Royal Flash (1975) watch online HD

If you haven't read any of the Flashman series, go out and find one. Rollicking good read, with the protagonist being an absolutely selfish, cowardly, mean-spirited ass of a man who nonetheless finds himself considered a dashing hero by the public at large. Fraser does a good job of converting his book to the screen (writing Three Musketeers was probably good practice), re-teaming with Richard Lester. MacDowall is good as ol' Flashy, glossing over the fact that Harry is supposed to a large, strapping Brit, and not a skinny little guy like Malcolm. :)

Enjoyable on its own merit, but I'd say read one of the other Flashy books and then see this.

This is a fun flick. I've always liked the humorous fighting style that director Richard Lester brings to his films (The Three Musketeers/Superman I and II/Robin and Marion). This rollicking tale has a dash of that as well as the comic timing of Malcolm McDowell and the grandiose aspirations to rip off "The Prisoner of Zenda" in roundabout fashion.

Royal Flash is an adaptation of the second novel of George MacDonald Frasier's hilarious historical fiction series about the 19th century British officer Harry Flashman, an admitted rogue and coward who always seems to end up smelling like roses. By placing Flashman in settings right out of history and populating his stories with real historical figures Mr Frasier has found the perfect way to inform as he entertains.

The film follows Flashman from a torrid affair with the sadistic Lola Montez to a chance meeting with Otto von Bismark before sending him on a wild journey to a small European province where he's forced to imitate a prince and marry a princess and...

Royal Flash is a good movie and I wish it had reached a wider audience so that I could have seen more of Harry Flashman on the screen. It is one of the weaker novels in the series, but plays well on film. McDowell is a perfect fit and the great Oliver Reed makes a convincing and intimidating Bismark.

8.5 out of 10, but I'm admittedly biased. Seek out the movie, then read the books. Or vice-versa. You won't be disappointed.

First and foremost- This movie is enormous fun.

If you're a fan of the books (as I am - and if you're not then I heartily recommend them) then this film admirably captures the sense of fun and adventure that the books have. It has a lot of slap stick in it which doesn't necessarily translate well from the books, but it does capture a sense of (for lack of a better term) light-hearted love of fun that is pure seventies and just would not and could not be replicated now. Cinema just isn't in the right frame of mind for this anymore. It's either too serious or too dumb but it couldn't achieve this in it's wildest dreams in these morose joyless days.

Malcolm McDowell is young and at the top of his game as his charismatic persona in "A Clockwork Orange". Olly Reed is pure, toe cringing (but love-him-really) badness as Otto Von Bismark. There's so much comedy but there are also scenes where your swashes will never be so buckled! Don't expect a Citizen Kane or anything even remotely close, just sit back and enjoy a classic "Saturday afternoon" romp (and never has a word been so well used) through a classic Flashman story- great baddies, exotic foreign locales and wenches ripe for Flash's advances! Enormous fun if you approach it in the right frame of mind- it will leave you shouting HUZZAR!

Going into this one, I was aware it was part of a literary franchise by George MacDonald Fraser (who personally adapted the novel of the same name to the screen – incidentally, he died quite recently) involving roguish British officer Harry Flashman (the name itself derives from the student bully of the literary classic for children "Tom Brown's Schooldays"!). The film-makers, in fact, hoped this would take off a' la the James Bond extravaganzas – but, clearly, the idea was doomed to failure, since old-fashioned and expensive costume pictures were no longer trendy by this time; for the record, not long ago I'd watched another contemporary tongue-in-cheek epic – Jerzy Skolimowski's film of Arthur Conan Doyle's THE ADVENTURES OF GERARD (1970), which was partly shot in Malta! Besides, I think it was a mistake to have started off with a novel whose plot had already been redone to death over the years – the protagonist, in fact, goes through a "Prisoner Of Zenda"-type adventure where he has to impersonate a look-alike royal!

Even so, on its own account, the film is undeniably stylish, considerably funny (effortlessly going from verbal wit to broad slapstick) and blessed with a tremendous cast (Malcolm McDowell, Alan Bates, Oliver Reed as future German political leader Otto von Bismarck, Florinda Bolkan as actress/courtesan Lola Montes – who, obviously, had already been the protagonist of Max Ophuls' sublime but ill-fated 1955 film of that name, Britt Ekland – underused as McDowell's frigid intended, Lionel Jeffries - sporting a metallic hand, Michael Hordern, Alastair Sim – amusingly popping in merely to referee a pistol duel between females, Joss Ackland, Tom Bell, Christopher Cazenove and Bob Hoskins). At the same time, however, it fails to scale the heights of director Lester's previous swashbuckling saga – THE THREE MUSKETEERS (1973) and its simultaneously-filmed sequel THE FOUR MUSKETEERS (1974).

