Moonfleet (1955) User Reviews (46)

They dishonoured you sir.

[hitchcockthelegend · 8/10 · 1 October 2008]

"Two hundred years ago the great heath of Dorsetshire ran wild and bleak down to the sea. Here in the hidden caves and lonely villages, the smuggling bands plied their trades. And here, one October evening of the year 1757, a small boy came in search of a man whom he believed to be his friend"

This is the opening salvo for the MGM adaptation of J. Meade Falkner's novel of the same name. Miklós Rózsa's luscious sweeping score then tones down to let us read and savour, and from here on in we are hooked into this booming colourful adventure. With the makers practically overhauling J. Meade Falkner's novel, it's perhaps unsurprising that fans of the novel have no time for this. Thus if you have read the book and not seen the film then perhaps you best avoid it? Likewise those who are in to swashbuckling as a preferred genre, do not be lulled into the belief that because Stewart Granger is the lead character of Jeremy Fox here, that this is Scaramouche 2, because it has plenty of swash but not enough buckle for those of that persuasion.

You witless, gutless misbegotten gallows-bait!

Filmed in Cinemascope and Eastman Color, Moonfleet is a hugely enjoyable adventure that encompasses smugglers, rapscallions, wonderfully costumed soldiers, and crucially, an engaging bond between a man and his newly adopted son. The sets and Oceanside location are excellent, and the costumes from Walter Plunkett benefit greatly from the "coulourscope" filming process, Robert H. Plank's photography sharp and a treat for the eyes. Story wise there are plot holes to thrust your épée or foils thru, and goofs that have no place in a production such as this, but if a keg of smuggled brandy and a search for a hidden diamond has you interested? Well this will deliver without a shadow of a doubt. George Sanders, Joan Greenwood and young Jon Whiteley (excellent) join Granger in delighting to the end of this enjoyable piece. Fritz Lang directs and fuses Gothic traits with bravado adventure leanings and the results are very easy on the eye, go on, have a look see.

8/10 Hurrah!

On the Boundary between Gothic Horror and Swashbuckling Adventure

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 24 February 2006]

It is a long time since I read J Meade Falkner's novel, but I remember enough of it to realise that this film bears little resemblance to it. Around the middle of the eighteenth century John Mohune, the young son of a once-wealthy but now ruined aristocratic family, is sent after the death of his parents to stay with Jeremy Fox, the squire of the Dorset village of Moonfleet. Before her marriage to a cousin, Fox was the lover of John's mother, but they were prevented from marrying by the opposition of her family, who thought he was neither wealthy nor well-born enough for her. As the fortunes of the Mohunes have declined, however, so those of Fox have risen, and he is now the wealthiest man in the village, living in their ancestral mansion.

Fox takes a liking to the boy, and a friendship grows up between them. Unknown to John, however, Fox is not the respectable country gentleman he appears. His main source of wealth is his involvement in the lucrative, but highly illegal, smuggling trade, and he has plans to go into partnership with Lord Ashwood, a local nobleman, in a venture which involves plundering foreign ships and which effectively falls little short of piracy. The debonair Fox is also something of a ladies man, with at least two mistresses, one of whom denounces him to the authorities when he tires of her. The main plot concerns Fox and John's search for a long-lost diamond which had once belonged to one of the Mohune family.

"Moonfleet" has similarities to "Treasure Island" although it is set in Britain rather than on a remote tropical island. The relationship between the likable rogue Fox (a name presumably chosen because of its connotations of cunning) and young John parallels that between Long John Silver and Jim Hawkins. The film has been aptly described as situated on the boundary between a traditional cape and sword adventure and a Gothic horror movie. The style of acting is more that of the swashbuckling adventure. Stewart Granger, taking over where Errol Flynn left off, made something of a speciality of dashing heroes in historical costume dramas ("Blanche Fury", "Saraband for Dead Lovers", "Scaramouche" and "Beau Brummell" are other examples) and he makes an attractive hero here. The other contribution that stands out is from George Sanders, always a good villain, as the corrupt aristocrat Ashwood.

Director Fritz Lang, however, brings a very Gothic look to the film. Moonfleet may be situated on one of the most scenic counties in England, but it is no picturesque village. The atmosphere is often a dark, gloomy one, with numerous shots of the shabby alehouse or the mist-shrouded churchyard. Fox may be a likable rogue, but the smugglers are for the most part dangerous ones who would have no compunction about murdering a child. (There is a fine duel between Fox and one of their number fought to decide whether John should live or die after he inadvertently overhears their plans). This is not a great film, but is nevertheless a well-made, watchable adventure. 6/10

Adventure and thrills set in 18th century splendidly directed and filmed in superb color

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 6 August 2011]

You have seldom seem a picture so crowed with excitement ¡ . It starts in Dortshire coast, Moonfleet , England, 1775 ,october , (Moonfleet is set in Dorset, England The Fleet refers to the land just west of Portland, Southern England ) a young boy named John Mohune (John Whiteley) is sent by his deceased mummy to seek Jeremy Fox (Stewart Granger) who is actually a rakish buccaneer . Then Fox puts him under his protection and is proceeded a special father-son relationship . The boy learns that Fox is both a ex-lover of his mum and the leader of a band of smugglers. Meanwhile both of whom look for and encounter a legendary lost diamond . Fox still haunted by the memory of the dying mother but also has another lover (Viveca Lindfords) who double-crosses him .

