role other than Della Street, and while I won't fault her acting, to me, she came across as too sophisticated to play Lorna Doone. I can picture Audrey Hepburn, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway: what I found outstanding was the waterfall scenes, first when the boy faces them bravely, then when he's a grown man, in a fight to the finish with his enemy/rival. That last scene put me in mind of the famous Holmes/Moriarity battle at the Reichenbach Falls.
Also, the wedding scene in the church (supposedly based on a real-life occurrence, according to the author of the book) was reminiscent of the one in the movie "Smilin Through". Was this movie inspired by those other sources, that in their turn were inspired by the book? Worth thinking about!
Don't expect Classic Hollywood at its best, but it's a pretty good movie to watch. -
csrothwec7 April 2004Looks good in lush, 1950s Hollywood deep colour and the backdrops, (e.g. the castle perched on the edge of the cliff and the thundering water fall which is the only other access to the castle beyond the one road and the drawbridge), look good as well. There is the usual collection of Hollywood support actors on hand to look aggrieved. angry or resentful on cue as well so you "feel at home" when they are on screen, knowing this is from the estbalsihed stable of 1940s/50s Hollywood swash-bucklers. Apart from that, though, this does not have much going for it. Seeing the lead players in action makes you realise clearly why they never made it to the Errol Flynn, (what would HE have done with the lead role???), or even Virginia Mayo league. Even their wooden appearances could have been compensated for, however, if the whole thing, (even just the fight scenes), had had some PACE and ZEST. As it is, the whole thing comes across as a "wheel 'em on", "let's get this scene over" affair, leaving you as glad at the end as the players apparently felt that the thing is finally over. Worth watching ONCE to remind you what Hollywood was ALSO capable of as well as Flynn as Robin Hood, Colman as the Prisoner of Zenda or even Gene Kelly as D'Artagnan!
-
clanciai24 January 2018The painful thing about this film is the grotesque distortion of the original novel. Unfortunately, this is what Hollywood used to do with great classics in the early 50s - there are numerous examples, like for instance Henry King's "King of the Khyber Rifles" with Tyrone Power, reducing him to a puppet and the story to shambles. Here at least the surroundings are true to the book - a recklessly romantic landscape with that stupendous waterfall as the centre of the stage, the music is also very well contrived, but all the rest is just common Hollywood artifice. They try to sugar it with some swashbuckling scenes, great sword fights, a royal intrigue (missing in the novel) and villains as wicked as possible. This was not worth seeing except for the colours, the settings, the romance (more for Barbara Hale than for Richard Greene) and the characters of Charles II and Ron Randell as Tom Faggus, the only fresh touch of humour in this depthless hollowness.
-
This is an entertaining yarn,with glittering colors and an attractive leading lady in the shape of Barbara Hale ....but much inferior to Maurice Tourneur's 1922 silent film .
The plot was simplified and too much time is given over to fighting and the waterfall is used till one can't take any more ;the kidnapping of Lorna is not shown ,she's already in the Doone Lair when the action begins. Besides ,the Doone are no longer considered highwaymen but landowners who bleed the poor peasants white with their taxes ,unbeknownst to the king :the plot sometimes looks like something which was taken by force from Robin Hood; to make the marriage "acceptable" ,the king goes as far as to knight Rigg! So there won't be any sacrifice for Lorna.Even her wedding is given a conventional treatment which eliminates all the poetry of her line "I take thee ...John " and of love which opens the gates of death.
