Hey, so the fencing is a bit hokey. The movie is "not" about fencing, if it were we would all be asleep in 10 minutes. I have fenced on and off for over 30 years so I know a little bit about it. I would rather watch something like this than any fencing bout ever put on. So all you purists out there, lighten up. Like the movie for what it is, don't dis-like it for what it isn't. The story was not about fencing, the fencing was only a backdrop to the story.
Add a Review
-
blakduke24 September 1999
-
Bogie2724 June 2010This movie was completed in 1991 but released in 1993, which was about the same time I started fencing. So it's always been somewhat special to me. I just recently watched it again as I converted the old video tape to DVD. The fencing in this movie - somewhat dated and very classical – is still pretty good. Plenty of formal fencing phrases that are often recalled by the Maestro, Villard, played cockily by Eric Roberts. The dimly lit Salle with dueling pictures on the wall create good atmosphere and mystique to begin the story.
It's a clever story. Fencing as we know it today began in Europe as formal training to survive a duel. So it's only proper that this movie ends with a real swordfight. The movie begins with an older guy named Max Suba returning to an old New York Salle, for reasons quite unknown to the viewers. Villard(the proprietor) asks him "are you in the right place?" It's turns out he's come back to teach fencing, but fails to impress Villard with his old style and can barely remember the parries. Max takes a job there as a janitor instead. The character of Max Suba is played by F Murray Abrahams and slowly exposes his past and the real reasons for returning to the Salle. As we peel away layers, we see Max is getting his life and fencing back together after a long stay in prison for killing a man.(in a duel) Toward the end of the movie the revelation occurs. The real Max Suba died years ago. The new Max Suba has assumed the name and come back to the place and family where his normal life came to an end many years ago. It was the life of Villard's father(also a fencing champion) whom Max took with a sword in a duel.
Now the point of the story some have missed. Young Villard is obsessed with winning at all costs. He's laboring under the mistaken belief that his Father lost a contest when winning mattered most. (Max actually won the duel by an underhanded maneuver.) It's a mistake he doesn't intend to make or allow his students to accept, but it's all based on his altered view of what really happened. Villard's never been beaten in major competitions – an almost impossible achievement. He's a very cocky character that teaches ruthlessness to his students and criticizes their compassion for others. In spite of his success on the fencing strip he's never really learned some of life's most important lessons. That's due to the fact that we learn from our losses in life and not from our victories. Max on the other hand has learned a lot from his loses in life and clearly sees these deficiencies in Villard. He knows Villard must be beaten to ever have a chance to see his point of view. So these two men – each desperate in their cause must face each other in combat to bring this story to conclusion. -
Torch-615 April 2003There is exactly one group of people who will watch this film more than once: fencers. And even we wince. So much of this story is anathema to *everything* fencers hold dear: honor, romance and SAFETY!
No maestro worth the name would encourage any kind of deliberate roughness such as is exhibited in BtS.
Neither would anyone imagine a choreographed dance routine with pirouettes. THE HORROR!
But beneath the ugly scum of detail, there *is* a story...who is Suba (excellently underplayed by F. Murray Abraham), and why does he come to the Maestro's studio? Why does he think he can teach fencing? Oh, and we get to see the lovely Mia Sara in a tight fencing uniform, a small bonus.
It's not the best film, no. It's far from the worst. Do not expect to see real Olympic style fencing; for that, go to the next competition nearest you! -
dguertin-15 August 2002I too Fence, and I teach Historical rapier fighting as well. No, the film was not representative of Olympic sport-fencing, now or then, but it was never promoted as, or intended to be a "How to Fence" movie. If that's what you're looking for, go read DiGrassi. The film itself is a great story, it moves quickly, and has plenty of little quirks to make you say "Oh..." It was never 'predictable,' and the plot developed at a satisfying pace. Go to Blockbuster, rent it, decide for yourself. Then, go check eBay... =-)
-
EpeeBill13 September 2005I'm a fencer, so I was naturally excited to see this film. Well, it's a 'fencing movie' in the same vein as "Razor's Edge" is an 'ice skating movie'. The sport is dummied down for the non- enthusiast and the drama behind the scenes is ramped up to soap opera levels.
