This is one of those films whose poster I had admired (in an old scrapbook of my father's filled with such vintage ads) long before I ever had the opportunity to watch it; as it happened, I first acquired a mediocre pan-and-scan VHS-sourced edition, which I eventually upgraded to a much superior (but still imperfect) HDTV rip – for the record, the movie was released on R2 DVD not too long ago. Incidentally, it was also known on its home ground back in the day as BLOOD ON THE SWORD and, obviously enough, has nothing whatsoever to do with the much later James Bond extravaganza.It is a typically handsomely-mounted British historical epic, offering a familiar plot line (set at the time of Oliver Cromwell and Charles Stuart), standard thrills (including plenty of intrigue, disguises, chases, swashbuckling action and, of course, a hesitant romance between people emanating from warring factions), attractive scenery and costumes, etc. Another plus is the sturdy cast: led by George Baker (as the titular avenging figure, at times he bore an uncanny resemblance to Roxy Music's Bryan Ferry!), with Sylvia Syms, Marius Goring (the latter two are engaged to be married and side with the oppressor but, when she learns to respect the enemy and aids in his ultimate escape, her humourless intended – his pride hurt – opts to free the woman from any obligation rather than consign her to the authorities!), Peter Arne (dressed-up for much of the proceedings as a minister, but inevitably emerging a villainous character whose climactic showdown with the hero – starting in the dining-hall of an inn, descending to its cellar and culminating on a rocky shore – leaves both a bloody mess!), Gary Raymond (curiously unbilled during the opening credits – which made me think his was going to be a bit part rather than a pivotal one! – as the hunted royal), John Le Mesurier (surprisingly turning up briefly early on as Cromwell), Patrick Troughton, George Woodbridge and child actor Michael Anderson Jr., among others. A portly and annoyingly cranky traveler also eventually proves heroic and a martyr to the Royalist cause he shamelessly sympathizes with in the face of the enemy. For what it is worth, the fact that the second half takes place almost exclusively within the confines of an inn betrays the script's origins as a stage play.As I said, the film – which evidently uses "The Scarlet Pimpernel" as a template, down to "The Moonraker" having his own popular ballad reprised throughout the film! – deals with a turbulent period in history that was much in vogue throughout the heyday of British cinema, numbering such disparate films as BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE (1948; though it deals with a different Charles Stuart!), THE SCARLET BLADE (1963; the one it comes closest to in narrative, style and even quality), WITCHFINDER GENERAL (1968; in which Cromwell is, again, no more than a marginal presence) and CROMWELL (1970; a large-scale biopic of the controversial Roundhead leader and Parliamentarian). For what it is worth, as had been the case with the recently-viewed CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS (1949), I also have a Vittorio Cottafavi-directed Italian TV mini-series dating from 1969 dealing with the exploits of Oliver Cromwell in my unwatched pile...

George Baker is so handsome and beautifully spoken that it hardly matters if his acting isn't up to much - unlike Laurence Harvey,his contemporary, who was also handsome and beautifully spoken but whose lack of thespic talent I found extremely grating.Possibly because Mr Harvey had pretensions and Mr Baker was cheerfully light hearted and frivolous.As "The Moonraker" he is having fun,pure and simple.He is not in the least convincing as a 17th century peer and it doesn't matter,it's only a movie.And you should have seen it in 1958 when the screen was dazzled by Miss Sylvia Sims' blue eyes and Mr Paul Whitsun-Jones' bluff and cheery heroics.The bright colours,the echoing hoofbeats,the swordplay,the clifftops.what a feast for a 17 year old in those innocent days. The story-about the rescue of the young King Charles from Cromwell's troops-is not the point of this movie.It was a genuine English attempt to do a "Prince Valiant",if you like,a home made Hollywood epic on a far more modest scale,and,as such,it was a great success.With more familiar British actors than you could shake a stick at,it makes great TV for the 21st century - but you should have seen it in 1958.

