James Robertson Justice gives an Oscar-caliber performance as King Henry VIII, tangling with little sister, Princess Mary Tudor, over her love life: he wants to sell her to France where she would marry elderly King Louis XII, but she is madly in love with adventurer Charles Brandon. Disney film encompasses all of their early strengths as a studio: enchanting romance, sly good humor, sword-fighting action, terrific production values and beautiful background score (which, by the way, if you find on vinyl is worth a pretty penny). Pure fun, with captivating Glynis Johns as Mary, Richard Todd dashing as Brandon, and Justice the best English King I have ever seen on film. A joy! *** from ****
22 Reviews
History as It Should Have Been
JamesHitchcock25 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Princess Mary Tudor, the younger sister of King Henry VIII, was briefly married to King Louis XII of France, who died only a few weeks after their marriage. After returning to England, she married Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, in secret and without her brother's consent. Henry was initially angered by this, but was eventually reconciled with his sister and her husband.
"The Sword and the Rose" tells the story of Mary and Brandon, but does not always stick closely to historical truth. Most of the characters are played as considerably older than they would have been in 1514/5 when the action takes place, most notably Henry, played by James Robertson Justice as the corpulent, bearded, middle-aged man which he became later in his reign, although in 1514 he was still in his early twenties, slim, handsome and clean-shaven. Louis, although a lot older than his young bride Mary, was not the senile dotard portrayed here; he died in his early fifties. His successor Francis I was only twenty when he became King, but the character shown here is considerably older.
The inaccuracies are not confined to the characters' ages. Francis was not Louis's son but a distant cousin, so would not have been referred to as "the Dauphin". Francis never offered to divorce his wife Claude if Mary would marry him. (Claude was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, so such a divorce would have led to Brittany becoming an independent country). A villain is provided in the shape of the Duke of Buckingham, a disappointed rival for Mary's hand, but the real Buckingham was already married by this time and would not have been looking for a wife. The most bizarre departure from historical fact when Mary and Brandon attempt to elope on a ship to the New World, something which not only never happened but which could not have happened, as there were no English colonies in the Americas in the 1510s, and would not be for another few decades. (John Cabot had claimed Newfoundland for the English Crown in the 1490s, but this was for the sake of fishing rights, not because any English people of the period wanted to go and live there).
Despite its dubious grasp on history, however, "The Sword and the Rose" is a good-natured and enjoyable family adventure film. Glynis Johns makes an attractive and spirited heroine and Richard Todd a dashing hero. Justice seemed to specialise in playing characters who were outwardly autocratic and overbearing but inwardly decent, like the surgeon Sir Lancelot Spratt in the "Doctor" series, and his Henry is essentially Sir Lancelot sent back several centuries in time and promoted to Royal status. Never mind that the real Henry, a brutal, foul-minded tyrant responsible for the judicial murder of many of his subjects, including two of his wives, was not really like this. This is not English history as it was. This is English history as it should have been. 6/10
"The Sword and the Rose" tells the story of Mary and Brandon, but does not always stick closely to historical truth. Most of the characters are played as considerably older than they would have been in 1514/5 when the action takes place, most notably Henry, played by James Robertson Justice as the corpulent, bearded, middle-aged man which he became later in his reign, although in 1514 he was still in his early twenties, slim, handsome and clean-shaven. Louis, although a lot older than his young bride Mary, was not the senile dotard portrayed here; he died in his early fifties. His successor Francis I was only twenty when he became King, but the character shown here is considerably older.
The inaccuracies are not confined to the characters' ages. Francis was not Louis's son but a distant cousin, so would not have been referred to as "the Dauphin". Francis never offered to divorce his wife Claude if Mary would marry him. (Claude was Duchess of Brittany in her own right, so such a divorce would have led to Brittany becoming an independent country). A villain is provided in the shape of the Duke of Buckingham, a disappointed rival for Mary's hand, but the real Buckingham was already married by this time and would not have been looking for a wife. The most bizarre departure from historical fact when Mary and Brandon attempt to elope on a ship to the New World, something which not only never happened but which could not have happened, as there were no English colonies in the Americas in the 1510s, and would not be for another few decades. (John Cabot had claimed Newfoundland for the English Crown in the 1490s, but this was for the sake of fishing rights, not because any English people of the period wanted to go and live there).