I actually thought there was some good acting here. I mean Abraham is always wonderful and Mia Sara doesn't do too bad. Eric Roberts is stretched to about his best work, probably by working with Abraham, and the "kids" in the supporting roles are at least intentionally amusing.
The story, though, is a bit outlandish and gets predictable after about 45 minutes, but it's not a terrible movie. Thus, my rating of 6. -
Torch-61 November 2000What a great idea--the world of Olympic fencing is chock-full of drama and political wrangling. And with swords, no less!
It seems to me that, much as I love fencing, ANY sport-centered movie has about the same plot. The US cinema scene continues to churn out these formulaic box-office muffins, despite any real story being present.
"By the Sword" is rife with inconsistencies, bad scriptwriting and simply ludicrous scenes--the post-Sheena E dancing scene foremost among them. Folks, fencers simply do NOT do this...not even as a motivational exercise. Fencers do not WANT a regular rhythm, it's more of a weakness than a strength.
Blades breaking, blood drawn, sure that happens...but on purpose? At the *encouragement* of the Maestro? I don't think so.
If you want to see Mia Sara in a tight fencing outfit, this is your film; but for heaven's sake, don't expect to see fencing.
(And yes, I fence.) -
joncoles11 October 2000Okay, so some scenes in this film might make a fencer cringe, but for the average viewer there is good entertainment to be had here. The central characters do the job required to keep the action going, although Eric Roberts character is somewhat of a cardboard cutout. The script allows for little character development for his fencing master portrayal, and I suspect he has simply done exactly what the director asked. The fencing scenes are decent action,with some interesting swordplay in foreground while mental fencing goes on between the characters. The plot is fairly simple, and some of the developments in the plot do seem to a little unsubstantiated. But this is not a film to make you cry or think deeply. It is good, simple, entertainment. Watch with an open mind, and enjoy a bit of fun.
-
vertigo_1422 March 2005'By the Sword' was an odd, misplaced one I came across at the video store and was glad I tried it out. It's the only movie that I've ever seen that's all about fencing. First off, you'd really have to want to watch more than an hour and a half of fencing competition, because it is essentially the WHOLE movie. This particular story is something like a martial arts cliché wrapped in the sophistication of 'fencing.' Eric Roberts plays a hardened fencing instructor. Kind of like the Cobra Kai master in 'Karate Kid,' but less overt in his schemes. F. Murray Abraham plays an ex-convict with a secret connection to Eric Roberts' character, although the latter doesn't yet know it. Attempting to reform and start over, he comes to the dojo looking for a teaching job. Rusty in his technique however, he starts out as a janitor and gradually works his way up. Roberts' character, "the Meistro," even becomes a little jealous and uses the guy's trust and craft as a strategy against his students. Ends in a huge, though mostly exaggerated showdown.
Overall, there is much repetition because the entire thing is set in this fencing arena and involves almost nothing but fencing, but there is a nice arrangement of character and attempt at a bit of mystery that might pique your interest. It's also one of the few movies I haven't seen Eric Roberts do his 'Pope of Greenwhich Village' accent. If for nothing else see it just to watch something different. -
tekky-212 March 1999This movie fascinated me from the very beginning. It revolves around the sport of fencing, but the plot has little to do with fencing and more to do with crime & punishment, retribution and forgiveness, and the meaning of success. Eric Roberts plays a skilled but haughty owner of a fencing school, just like his dear old (deceased) dad. F. Murray Abraham is the mystery man, who is apparently making a new start in a new town and who applies to be a fencing teacher at the school. Although Roberts quickly discerns that Abraham is not "up to snuff" for a teacher and hires him as a janitor, Roberts fails to recognize the inevitable result of years away from a sport that requires daily attention. Over the course of the film, Roberts & Abraham flesh out their characters nicely as the viewer discovers who Abraham really is while watching Roberts' character discover himself and finally learn a lesson that was stunted by tragedy in his boyhood. Like any movie about a sport, I'm sure there were fencing "flaws," but it was believable enough to me to make watching it intriguing (and sometimes tiring!). There's quite a lot of action for this movie that only has 3 sets, too! Get a bag of popcorn and settle in for a good flick.
