redx1708 I have been a Flashy fan since the first novel, and have read them all. So back when the movie came out, i was exited. It sounded so well. GMF doing the script, Lester directing and featuring a great cast. Reed, Bates, Macdowell and Ekland. It all sounded good. After all, Fraser and Lester had made the best musketeer adaption ever. Unfortunately they picked the weakest of the Flashman books. (To be fair it's a very enjoyable read, but compared to the others it comes out not quite up to standard). I guess they picked it because it could be made within a certain budget. No large battle scenes and it could be made in European locations. One can always debate whether MacDowell was the right choice. He certainly lacked the stature, but on the other hand he did project that natural insolence one would expect from Flashy. But they made it too silly in my opinion. Flashman may be a coward, but he is a trained soldier and should have shown more skill in sword fights. Parts of the movie works well though, just don't expect too much.

greens-10 The first few Flashman books were just marvelous, then they started to lose their spontaneity and they became as if written to a formula. However they were still pretty good and it wasn't until the very last couple that it was obvious that George McDonald Fraser had really lost his touch. He could still write wonderful books however (The Border Reivers, The Candlemas Road, his Burma book) it was just with Flashman that he became stale. After having said that he had a strange inclination to write slapstick books such as The Pyrates, which were truly dreadful and practically unreadable. His talent for slapstick however proved worthwhile with the scripts of the first two of the three The Three Musketeer films, the last of the three being not up to the standard of the first two, but still, he basically provided scripts that were funny and clever. So he was unpredictable in terms of quality, especially as he got older. But overall he was one of the best novelists and writers of all time. Which makes it hard to understand how he got it so terribly wrong with this movie. This strange inclination to turn to slapstick which sometimes worked out and at other times didn't brought this film completely undone. He was at the height of his powers when he wrote the script and yet he presented a Flashman that was not the Flashman of the books. It was cornball and silly and so dependent on puerile slapstick humor that if fails completely. The choice of Roddy McDowall as Flashman was disastrous. McDowall was/is a small man whereas Flashman was big, strong and assertive and he used his strength to pander to his particularly liking of being a bully. He was cunning and could appear to be likable and admirable if it suited him. As a result he was popular and respected by those who had never seen his real side, that of a coward, cruel and vicious. Mcdowall just comes across as a contemptible poltroon right from the start, snivelling and whining whereas the Flashman of the book hid his cowardice as much as he could. There is still a film to be made of Flashman and if true to the behavior of Flashman as his devotees would have it, it could be a great movie. This film is a travesty of the Flashman we all know and appreciate.

njmollo George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman Papers are ripe for movie treatment but unfortunately the only film available is Dick Lester's Royal Flash.On paper the idea of Lester directing a Fraser script sounds promising. Lester had directed the hugely enjoyable Musketeer movies just prior and the scripts for those films by Fraser were irreverent, exciting and funny. Royal Flash in contrast is an utter mess.The first problem, which ruined this adaptation before a camera even rolled, was the casting of Flashman. In the books Flashman is tall, wide-shouldered with a hansom yet foolish face, meaning it naturally reflected honesty or innocence. The casting of Malcolm McDowell is an own goal. McDowell is weedy and diminutive. Most of the cast including Florinda Bolkan are taller than he is. He also lacks any natural charm or sexual allure. The essential quality of Harry Flashman is that his physical appearance is an absolute contradiction to his true character. I don't think anyone familiar with the novels would imagine McDowell as playing Harry.Casting error aside the narrative of the film is confused and rambling. It would have been better to have stuck to the main elements of the first novel. The expulsion from Rugby School, Harry's Father and live in wench, that beds them both, Cardigan and the Eleventh Hussars, the rigged duel etcAs it stands there are moments in Lester's Royal Flash where Flashman appears brave, which is in stark contrast to the spine of the written character.This production was a missed opportunity to convincingly portray the Flashman papers and as a result the movie is largely and justifiably forgotten.

Bogmeister Director Lester's rollicking comedic follow-up to his two Musketeers movies, this is not quite up there, but still doesn't explain why this is almost an unknown film or worse, an almost lost film. McDowell captures much of the spirit of the notorious, lecherous Capt.Flashman of the books (by G.MacDonald Fraser), a devout coward when pressed, but possessed of so much British insolence and bluff, he gets by quite well. The film lacks much of any other interesting, truly humorous characters, but Oliver Reed is a hoot as the humorless Otto von Bismarck, planning to begin a new Reich in Europe, with Flashman as one of his pawns (this is the mid 19th century, by the way). He and Flashman begin a contentious relationship near the beginning, with Flashman usually taunting him and Otto swearing a retribution. Those are some of the best scenes, including Otto's boxing challenge with real-life boxer Cooper.Alan Bates, on the other hand, never quite warms to the part as the suave adventurer Rudi, a more polished version of Flashman, always dressed in white and quite dashing. He pops up almost a half hour into the film and maybe is too suave; his scenes lack a certain something, such as the droll atmosphere pervading everything else. Overall, it's an impressive cast, including well-known Brits Tom Bell and Lionel Jeffries hamming it up as Otto's henchmen. But, like Bates, they're not given a chance to really shine, usually relegated to an odd mixture of slapstick and serious threats against Flashman's life. A thinner than we're used to seeing Bob Hoskins shows up briefly near the beginning as a copper. Britt Ekland, as a duchess, also seems to make only a token appearance. McDowell however, even gets a chance to play a second role, that of Flashman's double, a more noble prince. The first half of this picture is really promising, delivering period entertainment; it doesn't quite live up to its promise later, but it's still a royal good time. It's a shame this film is best available only as a DVD-R, if one can find it. Update: new DVD arrived in April, 2007!