Despite its dubious grasp on history, however, "The Sword and the Rose" is a good-natured and enjoyable family adventure film. Glynis Johns makes an attractive and spirited heroine and Richard Todd a dashing hero. Justice seemed to specialise in playing characters who were outwardly autocratic and overbearing but inwardly decent, like the surgeon Sir Lancelot Spratt in the "Doctor" series, and his Henry is essentially Sir Lancelot sent back several centuries in time and promoted to Royal status. Never mind that the real Henry, a brutal, foul-minded tyrant responsible for the judicial murder of many of his subjects, including two of his wives, was not really like this. This is not English history as it was. This is English history as it should have been. 6/10
Colourful and moving if throughly inaccurate slice of Walt Disney history
ma-cortes1 March 2022
Obstinate princess Mary Tudor , (Glynis Johns) , sister of king Henry VIII (James Robertson Justice) , shuns the advances of a nobleman , Duke of Buckingham (Michael Gough) , for the love of a commoner named Charles Brandon (Richard Todd) . She attempts to escape to America with her love but is captured on board ship . In return for her consent , Henry VIII agrees to marry her the elderly King of France Louis XII , who'll be succeded by Francisco I . But things go wrong when she is abducted . Then his sweetheart , the valiant commoner Charles Brandon, attempts to rescue her love by exciting feats and thrilling fights againt enemies .Now ! Walt Disney brings new excitement to romance !. A Forbidden Love That Threatened Two King !
Historical film packs romance , emotion , sword-play and being fast-moving . Interesting and attractive screenplay based on the book : ¨When knighthood was in flower¨ . Main and support cast are pretty well . Glynis Johns and James Robertson Justice make an extraordinary battle of wits , they were two of the foremost British talents at the time , while Richard Todd plays adequately a brave communer . They're well accompanied by a nice cast , such as : Michael Gough as the nasty Duke of Buckingham , Jane Barrett , Peter Copley , Rosalie Crutchley , Anthony Sharp , Patrick Cargill, the French Gérard Oury as Dauphin of France , among others.
In The Sword and the Rose (1953) stands out the colorful and brilliant cinematography in Walt Disney style by cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth . As well as the evocative and imaginative musical score by Clifton Parker . The motion picture was uneven but competently directed by Ken Annakin , though being sporadically fun and entertaining enough . In the 1960s he was one of several British directors along with Guy Green, John Guillermin who specialized in turning out all-star , splashy, big-budget European/American co-productions, shot on the Continent . He was one of the directors of the epic World War II spectacle The longest day (1962) and went solo on Battle of the Bulge (1965), both of which were financial--if not exactly critical--successes. Ken was an expert on Adventure genre as ¨The new adventures of Pippi Longstockings¨, ¨Pirate movie¨ , ¨Paper tiger¨, ¨The fifth Musketeer¨ , ¨Call of wild¨, ¨The Swiss family Robinson¨, ¨Land of fury¨, ¨The Sword and the Rose¨, ¨The story of Robin Hood and his Merry Men¨, ¨Third man on the mountain¨ and Wartime genre as ¨Battle of the Bulge¨, and ¨The Longest day¨. Rating 6/10 . Acceptable and passable. The flick will appeal to historical genre enthusiasts . Well worth watching ,
Historical film packs romance , emotion , sword-play and being fast-moving . Interesting and attractive screenplay based on the book : ¨When knighthood was in flower¨ . Main and support cast are pretty well . Glynis Johns and James Robertson Justice make an extraordinary battle of wits , they were two of the foremost British talents at the time , while Richard Todd plays adequately a brave communer . They're well accompanied by a nice cast , such as : Michael Gough as the nasty Duke of Buckingham , Jane Barrett , Peter Copley , Rosalie Crutchley , Anthony Sharp , Patrick Cargill, the French Gérard Oury as Dauphin of France , among others.
In The Sword and the Rose (1953) stands out the colorful and brilliant cinematography in Walt Disney style by cameraman Geoffrey Unsworth . As well as the evocative and imaginative musical score by Clifton Parker . The motion picture was uneven but competently directed by Ken Annakin , though being sporadically fun and entertaining enough . In the 1960s he was one of several British directors along with Guy Green, John Guillermin who specialized in turning out all-star , splashy, big-budget European/American co-productions, shot on the Continent . He was one of the directors of the epic World War II spectacle The longest day (1962) and went solo on Battle of the Bulge (1965), both of which were financial--if not exactly critical--successes. Ken was an expert on Adventure genre as ¨The new adventures of Pippi Longstockings¨, ¨Pirate movie¨ , ¨Paper tiger¨, ¨The fifth Musketeer¨ , ¨Call of wild¨, ¨The Swiss family Robinson¨, ¨Land of fury¨, ¨The Sword and the Rose¨, ¨The story of Robin Hood and his Merry Men¨, ¨Third man on the mountain¨ and Wartime genre as ¨Battle of the Bulge¨, and ¨The Longest day¨. Rating 6/10 . Acceptable and passable. The flick will appeal to historical genre enthusiasts . Well worth watching ,
Some Comments on the Characters
schweinhundt19679 February 2003
Disney was,of course,the best one for family entertainment.He really did create the market for films and television programs designed specifically for children.My only observation that can be seen as at all less than glowing is that,while violence per se is never eschewed,moral ambiguities are.Evil,for example,is portrayed in a relatively straightforward fashion,but bias,bigotry,and viciousness usually aren't.Consequently, the characterizations seen in his films are often less than 3 dimensional.His good characters,consequently,lack the flaws and failings that would round them out.