This classic adventure film contains emotion , intrigue , chills, and colorful scenarios. Wonderful relationship along with strong friendship is developed between the buccaneer perfectly incarnated by Stewart Granger and the newcomer boy . It contains dark moments in Hammer style as happens when the young boy journeys across an eerie world full of hanging trees , gallows , ghastly sculptures , and cemeteries plenty of coffins . Wonderful secondary cast full of prestigious secondaries as George Sanders , Joan Greenwood , Alan Napier , John Hoyt , Jack Elam , Ian Wolfe , among others . Impressive production design with glamorous sets by Hans Peters . Glimmer cinematography in superb Eastmancolor and CinemaScope by Robert Planck and mostly filmed in studios , during six weeks in 1954 , being exteriors shot in Oceanside , California. Thrilling and emotive musical score by Miklos Rozsa . The motion picture lavishly produced by also actor John Houseman is stunningly directed by Fritz Lang . Lang directed masterfully all kind of genres as Noir cinema as ¨Big heat , Scarlet Street and Beyond a reasonable doubt¨ , Epic as ¨Nibelungs¨, suspense as ¨Secret beyond the door, Clash by night¨ , Western as ¨Rancho Notorious and Return of Frank James ¨ and of course Adventure as ¨Moonfleet¨ . This good adventure drama with lots of exciting and thrilling moments will appeal to Stewart Granger fans . Rating : Better than average , resulting to be a marvellous stylised version of the Great Britain coast in the 19th century . Worthwhile watching .

Through a child's eyes ,darkly.

[dbdumonteil · 27 August 2005]

A movie which is highly praised by French critics.

The first thing to bear is mind is that it's based on Falkner's novel.It's not "Falkner's novel transferred to the screen".People who read the book might be disappointed.

Jeremy Fox was created from start to finish by the script writers.We can wonder why it roughly replaces Elzevir Block (who's featured in the movie but in a minor role).Part of the reason can be found,I think,in Lang's work.In the book ,Block was a very good man ,and Lang's characters had always been very ambiguous .Is Fox the boy's friend?I have my doubts .He always betrays him and when he finally sides with him,it is beyond death.The boy's waiting (final scene) is a metaphor for the fear of losing childhood's illusions.But Jeremy epitomizes an already lost fight.The end of the novel(which ends when the child is an adult ,cause it spreads its plot over ten years )paraphrases the proverb "ill gotten ill spent" .John the man has sailed the sea and like Ulysses has returned to live peacefully.

One can easily understand what was appealing in Falkner's "Moonfleet" for a director like Lang.The underground world,the characters who lead a double life,the secret places , any Lang fan already met them ("Metropolis" "M","secret beyond the door" "hangmen also die"...) and would later ("beyond a reasonable doubt","der tiger von Eschnapur" "das indische Grabmal").The atmosphere of the novel fitted him like a glove but the characters probably did not.However,Lord and Lady Ashwood characters (not featured in the novel too)get in the way:George Sanders delivers a funny line ("the boy would be my grandson" ) but their presence adds nothing to the plot.And Meade's characters (Ratsey,Maskew,Grace,Block) are too often sacrificed to the "new " ones.Okay they were a bit cardboard ,but they were colorful.

Unlike some other users,I think that the color is dazzling.There's something circular in the directing: Liliane Montevecchi's dance,,the creek,the sinister-looking smugglers' faces surrounding the boy,the well..I think that Lang's intention was to show his story through the boy's eyes.That's probably why the scenes dealing with the aristocrats do not work.

That was Lang's first attempt at an adventures movie.He would continue (IMHO,with better results) in the two German movies "der Tiger..." and "das Indische..." ,but even when he made apparently "entertaining" flicks,we could feel his inimitable touch.

MGM Movie That Is Not As Good As It Could Have Been

[gerrythree · 6/10 · 17 March 2005]

I like the movie Moonfleet, but in watching Moonfleet, you are also watching the demise of a great studio, still trying to turn out quality pictures as the Hollywood studio system is collapsing and movie budgets are shrinking. Moonfleet is only 87 minutes long, there are no expensive exterior action scenes and dimly lit interior scenes are the norm. Even though shot in Cinemascope, Moonfleet is a budget movie using cheaper Eastmancolor, not Technicolor. Stewart Granger was still under contract, and the other starring roles are handled by European actors, who worked for less. MGM modified existing sets, cleaned off old costumes and started the camera rolling. For all of that, the picture is interesting as it deals with 18th century English smugglers and the story of young John Mohune.

MGM executives must have decided that even with Fritz Lang, Moonfleet was not going to be a hit, which could explain the truncated story line and the always gloomy (cheaply processed) photography. On the TCM broadcast I saw, Moonfleet was in widescreen and had closed captioning. Looking as good as it ever will until the movie has a full restoration, Moonfleet is just too slow paced, without real kinetic energy. The talent is there, but probably for reduced budget reasons, Moonfleet can't grab your attention and keep it for even 87 minutes.