-
sol-30 June 2005With over-stylish flashback sequences, a typical revenge twist, a pointless romance between pointless supporting characters, and yet another thin romance, this is not at all a good film. However, neither it is really a bad film. Although perhaps inserted just for show, the fencing fight sequences are quite interesting, as is the limited insight provided into the sport. F. Murray Abraham is able to provide a reasonably earnest performance too, and together with some notable camera-work, there is enough in the film to bring it up to scratch. It is a rather flawed film, yet it is a bit difficult to label this as a "bad" film.
-
By the Sword has depth to it that I seldom see in film. It also displays a morality play, skillfully embedded in the story that make this one of my all time favorites. I recognize that By the Sword will not be for everyone. It was not made with the cookie cutter approach.
-
Theo Robertson18 June 2003Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed " Who is Eric Roberts ? " . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production
Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD -
denny-3225 October 2000I thought this movie was very good for several reasons. The first was that the plot was woven very well around a sport that does not receive much attention, fencing. I know very little about fencing but this was a good introduction. It is almost an artform, and the aura of the training school added another dimension. Having novices being taught fencing allowed the viewer to pick up on the basics.
Secondly was the casting. Eric Roberts in my opinion is one of the best actors going around and pairing him up with F. Murray Abraham, you really can't go wrong acting wise. The supporting cast was merely there to add to the plot and to help develop some atmosphere.
Without giving too much away, this is a movie about revenge that chips away at the start through flashbacks but builds to an inevitable but pulsing showdown. Eric Roberts plays the part of an egotistical past fencing champion and present training supremo. F Murray Abraham is a man with a hidden past, linked to fencing that you feel must come out sooner or later.
The action scenes involving fencing were admirable and while people take acting for granted, for both the afore mentioned actors to handle foils as they did would indicate they had some previous understanding of the sport.
I don't think I am giving too much away by saying F. Murray Abrahams character Max, in addition to attempting to break in as a fencing instructor is also taking cautious steps in trying to establish relationship ties after being incarcerated for a very long period.
All in all a very pleasing time filler, that also exhibited the hustle and bustle of the city it was filmed in, despite most of the action taking place inside the training school for aspiring fencers. -
Spod747 March 2003Why is it that everyone who has seen this movie feels it is their responsibility to tell us whether or not they are fencers? That point is completely immaterial to any argument to be made against this total dog of a movie.
I think sports movies fall into two categories; well made movies about the human spirit and competitions, and `By the Sword'.
Honestly this movie never could decide what it wanted to be, a touching drama for trying to be your best in life, an indictment of competitive motivation or a martial arts flick. In the end it didn't do any of those convincingly or completely enough to make me give one ounce of care of any of it.
For the record I also am a fencing instructor (and now I am officially as bad as the rest). But putting bad fencing in a movie doesn't make it bad automatically. I mean look at Star Wars (Episodes 4-6, good movies, bad fencing). I liked those movies. But when you put bad sports into a bad movie for some reason people think that it is only the purists that think it a lame effort.
Don't be fooled by any comments on the smaller issue of fencing. This is just a bad movie. In the end, this movie has nothing for the fencing enthusiast or the movie buff or simply anyone with a pulse and three brain cells.
When I see a movie and am forced to think, `Man, I wish I was watching the Mighty Ducks.' I know that it is time to bypass the argument with the theater manager to get my money back and see if there is anyone in the lobby that will somehow give me two hours of my life back. -
Jonathan-912 February 1999Normally, I like Leonard Maltin and can sympathise with his reviews but he seems to have watched a different film here entirely. It is not really a revenge story, "by-the-numbers" or otherwise. There is a man with a mission here but cheap vengeance isn't his goal. The leads do an excellent job of portraying antagonistic personalities coming slowly to the boil in the claustrophobic world of the fencing salon as the characters evolve. And they do evolve.
As for Errol Flynn doing it better, that is a fatuous comment in the extreme. Apart from his swordfight on the beach with Basil Rathbone in "Captain Blood", his fencing always looked very stagy to me. The last fight in "By the Sword", by contrast, is the single most vicious fencing combat I've ever seen. It is the only time I have ever had the impression that the combatants actually intend to kill one another. A brilliantly choreographed sequence. -
RimRod30 May 1999I wouldn't say this is a *bad* movie. Unfortunately for me, I get the feeling that the more you know about fencing, the worse it gets simply due to the fact that it becomes totally unrealistic. I've been fencing since i was 14 years old, and this movie portrays it very poorly. F. Murray Abraham is good (and appears to have some fencing background), but most of the other actors--especially the students--just seem to be lost.