It's my understanding that Disney himself came from an emotionally and physically abusive background,characterized by alcoholism and a lack of love.I think,therefore,that his OWN search for nurturing figures,safety,and security show up in many of his films,reflected in the struggles and psychological journies of his protagonists.Not at all unusual,and indeed,perhaps inevitable.Nonetheless,as a result,his films need to be interpreted with this in mind.
This splendid,well-done,and highly enjoyable romance gives a delightful performance by Mr. Justice,which is historically less than accurate.Justice's portrayal of King Henry is that of a hearty,virile,good-natured and larger than life figure,who possess not only a sense of humor,but one of fun.He's both lovable and loving.This is the monarch that we wish Henry HAD been!And,sad to say,he wasn't.The really Henry VIII was a selfish,lustful,bloodthirsty,and boorish tyrant and monster,who crushed anyone who stood in his way.So,enjoy Justice's performance,based on the lusty,witty,drunken Falstaff.
It's my understanding that Disney himself came from an emotionally and physically abusive background,characterized by alcoholism and a lack of love.I think,therefore,that his OWN search for nurturing figures,safety,and security show up in many of his films,reflected in the struggles and psychological journies of his protagonists.Not at all unusual,and indeed,perhaps inevitable.Nonetheless,as a result,his films need to be interpreted with this in mind.
This splendid,well-done,and highly enjoyable romance gives a delightful performance by Mr. Justice,which is historically less than accurate.Justice's portrayal of King Henry is that of a hearty,virile,good-natured and larger than life figure,who possess not only a sense of humor,but one of fun.He's both lovable and loving.This is the monarch that we wish Henry HAD been!And,sad to say,he wasn't.The really Henry VIII was a selfish,lustful,bloodthirsty,and boorish tyrant and monster,who crushed anyone who stood in his way.So,enjoy Justice's performance,based on the lusty,witty,drunken Falstaff.
Medieval love tale!!
elo-equipamentos24 April 2018
Hoping for a small dealer try out bring this amazing picture restored to Brazil, as a Disney production it can be quite possible, l have a silver disc bootleg with the classic dubbed version but the images is very bad, all those wonderful sets and shooting on location in England will be great restored, apart the couple Richard Todd and Glynnis Johns who stolen the movie is the great actor James Robertson Justice as smart king Henry VIII, nice and funny entertainment!!
Resume:
First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7
Resume:
First watch: 2018 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7
1514: Mary Tudor loves a commoner. The king wants her wed to Louis XII of France.
JohnHowardReid1 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
NOTES: A very close remake of Paramount's 1922 12-reel feature When Knighthood Was In Flower which starred Marion Davies as Mary Tudor, Lyn Harding as Henry VIII, and Forrest Stanley as Charles Brandon. The screenplay was penned by Luther Reed, the director was Robert G. Vignola.
COMMENT: Despite the great care that went into its preparation and execution, this film was neither a critical nor a particularly popular success. Most audiences had sated their appetites with Disney's previous live action swashbuckler with Richard Todd and James Robertson Justice, The Story of Robin Hood (1952) which was also produced by Pearce, directed by Annakin from a screenplay by Watkin, with sets by Dillon, photography by Unsworth and music by Parker. As for the critics, what they objected to was Major's free way with history. But why they didn't raise these objections when the novel was first published back in 1898 but saved them up to level at Disney fifty-five years later is just another arrow in the movie-maker's quiver of gripes against the third estate in general, critics in particular. The freedom with which Major treated history was bound to rile some 1953 purists, however, but please don't count me among them. That didn't worry me. What did concern me is that the script is so lightweight it never really engages our interest on any but the most superficial level. The characters are little more than the stock heroes, heroines, villains and fools of juvenile historical fiction. The players can do little to breathe life into such pasteboard figures, though there are some engaging performances, particularly James Robertson Justice's hearty Henry VIII. The direction too is not without vigor. Real locations are used with skill, sets and costumes are most attractive. A moderate budget is cleverly made to look more expansive through skilled matte work. Although the plotting is as predictable as the characters one-dimensional, The Sword and the Rose still adds up to passable entertainment, inoffensive and innocuous, for anyone with 93 minutes to while away.