Interestingly, the opening sequence – with McDowell speaking at a school assembly with the Union Jack behind him – is actually lifted from the unforgettable prologue to PATTON (1970) where, in that case, George C. Scott had addressed the (non-visible) troops in front of the U.S. flag! Other notable assets here are the cinematography (by Geofftrey Unsworth), the production design (courtesy of Terence Marsh) and the score (from Lester regular Ken Thorne). By the way, in the liner notes it's stated that the film was originally previewed at 121 minutes and later cut to 98 for general release – but the DVD edition I've watched, and which was released only recently as a SE by Fox, is a bit longer than that (running 102 minutes, to be exact)!

Who else but that hate-to-love Malcolm McDowell could possibly do justice to one of literature's great scoundrels, Harry Flashman? In this George MacDonald Fraser spin-off of Thomas Hughes' classic Tom Brown's School Days, we are treated to some hilarious apocryphal tales involving such larger-than-life nineteenth-century figures as Otto von Bismarck and Lola Montez.

This ripely visual Richard Lester production is sometimes a bit over the top, with gratuitous slapstick and audible guffaws and grunts. Nevertheless, on balance, a delightful romp, and a chance to see the wonderful Alastair Sim in one of his final appearances.

A lot of the humour in the Flashman novels is based on the discrepancy between how Harry Flashman appears and what he's actually thinking. As a result the filmmakers have had to make some adjustments to how Harry is played to bring our more of his innate cowardliness, lechery, thieving, and being an all round bad egg to the surface. I believe that the filmmakers have got the balance right and fully enjoyed this adaption of the Flashman papers.

The screenplay is a fairly faithful adaption of the original novel, which can be expected when the author is also wrote the screenplay. Malcolm McDowell and Oliver Reed give fine performances in the central roles, with the supporting cast ranging from excellent (Henry Cooper) to bland (Britt Ekland).

Bags of fun, but not to be taken seriously.

Plot: A cowardly Englishman is kidnapped by Otto Bismarck and forced to impersonate the king of a small country.

This is the third of four collaborations between director Richard Lester and screen writer George MacDonald-Fraser, combining the former's manic energy and ad-libbed humour with the latter's skill at weaving an adventure tale. The story is essentially a re-mix of 'The Prisoner of Zenda', with the addition of a historical background (the 1848 Revolutions and Otto Bismarck's attempts to unify Germany). The genius of the Flashman protagonist (this is adapted from a terrific series of books) is that in public he is a war hero but in private he is a lecherous coward. Cue instant entertainment (with a uniquely reluctant hero) as he is dragged into the dangerous plot. Fans of the novels have quite rightly complained that Malcolm McDowell isn't dark or beefy enough for the character - but it doesn't much matter as he turns in a terrific performance anyway. The film is full of good actors (David Jason, Bob Hoskins, Oliver Reed) who are uniformly excellent, with even Britt Ekland doing a stand-up job.

This ability extends to every other part of the production. The locations and costume are stunning and unusual - Victorian Mitteleurope looking beautiful and strangely exotic (to this Englishman). The key however is the plot, which is stuffed with intrigue, love-affairs, pursuits, assassinations, humour and darn good characters. Also look out for much period-authentic slang and all sorts of odd historically accurate details. The 1970s was also a perfect time for such a film, with social rebellion breaking down the stuffiness of many prior historical films, yet without the stultifying political correctness present in so many modern historical films. It zips along with pace, making best use of the historical background to magnify the drama (zip-wiring down a telegraph line) until it's thoroughly satisfying conclusion.

Worth two or more viewings.

As a fan of George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman series I have seen this film many times and it's a treat to finally own a widescreen transfer on DVD. Royal Flash is the 1975 film based on the second "Flashman" novel of the same name. It stars Malcolm McDowell as Captain Harry Flashman, Oliver Reed as future German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, Alan Bates as Rudi von Sternberg, Britt Ekland as the chilly Princess Irma, and Florinda Bolkan plays the actress/mistress of mad Bavarian King Ludwig. Lola Montez. It also features the best Scrooge ever, Alastair Sim, and a pre-"Roger Rabbit" Bob Hoskins in minor but memorable parts. Fraser wrote the screenplay and the film was directed by Richard Lester. It is very similar in style to their collaboration on The Three/Four Musketeers films of 1973/1974, which also featured great locales, swordfighting galore and an ideal cast. OK, first, the BAD news: although I saw a 1975 preview screening in Ottawa I have never seen the original longer version, which apparently was released and trimmed to 102 minutes shortly after. Sadly, this footage, which apparently featured Lester regular actor Roy Kinnear in some scenes, does NOT appear on the DVD. There are some special features, including the theatrical trailer and a couple of mini-documentaries made around 2004. Another quibble some Flashy purists have expressed is that McDowell is not "stout" enough to play Harry. I think the natural devilment in Malcolm's performance more than makes up for his stature, and they even try to make him broad-chested in the film. I'm a Flashy purist too, and I prefer the tall lancer figure portrayed by Barbosa on the original book covers to the rather fat portraits on the current book covers. Finally, some have objected to the "slapstick" nature of the film, and perhaps these readers are more interested in Flashy's military campaigns than his rollicking amorous adventures. How much you like Lester's use of muttered quips and style of shooting will perhaps guide you: if you like "A Hard Day's Night", "Help!" or the Musketeers films you should enjoy this one. If you're looking for Kubrick, move along. Here's the GOOD news: the widescreen transfer is fine, the outdoor location shots still gorgeous and the movie is great fun. It is still a puzzle to me why such a fine film stiffed at the box office and was hard to find on TV or video for so many years. But you don't even have to be a fan of the books to enjoy this movie, or know the fascinating actual histories of Bismarck or Lola Montes to enjoy the larger-than-life characters. P.S. any resemblance to the classic "Prisoner of Zenda" is entirely deliberate. Eight out of ten stars, only because I hope the "lost" footage has survived and may be available in a (Blu-Ray, please!) version soon.

