Jonathon Dabell "Swashbuckler" seems to be a love-it or hate-it kind of film. Almost every professional review of the film you come across ranks it as an unmitigated disaster. Yet almost every armchair critic who has seen it seems to reserve a soft spot for the film, hailing it as an entertaining guilty pleasure. In this particular debate, I feel compelled to throw in my opinion (for what it's worth). And, sadly, I think the professionals got it absolutely right on this occasion. Possibly the most misguided movie ever made, a cringe-worthy embarrassment that fails profoundly to recreate the heyday of those wonderful '30s and '40s pirate flicks, "Swashbuckler" is simply staggering in its awfulness.Roguish buccaneer Ned Lynch (Robert Shaw) sails the Caribbean seas with his motley crew in search of adventure. Having rescued his friend Nick Debrett (James Earl Jones) from the gallows, he next finds his path crossed with wronged lady aristocrat Jane Barnet (Genevieve Bujold). Although initially Jane and Ned can barely stand each other, they soon find themselves united in their struggle to rid Jamaica of its corrupt governor Durant (Peter Boyle). After various adventures - sword-fights, duels, rescues and romances - they complete their mission and, of course, the bickering hero and heroine finally realise they're in love.Shaw is criminally wasted as the roguish Ned Lynch, given nothing to do other than look dashing. Any actor with a touch of charisma could have pulled off the role - it's just a boring part for an actor who looks rightly bored with it. Bujold is equally wasted as a thoroughly helpless, irritating and unresourceful leading lady. But by far the worst of the main parts - and one which left me genuinely embarrassed for the actor involved - falls to Peter Boyle. Poor Boyle is left to deliver some of the worst dialogue imaginable as the villain of the piece, his terrible lines further heightened by the campy approach in which he is asked to indulge himself. While the music and the location photography deserve a better showcase, every other aspect of the film royally stinks! It is scripted with naive ineptitude; plotted without originality; directed without the slightest sense of spirit or period; and presented so unevenly that it is impossible to tell whether we are watching something serious or slapstick. Those who have found things to enjoy in "Swashbuckler" are welcome to it.... personally, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

traderviqz If one can simply recall that movies are to take us away, whether from or to is personally specific, then it would take a profoundly negative person to think poorly of any well made and well acted movie. This is such a flick, decently focused relative to plot, well chosen costuming and locations, great cinematography . . . what more can you ask? If you want a 'film', with all its highbrow silliness, it's true you might not wanna go there with this one, but jeez, does anyone who only goes to 'films' even tell anyone else they know that they're painfully pretentious? This one has no pretensions, and since when is Genevieve in any state of undress a minus? Good entertainment, which is what I want when i spend money on a movie, and Swashbuckler delivers with aplomb.JGS

rabbitrunning What can you say about a pirate movie with only one ship? Well, that they tried very very hard. There are some memorable lines and scenes, but without a sea battle to liven up the festivities the poor film falls flat. The soundtrack music (which, sadly, is not available as a cd)is worth the price of the DVD though.

David Edward Martin I often wonder if Bujold had it in her contracts that she HAD to appear naked at some point in any film she made in the 70s.That said, the film is an enjoyable flick. I'm hoping the success of Pirates of the Caribbean (2003) prompts whoever owns Swashbuckler to give it a nice DVD release.