Addendum: I just watched parts of Moonfleet again, from a download of a bittorrent file made from the French Time Warner DVD of this movie (An AOL Company was still part of the logo then, only two years ago). In a lot of ways, this movie is a reflection of the decline of Hollywood and the importance of movie studios in general. Director Fritz Lang worked for the UFA movie studios in the 20s making silents, made talkies in the 30s first in Europe then in Hollywood, and was running out the string in Hollywood when he made Moonfleet. At the end of the movie, when young Mohune leaves open the gate of Mohune manor, the gesture does not really change things.

The MGM logo included a gate in it, the entrance to a great movie studio. There is a silent 1926 documentary made by MGM showing the different departments in the dream factory, from warehouses full of period furniture to group shots of directors and cameramen and even a garage where wind machines and power trucks were kept. MGM was a giant movie company from the start when it combined Goldwyn's studio with Metro. Less than 30 years after that silent, the MGM studio was like the desolate Mohune family manor, its contract players and staff released, its Loew's theaters sold on the cheap, its Hollywood studio barely holding on as its New York board of directors decided to fire production head Dore Schary and cut movie production, placing the studio's survival on big pictures like Raintree County, Ben-Hur and How The West Was Won.

Moonfleet is still with us, but MGM is now completely gone, its name tagged onto a film releasing company but the last of its small studio staff given their walking papers about two years ago. The fatalistic atmosphere that permeates many scenes in Moonfleet may be Fritz Lang's doing, but it could just as well be that it was hard for MGM staffers to think about happy endings as their studio was going under. And MGM's decline mirrored what was happening in the rest of Hollywood.

Under the conditions then, it was an accomplishment for the studio to make Moonfleet, hiring the talent not on payroll, preparing the sound stages for production and shooting the movie using the cheap Eastmancolor film. But to me, the picture is too much of a downer, the photography too dim and the storyline incomplete. Moonfleet is worth watching, it has a great cast but the movie needed a bigger budget to pay for better production values and scenes showing what Stewart Granger's character did after leaving Mohune manor. By 1954, MGM wasn't going to gamble on spending a lot of money on Moonfleet.

20 Oct 2012: Just looked at the review ratings here. Someone in 2006, probably another reviewer, seems to have decided to hand out multiple negative ratings to almost all the earlier reviews. I couldn't care less about the number of "not helpful" marks I got. Still, why hand out more than one negative to the same review? Nobody really cares. Maybe the guy thought giving out negatives would get his or her review posted on the front page. If so, a pathetic commentary on one useless human being who visited the "Moonfleet" IMDb page.

Read the novel instead.

[bigdinosaur · 6/10 · 7 June 2003]

Having read the earlier reviews of this movie, I do agree, in part, with some of them. But would like to give my two cents anyway.

This movie was based on a quite good 1898 novel by John Meade Falkner. Unfortunately Hollywood thought they could improve on the story line---with bad results (why am I not surprised).

Where did they ever come up with the name Jeremy Fox to replace Elzevir Block? And why did they make the boy so young? Not to mention the many other plot deviations (i.e. devious woman) which detracted from the tale. This could have been another 'Treasure Island' had the producers been a little less prone to taking liberties with literature.

Now this movie is still very watchable mind you. And Granger is not too bad in his role. But if you want an idea of what the movie could have been, read the book!

Fun movie, but the criticisms are valid

[zazee27 · 7/10 · 20 February 2006]

I saw this movie projected onto a screen, from the DVD, I think; it looked as good as old films usually do. I found it very enjoyable and was surprised that I had not seen it before. However, I feel gratified to read the complaints by one member here who could not figure out all the plot details: I couldn't, either! Now, after reading more information or speculation about the making of the film, I see why. I found that there is a whole website and society devoted to the author of the book, John Meade Falkner, and a biography of him was published not long ago.

This is my first time viewing this website. I'm impressed by the quality of the comments; I'll definitely come back.

moonfleet

[mossgrymk · 7/10 · 26 September 2021]

While not as gaga about this Fritz Lang film as the French...Cahiers Du Cinema absurdly calls it the 32nd best film of all time... I am willing to accord it poor man's "Treasure Island" status with beautiful cinematography from Robert Planck that render many scenes like Howard Pyle paintings, and nice female cleavage for some of us grownups. Where it stumbles, in my opinion, is in the casting of the too cute, Roddy MacDowell wannabe, John Whiteley. Think I read in Wikipedia that Lang lost it with the adorable little tyke and, while you never want to be abusing a kid actor, after witnessing Whiteley's Shirley Templesque delivery of his lines I can see how the ol Teutonic curmudgeon might have gotten a trifle irked. At the very least Whiteley's cloying performance negatively impacts the crucial scenes between him and Stu Granger's gentleman smuggler, Jeremy Fox, that explain Fox's one eighty from morally challenged to somewhat noble. So, let's give this one a B minus for an interesting attempt at Swashbuckler Noir (i.e. Most of it is shot at night, in the shadows). PS...The ending, featuring a dying Granger sailing in a skiff with a blood red sail and a shadowy steersman, is bone chilling. Would that Lang had lingered on it a bit longer instead of cutting away to Whiteley. But, then again, that kind of connects with what is most wrong with this film.

Child's Eye Costumer

[telegonus · 8/10 · 31 December 2008]

This is a late Fritz Lang effort for MGM, an odd assignment for him in that it's a Stewart Granger costume picture, not the sort of project one would expect the director to have been hired for. The film turns out quite nicely. It's a fairly conventional story of smuggler's on the English coast, features a fine cast of veteran players, many of whom had appeared in pictures of this sort before.