-
gherstein-129 March 2008There is not blood in this movie. The title of my comment has to do with the fact that, were it not for the blood, any contemporary Olympic style fencer could beat the tar out of a 16th or 17th Century duellist. The skills of a contemporary fencer are unmatchable; but the will to kill is something you cannot pick up in a fencing salle.
This difference plays a role in the story, as characters come to grips with their personal traumas and inner demons. The original movie One-Sheet is informative for the Spartan purity of its text:
.......By The Sword......
Live by it ..... Die by it .....
The folks who pule and whine about the "safety" issues in this film are as confoundingly ignorant of the definition of "metaphor" as are the historical purists who insist on mewling about the Russian roulette sequence in "Deer Hunter." This is not a documentary, so it simply beggars the imagination why anyone would be so ruthlessly misguided as to hold it up to documentary standards of factual accuracy.
This movie is a classic morality tale -- and a nicely crafted one at that -- told within the strictures of a fencing salle. Abrams and Roberts give fine performances, while Mia Sara, Chris Rydell, Elaine Kagan and others provide good support. The movie, for all of its obvious mythological framework, offers some nice insights into the reality of fencing. For example, when was the last time you saw an Errol Flynn movie devote so much attention to the *footwork* of sword play? (And for you non-fencers out there, here is a clue: fencing is *ALL* in the footwork; the sword is just there to let the other person know that they lost the bout.) At the level of world-class competition, the differences between life/death and win/lose engagements blur; personal trauma can blur them even more. It is only in confronting our demons that the distinctions return to us, and the genuinely meaningful things in life can be regained. That is why this film is a morality tale.
Filmatically, the cinematography bears some attention: so many subtle hues of brown that pop out rather than disappear under the surface. Bill Conti's score, particularly as it emphasizes classical guitar, is a joy all by itself. The images of stair-cases and the allegory of Jacob's Ladder appear throughout. -
Klausse1 January 2001For those who'd like to enjoy a sports competition the better choice would be probably to switch on to a sports channel. "By the Sword" has little to do with fencing technique, it's just a movie about people. Villard could be anybody - a sponge diver, a research worker, or a postman - he still would be Villard: self - sufficient, restrained, trying to create distance between himself and other people, admiring the best and strongest, considering himself to be one of the best and thinking little about other people's feelings. He isn't "a bad guy" though - he just lives according to his own rules, in his own world, a kind of performing his own show where he is always on top and never loses his face even when he happens to lose a game. Eric Roberts is great as usual and very impressive. The whole cast did a good job and I do like the music and fencing too. The weak point is the plot. I can't understand why on earth Suba came to Villard. What did he want from him? For Suba, Villard's Academy is the last place to begin a new life. And why he didn't reveal himself to Villard if he wants to be fair? To my mind sometimes the plot lacks of logic. In total I like the film. For those who prefer drama to action it's not a bad choice, for those who like perfect Eric Roberts - it's yes!
-
degruy16 March 2002It's the spirit of the film. The fencing was not the best, but not the worst. It taught the lessons it was supposed to. Enjoy the moments. Not the details.
-
arnoldmerc26 May 2005This is possibly the worst fencing, sword-fighting, movie ever made. That is not just because the so called sports fencing is poor but because the plot, characters are so weak that they've got to throw in a semi nude sex scene and, later, supposed group dancing around a fencing scene in the fencing club trying, I suppose to maintain audience interest. What a waste of F. Murray Abraham's talents. You're better served with overblown swashbuckling movies like Zorro, Scaramouche, anything that has Basil Rathbone as the villain. As a fencer myself I recognize the near impossibility of capturing fencing as a sport on film, but if it ever happens it's got to have fresher, better drawn characters and a plot with more depth.
-
George04129 December 2002F. Murray Abraham and Eric Roberts gave outstanding performances. The supporting cast did very well. This film is not just about fencing. It is about people who interact with other people in different ways; that is, some people treat other people in compassionate ways while others do not. And in the final act, kindness and respect becomes paramount instead of selfishness, arrogance and the desire to win at all costs.