As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.

One of my favorite period farces. It's very reminiscent of Adventures of Brigadier Gérard (1970). Malcolm McDowell's performance is brilliant and brazen. With lines like . . . "T'ain't the weapon. T'is the man behind it!", I can't help but be reminded of Rik Mayall's Lord Flashheart. Hooray! Woof!

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!

No one is a greater fan of Geroge Macdonald Fraser's Flashman papers than I am.

I was surprised to see just now that Richard Lester directed Royal Flash, since I also see he had made the Three/Four Musketeers with Fraser which I though turned out rather well.

Not so Royal Flash.

I was 12 years old when the film was released and could not have been more enthusiastic since I had read all the Flashman papers published up to that time, and was intoxicated with A Clockwork Orange and Malcolm MacDowel (I still am, but he was never really given a chance after that).

What a disappointment (I saw it once again when I was about 20 on television and it seemed even worse).

None of the sharp dialogue in the books is transfered to the screen. The comedy of Flashman's character seemed to me to have been mishandled in about the same way one could imagine a group of high school students trying to parody it would do. The dueling and fencing was awful and undramatic.

Looking back with more mature eyes, the film failed completer to exploit the possibilities of direct satire of earlier film versions of the Prisoner of Zenda.

If you have read the book and not seen the film, I can only say that the film ends with Flashman and Rudi von Starnberg becoming fast friends and playing a game Rudi has just invented: Russian roulette.

A pathetic betrayal of everything the books are about.

My comments would be more direct if I had seen the film more recently, but I am glad I have not.

If by any chance Fraser ever reads this, I can only say I think he is a genius--perhaps the greatest comic novelist of his generation, but, based on my appreciation of that corpus of work, it as hard to believe that he wrote the screenplay of this film, as that he did all those awful Roger Moore James Bond films.

Lots of laughs in this zany Brit comedy in which Malcolm McDowell plays a worthless, womanizing jerk whom is cruelly used in a political scheme by evil Count Von Bismarck in order to overthrow a rival country. I don't usually care for British comedy but this one was way good: slapstick all the way.

ROYAL FLASH is another enjoyable historical romp from writer/director George McDonald Fraser and Richard Lester following on from their earlier in the decade outing in the form of THE THREE MUSKETEERS. This one's made in the same lively spirit, with lots of intrigue and humorous heroics as our ne'er-do-well hero Flashman gets involved in a European plot that sees him masquerading as a prince due to the machinations of the scheming Otto von Bismarck. Malcolm McDowell proves a fitting choice for lead, even enjoying himself in a dual role later on in the proceedings, while Oliver Reed's Bismarck is a real scene-stealer.

Okay I'll admit this now I was always likely to enjoy this "romp" as I'm a fan of George MacDonald Fraser's scripts, director Richard Lester and actor Malcolm McDowell, who in terms of physique is completely miscast as the title character Harry Flashman (either Oliver Reed or Alan Bates, both co-stars here would have been much more in keeping) but if you don't know that it doesn't matter!

As with all Lester films much of the fun is in the cartoon-like staging of the action (Flashmans attempted escape from Von Bismark's castle by wooden horse is a particular highlight) and deployment of dialogue in the margins - a comment from a background character here, an insult from someone unseen among the thong there. Anyone watching this in Britain can have the added pleasure of playing spot the future star under a carpets of facial hair and out-sized head wear. The locations are both beautifully regal and dismally damp and dark during a Bavarian winter caught by the ever so slightly diffused lenses of DP Geoffrey Unsworth.