That the story is presented in large part through the eyes of a small boy lends it a measure of distinction. We see Granger's character much as the boy does, as a hero, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Granger is excellent in the lead. Despite what appears to be a modest budget, this is a handsome film, in the grand manner. That it's a back-lot picture, thus not a real spectacle, is more than made up for by Lang's manner of dealing with his material. The movie feels like a fairy tale. The ending is unexpectedly moving, surprised me, and is still vivid in my memory.

While not a masterpiece, Moonfleet should satisfy admirers of its director and costume picture fans as well.

Thoughts on an old swashbucker with memories of two of its actors

[The_Dying_Flutchman · 6/10 · 28 June 2011]

Somewhere Over the Ocean Blue One recent afternoon, as the heat crept up the sides of the verdant foothills, I chanced to watch the very last film of one, Skelton Knaggs. He of the ugliest of the liver damaged wing watchers. He passed on to the fields of Oberon before the film was released, but his visage lighted the battlements of it in fantabulous color and Cinemascope. He had no dialog, but was there to add what paltry finesse he could to the proceedings. It is a kind of Robert Louis Stevens-ish buck swashler with a beauteous score by Miklos Rozsa and a half hearted direction by Fritz Lang, who seemed to spend not too much time on it, but wanted to get in line for a ticket on a sea voyage homeward bound. It starred Stewart Granger whom I have always enjoyed because he was a leading man who did not care if his hair was turning gray. Avast me hardies, and give 'em lead!

Routine swashbuckler; could have been better considering the quality of the source novel.

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 20 June 2007]

The book Moonfleet, by John Meade Falkner, belongs in that category of boyish swashbucklers occupied by other titles such as Treasure Island, The Prisoner Of Zenda and Kidnapped. In fact, I'd probably rate the book as one of my all-time favourites. It's definitely, for me, the best of the four I have just mentioned. I approached the film version in a positive and excited frame of mind, firstly because I was such a fan of the book, and secondly because the film's cast and crew bore much promise. Seasoned actors like Stewart Granger, George Sanders and Joan Greenwood are always a pleasure to watch, and director Fritz Lang's work is usually very good. Alas, the film version of Moonfleet remains stuck in mediocrity for its entire 87 minute duration. Never so bad that it becomes unwatchable, yet conversely never quite good enough to wholly grab the viewer's attention.

John Mohune (Jon Whiteley), a young boy, is sent by his dying mother to the coastal village of Moonfleet to find her former lover, a man named Jeremy Fox (Stewart Granger). She promises the boy that Fox will take care of him once she has passed away. Young John does as he is instructed but soon discovers that Fox is not particularly the nice man he was expecting to find. Initially, Fox is very unwelcoming and uncaring towards young John, and spends much of his time either flirting outrageously with the female villagers or conspiring with various shifty-looking characters. Gradually young John comes to realise that Fox is in charge of a gang of smugglers, and is planning – with the aid of roguish local nobleman Lord Ashwood (George Sanders) - to step up into piracy. After a while a seed of friendship develops between John and Fox, and when the youngster reveals what he knows about a priceless diamond that once belonged to the Mohune family, they pair together to find the precious stone.

Some aspects of the film work decently enough. Like so many films of this era, the photography (Robert Planck) captures the colours of the period beautifully and the music (Miklos Rosza) is typically rousing. Granger is a dab hand at these "likable villain" roles, and he provides yet another thoroughly enjoyable characterisation. On the flip side the sets are distractingly studio-bound, the narrative is rather muddled and the film tries unsuccessfully to improve upon the original source story (even though the original was fine as it was). I think movies adapted from books should remain at least partially faithful to the source - otherwise, what's the point? Wouldn't it be as well to promote the film as an original story and not claim it to be an adaptation? In the case of Moonfleet, the bare bones of the novel remain in place but an awful lot has been altered… and not really for the better. Perhaps if I hadn't read the book first I might have enjoyed the film more. On the whole, Moonfleet is a routine swashbuckler – it doesn't shine brightly as a leading title within its own genre, nor is it up to the high standards often attained by its director. Yet at the same time it doesn't fail so miserably that it is unworthy of a look.

Good old-fashioned adventure, Granger at his best (bar scaramouche), pleasant pathos

[rochvelleth · 10/10 · 6 August 2006]

Moonfleet was great. I like the premise - boy is sent to find man (after his dying mother promises the man will look after him). Turns out man was in love with boy's mother, and when he couldn't have her spent his life not really loving anyone but having lots of women anyway. Man manages not to be too friendly to the boy at first.

Also turns out man is the ringleader of a gang of smugglers. And boy's ancestor had this famous diamond that Redbeard (local ghost of the village of Moonfleet) is meant to be looking for.

You can probably guess the rest of the plot. But I shan't give it away, because honestly, you should all go watch it.

What I loved about it, apart from the derring-do (fights, dressing up as soldiers, sneaking about in the countryside, smuggling) and the wonderfulness of Stewart Granger (looks, voice, a real hero persona), was the really touching bits.

OK, I'm about to spoil the ending now. DON'T keep reading if you haven't already seen it.

