Scaramouche

Incredibly spectacular but not half as good as the 1952 version
While the 1952 version can't match Rex Ingram's incredibly lavish 1923 silent version for sheer spectacle, it has to be said that in most other respects the original Scaramouche doesn't measure up to its successor. Roman Novarro's Scaramouche certainly doesn't seem to have been born with the gift of laughter, spending most of the film brooding instead of swashing buckles. Here he's more of a revolutionary firebrand, with more of an emphasis on the political side of the period leading up to the Revolution, but it's also a much more unfocussed narrative, with the story crawling as Andre drifts between the various roles fate casts him in. It suffers from a much weaker villain in Lewis Stone, more of a nuisance than a threat despite the actor's best efforts (though it is amusing when he's unable to recall a wench who presents him with his illegitimate son), and Alice Terry's leading lady is a far less appealing proposition than his co-star on the stage. Costing Metro Pictures (soon to be...

The Silent Good Scaramouche
When I was very young I saw the brillant movie with Stewart Granger and Mel Ferrer, but when after I read the novel by Raphael Sabatini, it seams to me, not so alike...Now, in DVD, I saw the silent movie with Ramon Novarro and, with the limits as the absence of colours, and sound, the film was far much respectuous to Sabatini's story.



Click to Editorial Reviews