-
mark.waltz15 January 2022Researching this movie, I found that people adept in the artist of fencing found it to not be such a good view of the sport, pointing out things that were technically incorrect. Having seen many swashbucklers over the years and the use of fencing in plays like "Hamlet" and movies like "My Favorite Year", I can't judge the accuracy, but I can judge the movie. It's sad when you're more interested in seeing her locations they are utilizing rather than becoming interested in the characters, and I spent more time trying to guess where in downtown Manhattan they were. With two terrific leading actors in the Academy award-winning F. Murray Abraham and Eric Roberts, this should have been more exciting, and the general plotline is interesting. It's just the execution and the form that take a beating.
The script is trying too hard to be profound, and did the character played by Abraham is far too obvious based on the first of several dream sequences and the fact that he seems to be seeking Roberts out for some type of atonement or possibly for another motive. The flashbacks are filmed in an awkward technical manner, and mixed with the current setting time, it creates a fuzziness that never goes away. The only one of the supporting characters that is remotely interesting is the smug fencer played by Stoney Jackson. The characters played by Christopher Rydell, Brett Cullen, Elaine Kagan and Doug Wert takes away from the barely interesting major dynamics of the story. Abraham is commanding but his character undefined, and Roberts seems to have barely any personality at all. I'm surprised this received any type of film release at all and didn't go direct to video. It just doesn't really seem to have a public mainstream interest to get more than a couple dozen people into the theater at a time, let alone in a busy moviegoing weekend. -
paulof-121 December 2002I've liked a lot. It is a pretty good film with good leading actors and altough previsible, it is a very good tale about the courage of a man who did something really bad, trying to heal himself and to heal the one he blessed most (the son of his victm), even if this blessed man is not aware of that. A beatiful film, and with a good music too. I don't know about the reality of the fencing scenes, but I've paid much more attention to the human conflicts, and for that I think it is a great film.
-
Nylar4 February 1999This is a bad, bad movie. I'm an actual fencer: trust me when I say that this film's pretension of accuracy is just that. This is especially true during that vile little scene when the fencers are combining footwork with 80's pop. The ending is predictable, and the movie is a bore from start to finish. Horrible.
-
How many films are about fencing? Very very few. The Princess Bride, Three Musketeers and Zorro, etc. are often listed as such but that is not fencing. That is sword fighting. This film is about sport fencing. It is set in a real fencing club or salle, with the old school roll up grounded strips circa early 70's and includes many scenes of fencing, including group and individual lessons along with electric epee fencing. In addition, there are scenes of the armory room and the rows of stored weapons in the club. If you are looking for a film loaded with fencing, this is really it.
Sure, the fencing leaves something to be desired and the acting varies especially among the student fencers. The fencing in the movie is fairly realistic. Fencing now is more wild, faster and athletic. But nearly 30 years ago it was more controlled which is shown in the bouts. Eric Roberts, a non-fencer, does a pretty good job anyhow even mixing French commands with English in his lessons. F. Murray Abraham, who is in really good shape in this film, also impresses during a few scene where he is taking a saber lesson and epee fencing. There are a few hokey scenes and two love stories tacked on, one of which is used to help show how one how the maestro, a former champion, is grooming his top student to become like him - driven to win at all costs with no feelings for others. The brutality of Roberts during his lessons with his top students - he often wacks them with the side of his weapon's blade when they foul up - is not unheard of. This was very commonly done among the old European coaches to their students. Corporal punishment for mistakes during a lesson got the point across quickly to the students.
The fencing equipment and uniforms are correct. F. Murray's fencing outfit is a bit dated. He wears an old school waste length (pre electric scoring) saber jacket, a really old Castello or Santelli mask and brown knickers. But he does get it done. There is a funny scene if you catch it. When F. Murray is shown crossing the busy NYC street to go to work a the salle as the janitor, he is carrying a blue Adidas shoe-box. Thereafter he is shown wearing the very old style Adidas fencing shoes in nearly every scene, even while he is just the janitor in the club and later when he is coaching the new students.
It is a bit predictable with the final fight scene, but it ends well. If you want a movie that is about the sport of fencing and a lot of it. this is about your only choice. There is the foreign movie The Fencer that came out a couple years ago. Have not seen it.