Man ends up saving the boy's life a couple of times, but still insists he'll leave him behind and go off to his new life of crooked prosperity once he's helped him to find the diamond. They find the diamond, and indeed he leaves him behind (leaving him a note while he's asleep). Just as he's going off to the new life of crooked prosperity, however, he has a change of heart and goes back for the boy. But another guy stabs him in the back, and he's mortally wounded. He goes back to where the boy is still sleeping, takes the note away, and then wakes him up, gives him the diamond, tells him to stay in Moonfleet, doesn't reveal he's dying and promises to come back someday before rowing off into the night. And it was *so darn sad*. I wasn't expecting to cry, but I did - very pathetic, perfect catharsis.

I love a film that leaves you still thinking about the ending for a while.

"An overwrought imagination"

[Steffi_P · 7/10 · 10 December 2010]

Little B-pictures like this don't tend to have a lot going for them. There is much about Moonfleet to indicate it comes from the lower end of studio output – a now-obscure adventure novel as its source text, minimal sets, outdoor scenes on the back-lot, garish costume design and Fritz Lang in the director's chair. Not that Lang was a bad director – far from it – but he was never allowed to get his hands on anything prestigious during his Hollywood years, and his name in the credits is as good as sign of "cheap and cheerful" as any. However the great thing about movie-making is that inventiveness and flair cost nothing, and these are things Lang had by the bucketful.

The daunting and adventuresome spirit of the novel really seems to have inspired Lang, and from the offset he fills the screen with the kind of disturbing imagery that he always did so well – a nightmarish stone angel, hands appearing out of the earth, a hanged criminal creaking in the breeze, all shot with a painterly precision that heightens their macabre impact. Also integral to Lang's approach is the way he utilises the barren sets to create stark empty spaces in his shots. A great example is when Stewart Granger first appears. Lang has the camera track back, gradually opening out the space, which is all the more effective because the shots leading up to that moment had very close, tight compositions. Many of the compositions have some conspicuous empty space or distant vanishing point, and the whole picture acquires this desolate feel, as if we are a long way from law, safety and normal civilization. So what has this to do with the story? Well, it's very simple for feelings of fear and unease to flip over into ones of excitement. It's that fine line between the creepy and the thrilling that really brings the adventure plot to life. Lang even places us squarely inside the sense of danger with point-of-view shots in the scene where young Jon Whitely is hiding from the smugglers in the crypt.

One of the biggest holes in these low-budget productions was often the cast, but while none of the performances in Moonfleet is exactly outstanding, there is a good balancing out of adequate ones. Whitely, Granger and the ubiquitous George Sanders give restrained and naturalistic turns, each convincing and never too exuberant. Granger in particular keeps things at a steady pace, and succinctly shows his character's conflicting emotions through subtle changes in his face. On the other hand we have some gloriously expressive and theatrical performances from various bit players, keeping up that slight unworldly tone, but only in roles which are small enough that they do not threaten to unbalance the picture. The stand-out among these latter players is Alan Napier as the fire-and-brimstone pastor, who gets one brief yet riveting appearance.

Moonfleet also happens to be one of a number of pictures from the 1950s which it appears would later be reference points in the Indiana Jones movies of the 1980s. Specifically, the afore-mentioned crypt scene reminds me of the opening of Last Crusade, in which the teenage Indy spies on a gang of treasure-hungry hoodlums. The underground burial chamber is also reminiscent of the Venetian catacombs from later in the same movie. Although these similarities could be coincidental, it is perfectly believable that Moonfleet would fire the imagination of a nine-year-old Steven Spielberg and sear itself into his brain, all testament to the powerful imagery and keen sense of adventure that transcends its low-budget roots.

I Really Wanted to Love This One.

[OttoVonB · 5/10 · 14 January 2022]

In an iconic line either repurposed in Godard's Contempt, or attributed to it, depending on which version of the truth you choose to believe - and with all things concerning Fritz Lang, there is never just one - the legendary director once said of the ultra widescreen Cinemascope format that « it is only good for shooting snakes and funerals ». Given my affection for his many classic masterpieces and his undeniable eye, I was quite excited at the prospect of what an actual Fritz Lang cinemascope extravaganza might entail, despite the ominous signs.

I have not read the novel this film is apparently very loosely based on, and by most accounts the many changes to character and plot have not been for the better. MGM must have salivated at the idea of making a bold, colorful Treasure Island style romp, and the differences are pronounced enough to make for something quite interesting. As the surrogate father-figure to our child POV character, Stewart Granger's Jeremy Fox is closer to a gentleman thief than a full-throated pirate in the Long John Silver vein, more of an enigma, and the best parts of the film are watching him turn from charming and charismatic to cold and ruthless, often on a dime. It is all the more praiseworthy because Granger reportedly hated working with Lang, and hated that MGM had mostly confined shooting to the studio backlot, rather than on location.

Other notable additions to the cast are the ever-dependable George Sanders (the voice of Jungle Book's Sher Khan, no less) and the amazing Joan Greenwood, criminally underused, though every chance to hear her pur malicious lines in that unique voice of hers should be cherished. Poor Jon Whiteley, on the other hand, 9 years old at the time of shooting this, is hung out to dry as our POV character John Mohune, very much stuck in late 50s child acting standards, which were mostly abysmal. This hurts the film because our emotional engagement with the central relationship suffers as a result.