If you enjoyed the Three and Four Musketeers films you'll probably find this slice of derring-do well worth your time. One day we might even get the chance to see a full length restoration edit MacDonald Fraser was disappointed with the handling of the film by 20th Century Fox and swore he'd not become involved with any adaptations again, with his death now 10 year ago it's surely time for someone to consider bring Flashman back to the screen - anyone from the BBC reading this? A short series of 90 min Sherlock type dramas would surely sell far and wide.

This is a quite hyperactive, wacky spoof type comedy film. The characters seem somewhat comic strip-esque and the comedy is very much visual, slapstick in style. The story is pretty ludicrous (but of course!) but I guess thats where some of the fun and entertainment comes from, that its not entirely predictable. It reminded me a little of films such as The Naked Gun,Hot Shots or Johnny English, in terms of the action sequences, action mixed with comedy.

I liked how it pokes fun at the upper classes, although the obvious sexism present didn't surprise me but maybe wasn't ideal...there again perhaps its having a go at that aspect of other such, non-comedic films?. Its a pretty daft but quite entertaining and amusing watch, so I'd recommend it on that basis, although it is a little saucy, with some offensive language and mild sexual scenes/content, so its not suitable for young children to see. I thought the choreography of the fight scenes was quite good and there are some quite witty lines present in the dialogue.

There are some pretty big names present in the cast, including Britt Ekland and Bob Hoskins, plus Alastair Sim, Joss Ackland and Malcolm McDowell. Due to this, I'm surprised the film isn't more well known - I certainly hadn't heard of it until I noticed the TV channel Talking Pictures mention it on social media. I enjoyed it as a film and would recommend it to others.

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 etc

As 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.

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.

A visually excellent comedy, could be viewed for the amazing photography alone. (There was no "cheating" back then, no computers to artificially play around with the colours of the film, RF's colours are refreshingly real.)

RF gets a little too goofy at times, i.e. too cartoonish, but a surprising number of gags actually work, thanks mostly to McDowell who could have been doing comedies his whole career were he not such an obvious choice for heavies. He steals the show from Bates and Reed, who are solid. The movie is fast-paced fun from the word go, without over-relying too much on dull action scenes.

The only drawback is the moronic ending, too dumb even for a comedy, with McDowell actually going back to the trollop played by a rather homely actress (bad bad casting). This is moronic because it's quite obvious that it was she who delivered him to Bismarck in the first place. Until that point, there was little to indicate to the viewer that McDowell was a naïve imbecile, much less the type to fall in love, given that he was presented to us as the typical playboy type, hence him seeking out Lola and then being so easily played by her was totally out of character. (Yeah, yeah, it's just a comedy, fine.) Speaking of which, who could possible fall in love with that? That actress is quite ugly. It's a shame that a movie with such high levels of aesthetics would have such a poor-looking woman in the lead role.

"Carmina Burana" should never be used in a comedy, no matter where or when it's set.

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.

I loved this movie when I saw it on HBO in the Seventies. That's because I only caught the bedroom scenes where Flashman seduces an innocent German princess, who goes from chaste and unresponsive to eager and passionate in about five minutes. That part was absolutely fabulous!

But the whole rest of the movie was very, very bad slapstick, set ups that drag on for hours (the raid on the casino) and then payoffs that are all prat falls and silly pile ups. The humor is never funny, and adventure moves at a snail's pace.

Malcolm McDowell is legendary for playing brutal teen psycho Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, so I suppose someone assumed he'd be perfect for a cad, liar, and coward like Flashman. But it doesn't work, because where Alex just wants to rape, beat, and steal, Flashman has to keep acting like a horse's ass, saying stuff like "damme, an Englishman shouldn't have to talk to foreigners! Have the girl stripped naked and brought to my bed!" Maybe, fifty or sixty years ago, someone found it shocking and subversively thrilling to have a British officer talk like a stuffed shirt while acting like a teenage hoodlum on a rampage. But looking back it's just painfully unfunny, and McDowll is strangely listless in the role. It's not the violence that he can't sell -- it's the ham-handed social satire.

Flashman is a snob. We get it. Move on!

Hilarious film-although I wish they'd dig up the two-hour original. However, they shoUld have stuck to the original adventure novel and indeed filmed all the Flashman books in order the way they were written.

Setting aside the success of the Flashman novels, which features a cowardly scoundrel and womanizer Capt. Harry Flashman, this film adaptation of the second novel set in the early days of the Victorian period is a mixed bag. Mixing skittish buffonery and lightheartedness with seriousness and scenes of violence, tonally it is awkward and uneven. With an array of gallant heroes, dastardly villains, pure maidens and lusty wenches introduced, the story loses purpose and pattern. McDowell loses the focus of his character, revelling in the outrage and menace yet coming up short on the more charming and susataining aspects: tall, handsome, impeccable, caddish and projecting the charm and ego of a character we are supposed to identify with; so the story loses purpose too. There are brief moments of amusement and silliness throughout, but tonally it is amiss.