Karlson is better at westerns such as "gunman's walk" . -
weezeralfalfa11 February 2017One of a number of film adaptations of the long 1869 novel of the same name by Richard Blackmore. Technicolor released by Columbia in 1951,it stars Barbara Hale as Lorna Doone, and Richard Greene as the rebellious commoner John Ridd. It takes place during the latter part of the reign of Charles II, in the 1670s and '80s, in the wild country of Exmoors, in the southwest of England (not in Scotland, as stated in the summary at this site!) The Doones, as the traditional overlords in one part of the Exmoors, had been recently stripped of their feudal lands and rights ,due to political conflict with the crown. Nonetheless, they continued to live in their castle, on a hilltop, and continued to demand confiscation of the crops and animals of the now free farmers. Thus, they were technically a gang of thieves. The farmers also now had to pay a tax to the crown, since the crown technically owned the land. Thus, both the farmers and the crown are at odds with the Doones. But, the crown is not disposed to send a military force to enforce its edict, and the farmers have no swords or firearms with which to fend off the parasitic Doones. Their extreme alternative threat is to fail to plant crops or burn their crops, or kill all their animals.
After seeing the film, it takes little imagination to see the many similarities with Warner's 1938 "The Adventures of Robin Hood". When in rebellion, the farmers usually take to the woods,as did Robin's men. The Doones can be seen as the equivalent of Prince John and his cronies. The local sheriff is working for the bad guys in each case. King Charles and his supporters, then, are the equivalent of King Richard. There is the obligatory rapier duel between the hero and the main bad guy at the end. There is a love story between the hero and a girl of the opposition in both cases, threatened by an obligation to marry one of the nobles. In this film, the contested girl is Lorna Doone, and the chief villains are Carver and Charlesworth Doone, who are essentially the same age as the hero, John. Sir Ensor Doone, the patriarch of the clan, is not quite as rapacious as his sons. Unfortunately, he dies, unleashing further terrorizing by his sons.
It's not until Charles and his ally, the Duke of Lorne, arrive with troops to abet the schemes of the farmers that the Doones are finally crushed. Although the ending is provisionally happy, it's best said to be guardedly hopeful. See the film to find out what I mean. It's currently available on YouTube.
The main adult actors were fine, except Barbara Hale wasn't the most charismatic "princess". The child actors were a bit stiff. Overall, it's not a bad film. However, "The Adventures of Robin Hood" is certainly more fun, with occasional humor to balance the tense moments, and the personality of Errol Flynn.
Other, more recent film versions made for TV, were released in 1990 and 2000. The latter has a significantly higher rating, but is more than twice as long as the present film,at 3 hours. I haven't seen either. -
Uriah4311 February 2024Following a long period of political turbulence in England, a powerful family known as the Doones has placed itself on the wrong side of the current government under the reigning monarch Charles II. However, the fact that they reside in a great castle that is impervious to direct assault, and quite comfortable in the knowledge that the English army is busy fighting wars overseas, their current status as bandits and outlaws doesn't bother them in the least. So much so that, under the leadership of the young heir to the family throne, the brutal "Carver Doone" (William Bishop) decides to dominate the surrounding countryside by waging acts of terrorism to keep the local farmers under his authority. Needless to say, when his father is shot and killed by these bandits, a young man named "John Ridd" (Richard Greene) eventually decides to do something about it. Complicating matters for him is a young woman named "Lorna Doone" (Barbara Hale) who, even though she lives in the castle, has captured his heart. Likewise, Lorna also feels the same way about John. And even she has been publicly betrothed to Carver, she is intent on helping John in any way that she can. Now, rather than reveal any more, let me just say that I have never read the book that this film is based upon and, as such, I do not know how faithfully this movie adhered to it. There was, however, a British film produced in 1934 that I did have the opportunity to view and, based upon that, I can honestly say that I prefer this updated American version somewhat better as it wasn't nearly as dated as its earlier predecessor. As far as the acting was concerned, while both Richard Greene and Barbara Hale performed in a solid manner, the absence of chemistry and passion between them was quite noticeable and limited the film in a certain regard. Likewise, I would have preferred a bit more style or panache from the lead character as well. But then, maybe I've seen too many Errol Flynn movies, and I am somewhat spoiled in that regard. Be that as it may, while I certainly don't consider this to be a blockbuster adventure movie by any means, it was still superior in some respects to the 1934 British version, and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.