I really wanted to like this. It had many of the right ingredients, not least of which is Miklos Rozsa on scoring duties, though this could hardly be called one of his finest works. Despite a few gothic flourishes, one of the main letdowns is Fritz Lang's obvious lack of inspiration with the format - or might it have been with the story as a whole? Images of his early works are seared into our collective unconscious, but you'd be hard pressed to remember a single vaguely memorable shot in this film. And lest you uncharitably attribute the visual dullness to an old artist's waning talents or inability to translate his skill to color stock and new technology, let me direct you to the visual splendor or his last masterpiece, the Indian Saga shot only a few short years after Moonfleet.

There is a reason this one is rarely mentioned. It is an interesting study of what might have been, but ultimately, it is too sedate a treatment of a story that demands far more verve and passion. Only check this out if you are a diehard Fritz Lang fan.

Solid and enjoyable adventure suitable and accessible for family viewing

[bob the moo · 2 April 2006]

Young John Mohune comes to Dorset to meet a man called Jeremy Fox who he believes was a friend of his late mother and will help look after him. Expecting a friend in Fox, John is upset to find an uncaring man who has no interest in John. He persists though in trying to gain the friendship and attention of Fox even in the face of great dissuasion. All Fox's acquaintances are rather desperate men, which fly in the face of his rather "proper" appearance. John doesn't suspect anything, being a child, but the area is famous for smugglers and Fox may be connected and perhaps be more dangerous than anyone realises – not least the innocent John Mohune.

I watched this film simply because I was a bit taken aback by the fact that it was a Fritz Lang film. Not being a name I would have associated with a period film I decided to take a look and see what he did with it. In fairness Falkner's source material does give him something to work with and there are interesting themes and ideas running through it. It takes a little bit to get going but after a while the smuggling story and the relationships make for a good adventure that is brisk enough for children while also having a bit of meat for the adults. I quite enjoyed the sweeping adventure feel it had but I was more interested in the character of Fox, who is never a "good man" and is all the better for it (in terms of the narrative). Lang appears to be interested in this as well, and he does make Fox the biggest part of the film.

Granger rises to this by turning in a solid performance where he is a rough character but not to the point where he loses the audience. The problem with the film is not with him – unfortunately it is with Jon Whiteley. He is too cute and very much a child actor – and I don't mean that in a good way. He isn't really able to emote and, apologies for the lack of intelligent criticism, but he just got on my nerves. I'm sure this film didn't want to go too deep but I would be happy to see a remake of this with a stronger and more natural child actor in the role, that may allow the relationship to be developed a bit further. Sanders is always a welcome presence but he is given very little to do. The rest of the support cast are all solid enough but the film is pretty much Granger's and he works it well even if Whiteley isn't up to much.

Overall though this is a solid little adventure tale that makes for solid family viewing. It is brisk and swashbuckling enough to entertain children while the solid yarn will engage adults. The cast mostly give a good account of themselves and, while I didn't hate him, I must admit that Whiteley was annoying to me personally and his performance here suggested a good education but a limited ability.

No great work of art but reasonably entertaining

[nicholas.rhodes · 7/10 · 27 September 2007]

This film is overrated in France which at first sight appears bizarre to say the least but when you see that the same country gives first class status to a boring, intolerable and annoying comedian like Jerry Lewis, ANYTHING is possible ! That said, the film certainly makes for good entertainment and both Stewart Granger and George Sanders are very entertaining, as is the boy who plays John Mohune. I am not sure where this was filmed but had difficulty recognizing the Dorset Coast which is one of the most spectacular coasts in the British Isles. The main negative point of the film is the plot which is fairly limited and leaves the spectator thirsting for something a little more meaty. As much of the film is seen through the eyes of the child, this bestows an original quality upon it. I have not read the original novel so have no way of comparing it to the film but in general I tend to compare films and novels separately and not always try to see if the film adheres closely to the novel. Certain licence must be taken when bringing something to the screen. The DVD of Moonfleet was issued in France sometime during the first half of this year (2007).

Late Fritz Lang movie doesn't know to impress- or even entertains.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 3 September 2007]

Of course Fritz Lang was one of the greatest directors in the '20's and '30's, with movie classics such as "Metropolis", "M" and "Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler - Ein Bild der Zeit" but the movies he made later in his career, from let's say the '40's on are hardly on par with his work from his glory days. You see a lot of directors that were great and brilliant in the earliest days of cinema ('10's/'20's/'30's) take a deep nose dive with their later movies. So far the only director that I know of that has remained consistent throughout the decades, from the '10's till the '50's has been King Vidor. Seems like Fritz Lang was stuck somewhere in the '20's or '30's with his directing. The directing and compositions for this movie are very old fashioned, which makes the movie now days feel quite outdated. It's quite static all but perhaps this was also due to the obviously restrained and limited budget of the movie.

Still good to see that the sort of signature dark, uneasy atmosphere by Fritz Lang also is present in this movie. However you can wonder if this type of atmosphere is really suited for a movie like this. At times I even expected the movie to turn into an horror movie, which was purely due to its atmosphere!

Lets face it, the swashbuckling genre was quite death and dried up already in the '50's. There were some attempts to revive the genre at that particular decade but all failed. This movie is no exception, although you can debate about it if this truly is a swashbuckler. It just lacks the much required action, even though by the ending the movie finally starts to take pace and takes some adventurous forms but by that time it's already quite to late to still make this movie an highly entertaining or exciting one. There just isn't enough happening in the movie!