'The Moonraker' is a somewhat lacklustre swashbuckler with certain touches of originality. The beginning, based loosely around the final stages of Charles II's famous oak-tree escape after the Battle of Worcester, is frankly tedious, despite all the galloping horses and hack-and-slashery. Neither the King nor those who aid him -- including the "Moonraker" himself -- seem to come to life, and the action, as elsewhere in the film, gives the impression of being done by numbers. The swashbuckling elements of this film are really not its strong point: no matter what it tries, it manages somehow to come across as working down a list of clichés to be ticked.Hero swings across the room? Tick. Precarious rope bridge spanning a chasm? Tick. Doublet slashed open to reveal wadding -- branch of candles cut in half -- rolling dive through window frame: tick, tick, tick. And I've never seen so many swords clapped obviously under the victims' armpits before!All this is the stuff of tradition, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it's the business of the film to make it feel joyous -- fresh and new -- and instead it contrives to make it dull.Events pick up as soon as the character work begins, with a public coach of assorted travellers... and what with the amount of recapitulation around this point, one gets the impression that the film could just as well have been started here, and probably have benefited by it. With hindsight the script's stage-play origins can be perceived, given the narrowly-confined setting from this moment on: almost all the scenes take place within the four walls of the inn. And since it is in the dialogue and the interplay of the characters that almost all of the enjoyment lies, I have a melancholy suspicion that this film's good qualities are due to its original, while its faults lie largely in the added material.For it is not until his arrival among the others at the inn that I found the Moonraker himself at all interesting. George Baker, handicapped by a dodgy contemporary haircut, really doesn't have the charisma to persuade in the dashing hero role, but conveys a real sense of mischief in his assumed Puritan disguise, where he is far more fun to watch. The innkeeper and his wife, who ultimately play only a small part in the plot, come to life from their initial appearance, and are the first characters whose troubles actually arouse our concern. And Parfitt, whose ultimate fate goes undeservedly all but unnoticed, is a fine comic foil who serves to push the plot along.But perhaps the best-developed character is that of Anne Wyndham, whose principles drive her first to betray the Moonraker and then her lover, the worthy but dull Cromwellian Colonel. Swashbuckler conventions require that she first scorn the hero and then fall passionately in love and be rescued by him; but here convention is subverted. She faces a very real divided tug of loyalties, between the man she has known, liked and admired since she was a child and the politics they both believe in, and the Cavalier who makes her laugh and dares against the odds, but espouses the cause that killed her father and brothers. And her gallant lie is all too swiftly found out.It would be easy to have her fall at the Moonraker's feet. But she doesn't, and is all the more interesting for that. The play does not demonise its Puritan characters, with the exception of Major Gregg, who is disavowed by his fellow officers at the beginning and made to demonstrate sufficient obligatory sadism to label him as the villain we are intended to hate. Colonel Beaumont, Anne's intended husband, is portrayed as a competent commander and not unsympathetic man, and we cannot help but feel for their situation when he discovers her shielding the Royalists.So far, so good -- and the human drama lasts almost to the end. But as soon as it breaks into action again the film reverts to being second-rate. I don't understand why. But the power of the piece doesn't lie in Gregg and his quarry scrambling improbably across the cliff-face stabbing at each other, or in troopers tumbling into the abyss; it lies in Colonel Beaumont's final quiet interview with Anne as his prisoner. I'd be very interested to see the script of the original play, for this film feels as if it is trying to force a character study into a glossy adventure format it was never intended to support.I'm not sure if the problems are with the budget and its inadequate (and occasionally risible!) special effects, the casting of the title role, or the failed attempts to expand out from what is essentially a restricted stage set. As a swashbuckler, this lacks charisma... as a chamber piece it could have been quite interesting.

Earl Anthony (aka The Moonraker) is a gentleman swordsman who is the thorn in the side of Oliver Cromwell and his battle to rid Britain of the royalists. The Moonraker is feared among Cromwell's men and has been responsible for the escape of over 30 royalists to France. When Anthony tries to lead Prince Charles Stuart to safety after a defeat at the hands of Cromwell, they are recognised and forced to evade capture – but can they get passage to France in time?Contrary to my wife's beliefs, I didn't watch this film in the mistaken belief that Roger Moore was going to burst onto the screen at any moment, but at times I wished he had. The film is a old fashioned swashbuckler done without too much in the way of individual flair. The plot is easy to predict and it is much more wordy that I had expected, with much of the second half being confined to an Inn. That said it still is enjoyable and is worth watching for what it is.The fights are a little dull and there is nothing to suggest that Anthony is worthy of his fearsome reputation but the sense of period is good. The film drifts between romance and action with an uneasy lilt to it, but the romance works well as it has the darker edge of being forbidden.The characters are all a little flat with the odd exception. Baker doesn't manage to bring anything to the role of Moonraker except the normal leading man strong jaw and big chest. The support cast are all colleagues or `evil' bad guys, the love interest is OK but is won over a little too easily. A horrid bit of miscasting is Le Mesurier as Cromwell. We all know what type of roles he is famous for playing and the end result here is that Cromwell comes off as one of them and not a real threat.Overall I enjoyed this film even though it didn't really distinguish itself in any specific way. As part of the genre it is par for the course and will please those who like this type of thing.