The movie could had gone into some interesting directions (such as with the 'Redbeard'-plotline) but it just doesn't ever does so.

It's always risqué to tell a story almost completely from the view point of a child. It's an approach that rarely ever works out in a movie. Frtiz Lang, perhaps over confident with the success by him from the past, makes an attempt to pull it off with this movie. At first the movie still concentrates on the child but soon he makes room for the Stewart Granger character, who also soon but slowly starts to turn in the true main character of the movie. Good move, since this movie is too dark and fun enough to watch for children and adults won't find it interesting to watch a movie such as this one completely from the view point of a naive young boy.

The movie features some good and fairly well known actors in it but they fail to give the movie a real heart and make the characters come to life, at least not to a point that they're interesting, entertaining or good enough to care about. It doesn't help that the main character played by George Sanders is character that starts off as a bad guy and just nothing becomes really a good guy throughout the movie. He always remains a sort of a betraying and heartless scoundrel. You just never really start to care about him.

Perhaps the only thing that surprised and impressed in this movie was the musical score by Miklós Rózsa. It was really beautiful and perfectly adventurous. The sort of score that really suits the swashbuckling genre. The score only deserved a better movie! It's a soundtrack worth searching out!

In the end its a fairly enjoyable movie, that's however too old fashioned and not exciting enough to consider this a real good- or true adventurous movie.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Muddled customer

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 13 July 2023]

Fritz Lang's "Moonfleet" plays alarmingly like Alfred Hitchcock's "Jamaica Inn" at times: there are a few too many "Jolly smugglers aren't we!" scenes. What sets it apart a bit is that it's partly told from a little boy's perspective, and what's more, an innocent little boy entering a dark adult world. It resembles a gothic fairy tale, and the stylized cinematography is impressive. Steward Granger gives Jeremy Fox authority, although his character is a little too cool for school: unbeatable in a fight, a crack shot, irresistible to women, but sensitive, too. Apart from Granger and the kid, the other roles are rather poorly defined. **1/2 out of 4.

Close to greatness - disappointing ending falls short - worth watching for fun

[Nate-48 · 7/10 · 5 December 2020]

It's astonishing how many films can do so many great things like this one and then when it really counts they don't know how to end it.

This movie is such the epitome of anti-climactic.

Great acting all-around from top to bottom. Sets and costumes top notch.

Credit Fritz Lang here for using a lot of his tricks here - seems like he was working on a tight budget on a tight time frame because they try to scoop this up at the end like they ran out of money and ideas - too bad because at times this feels close to a masterpiece but so much is lost at the end, unexplained with loose ends everywhere.

What could have been.

Superb!

[artzau · 8/10 · 11 April 2001]

In the 50s, the great Errol Flynn was getting long in the tooth and Stewart Granger, tall, suave and incredibly "cool," by today's standards, was filling the role of the dashing adventurer in those halcyon days of moviedom before TV gutted the industry. This film directed by the venerable Fritz Lang is an immensely entertaining adventure with pirates, villains and intrigue all handled with dash and aplomb by Stewart Granger. Alas, no video but watch for it on the late night show and, as another reviewer has suggested, tape it for seeing again and again.

Not one of Fritz Lang's best

[noirlover · 3/10 · 6 May 2003]

This is one of those movies that people call a 'curiosity' when they want to be kind. I've seen nearly all of Fritz Lang's films and this is easily the worst. Despite a great cast -- Stewart Granger, George Sanders, Joan Greenwood -- this adventure film is D.O.A. Nearly nothing happens and then it's over! Not much in the way of swashbuckling or intrigue ... or well, anything, except whether Granger will take in his lost nephew. And frankly, the little boy doesn't seem worth the trouble! The film momentarily comes to life whenever George Sanders is onscreen, but that's only about 10 or 15 minutes. The flat, set-bound Technicolor production is par for the period, but since nothing much is going on, it's a real liability here. Good for Lang for trying something different from his film noirs -- but too bad this didn't work out. I was really ready to like it, since I'm always up for a good yarn, but was sadly disappointed.

Portrayal Of Innocence

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 7 July 2009]

Although Treasure Island and Moonfleet are set at the same time in Hanoverian Great Britain with a child protagonist, no two stories could be more different. Jim Hawkins in Treasure Island by becoming custodian of a treasure map with the help of some friendly adult companions battles pirates to gain the treasure and has a great old adventure out of it.

Young John Mohune played by Jon Whiteley is an orphan lad alone in the world who is sent by his dying mother to seek out a man named Jeremy Fox in the coastal town of Moonfleet for protection and guidance against the cruel world. Fox is played by Stewart Granger who is in one of his least heroic roles on the screen. Granger is the Long John Silver of the story, the leader of a band of pirate smugglers who operate out of that town. Granger gets plenty of protection because he's got the local squire George Sanders and his pleasure driven wife Joan Greenwood on his payroll so to speak. But that's an alliance of convenience.

Having young Whiteley dropped on him is certainly cramping his style, but the innocent young man in his explorations has found what could be clues to a big Hope Diamond like diamond that was the foundation of his family fortune, but has been lost for generations. Naturally everybody wants a piece of what that bauble will bring.

Fritz Lang returns to a familiar theme of a doomed man who cannot escape what the fates have in store. It's a theme Lang's used over and over in such films as You Only Live Once, Scarlett Street, The Woman In The Window, Human Desire, and others. His best work however in this film is reserved for young Jon Whiteley. I've rarely seen pure innocence better portrayed on the screen than with Whiteley. The young man's scenes with Stewart Granger are some of that actor's best work as well.

In fact Stewart Granger was often quoted as saying that he regarded Moonfleet as one of his best films. I think Granger was absolutely right. The film hasn't aged one iota since its release in 1955, it's still great viewing for people of all ages.

Lang rests on his laurels as unlikable characters abound in this "swashbuckler" flop

[Turfseer · 4/10 · 14 September 2022]

Most of famed director Fritz Lang's post-war films were film noir so it was a little surprising that he decided to try his hand at a "swashbuckler." Moonfleet unfortunately doesn't come close to the iconic swashbucklers of yesteryear such as Robin Hood or Treasure Island.

Not only was Moonfleet a box office disaster but its leading man, Stewart Granger, made it quite clear that he hated the picture coupled with dripping contempt for its director.

Granger plays Jeremy Fox, a tarnished aristocrat who leads a gang of smugglers in the Dorset village of Moonfleet circa mid-18th century England. One reason I would speculate as to why audiences didn't care for this film is it takes a very long time for us to warm up to the main character.

When 11-year-old orphan John Mohune (Jon Whiteley), son of Jeremy's former and recently deceased lover, shows up on his doorstep with a note for Jeremy to take care of him, there's an expectation that this story is going to be about their relationship and how the indifferent aristocrat will be transformed by the child's influence.

But it never much comes to that until the unsatisfactory climax. From the get-go, Jeremy sends little John away in a horse drawn carriage. The kid will have none of it and makes his way back to Jeremy's manor home.

The unlikable Jeremy is persistent in rejecting the child who ends up trapped in a large crypt beneath a church where he discovers the film's McGuffin: a note written in code inside a locket which eventually brings the two together in a quest to find a diamond of almost incalculable worth.

Before the "bonding" takes place, Jeremy must contend with his smuggler band who gripe about their limited cut of ill-gotten gains and on one occasion the leader of the unsavory group engages in a life and death struggle with his boss in which a sword, a harpoon and fish netting are utilized!

Despite their constant expressions of dissatisfaction, why this group never act in concert and take out Jeremy is a mystery.

The women here fail quite succinctly on the likability index too. Take Jeremy's mistress, Mrs. Minton (Viveca Lindfors)--who due to jealousy over his flirtation with the wife of his business partner Lord James Ashwood (George Sanders)--betrays him to the local magistrate. Jeremy manages to escape but Minton is killed in the crossfire with the magistrate's troops (it's a poorly shot scene in which the woman is only seen killed as an apparent afterthought from a very high distance on the Dover cliffs).

Quite unconvincingly, Jeremy disguises himself as a British general and manages to fool an entire regiment, allowing both he and John to retrieve the diamond from a deep well inside a castle.

The climax feels rushed when Jeremy kills Ashwood after deciding that he really cared for Little John all along and directs him to donate the diamond to the local parson.

The woman that made Jeremy's mistress so jealous, Lady Clarista Ashwood (Joan Greenwood), ends up dead when a horse bolts (after Jeremy shoots Ashwood) and the carriage overturns. Greenwood is saddled with a virtual non-part as well as playing an unlikable character given her association with the oily Lord Ashwood.

The ending proves to be wholly unsatisfying-not only because Jeremy's redemption feels way too late-but because he abandons John (he's forced to having been badly wounded after being shot by Ashwood).

Jeremy's fate is unclear as he's seen being rowed out to a ship headed for the American colonies. It's questionable whether he'll survive but he certainly won't make good on his promise to John to return to England in the future.

The actors here can evoke little approbation as the characters they play garner little sympathy. That even goes for Whiteley as the beleaguered orphan who fails in the "cute-as-a-button" child actor category.

The film was shot on studio sets so a big opportunity was lost to admire some on-location cinematography. On the basis of this film and most of his other films in the post-war period, Lang basically ended up resting on his laurels.

An enjoyable adventure

[chris_gaskin123 · 7 April 2004]

I just watched Moonfleet for the first time and enjoyed it. I taped it one afternoon from the TV as it is not available on video.

A young boy is sent to the town of Moonfleet by his dying mother to be looked after by an old flame of hers. While there, he gets into all sorts of adventures and dangers including smuggling, grave robbing and treasure.

The cast includes a good performance by Stewart Granger and is joined by George Sanders, Joan Greenwood, John Hoyt and young Jon Whiteley.

I read in one review that this move is family viewing but I thought some of the scenes in it including the dead man hanging from a pole at the beginning may be a little too scary for younger children.

An excellent movie.

Rating: 3 and a half stars out of 5.

A Must See.

[beach-11 · 10/10 · 21 May 2000]

This movie is very under rated. If you compare it with all of the highly rated movies, this is actually better. This movie is perfectly cast, especially with Melville Cooper as Granger's vicious partner in crime and Greenwood as Sanders' wife. If you see this movie in your local TV listings, tape in and keep it. You will want to watch it several times.