COMMENT: Despite the great care that went into its preparation and execution, this film was neither a critical nor a particularly popular success. Most audiences had sated their appetites with Disney's previous live action swashbuckler with Richard Todd and James Robertson Justice, The Story of Robin Hood (1952) which was also produced by Pearce, directed by Annakin from a screenplay by Watkin, with sets by Dillon, photography by Unsworth and music by Parker. As for the critics, what they objected to was Major's free way with history. But why they didn't raise these objections when the novel was first published back in 1898 but saved them up to level at Disney fifty-five years later is just another arrow in the movie-maker's quiver of gripes against the third estate in general, critics in particular. The freedom with which Major treated history was bound to rile some 1953 purists, however, but please don't count me among them. That didn't worry me. What did concern me is that the script is so lightweight it never really engages our interest on any but the most superficial level. The characters are little more than the stock heroes, heroines, villains and fools of juvenile historical fiction. The players can do little to breathe life into such pasteboard figures, though there are some engaging performances, particularly James Robertson Justice's hearty Henry VIII. The direction too is not without vigor. Real locations are used with skill, sets and costumes are most attractive. A moderate budget is cleverly made to look more expansive through skilled matte work. Although the plotting is as predictable as the characters one-dimensional, The Sword and the Rose still adds up to passable entertainment, inoffensive and innocuous, for anyone with 93 minutes to while away.
Adequate Costume Drama
screenman28 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
For its age, this one isn't doing too badly. As a Disney production it was never going to be serious stuff like 'The Lion In Winter', neither was it going to be a sword 'n' sandals epic. Still; there's a lot worse.
James Robertson-Justice plays Henry 8th with bags of regal - if rather tongue-in-cheek - gusto. He's out to marry-off his obstinate sister Mary to the King of France. She, of course, has her own ideas. Glynis Johns convincingly plays the sister with her usual sultry charm. Enter a new champion in the guise of rather wooden-looking Richard Todd. Unfortunately, he's a commoner. But this is Disney, so love must triumph. Though it must also contend with plenty of shenanigans and betrayals first. There's a variety of courtly courtiers with recognisable faces, and more important - recognisable accents. Not a single Yank did I hear. It's filmed in colour which is quite sumptuous. Set pieces are decent, costumes look 'fit-for purpose' as they say, and the script is a lot cleverer than some.
It's hokey, as you'd expect from a Disney interpretation of English history, but if you catch it as a matinée, it's good for a laugh. I think our late Lord-Liege got pretty good press in this one compared with the evidence of history. At times, I couldn't help thinking of 'Carry On Henry'.
This movie just seemed to miss its mark. There were moments when it offered to develop into a much more subtle and intelligent work. But each time things were stymied by a joke or some shallow dramatic turn. Still, I guess it was made with kids in mind.
James Robertson-Justice plays Henry 8th with bags of regal - if rather tongue-in-cheek - gusto. He's out to marry-off his obstinate sister Mary to the King of France. She, of course, has her own ideas. Glynis Johns convincingly plays the sister with her usual sultry charm. Enter a new champion in the guise of rather wooden-looking Richard Todd. Unfortunately, he's a commoner. But this is Disney, so love must triumph. Though it must also contend with plenty of shenanigans and betrayals first. There's a variety of courtly courtiers with recognisable faces, and more important - recognisable accents. Not a single Yank did I hear. It's filmed in colour which is quite sumptuous. Set pieces are decent, costumes look 'fit-for purpose' as they say, and the script is a lot cleverer than some.
It's hokey, as you'd expect from a Disney interpretation of English history, but if you catch it as a matinée, it's good for a laugh. I think our late Lord-Liege got pretty good press in this one compared with the evidence of history. At times, I couldn't help thinking of 'Carry On Henry'.
This movie just seemed to miss its mark. There were moments when it offered to develop into a much more subtle and intelligent work. But each time things were stymied by a joke or some shallow dramatic turn. Still, I guess it was made with kids in mind.
Nice production value but it's pretty unadventurous for a romantic adventure.
hitchcockthelegend12 May 2011
Out of Walt Disney productions, The Sword and the Rose (AKA: When Knighthood Was in Flower) is directed by Ken Annakin and adapted to screenplay by Lawrence Edward Watkin from the novel "When Knighthood Was In Flower" written by Charles Major. Story is based around Mary Tudor (Glynis Johns), a younger sister of Henry VIII (James Robertson Justice), who falls in love with a new arrival at court, Charles Brandon (Richard Todd). This severely upsets The Duke Of Buckingham (Michael Gough) and it sets in motion the wheels of jealousy and political shenanigans.
The source material had already inspired two films to be made in 1908 and 1922, suggesting that as a story it has much to offer. But although it's undeniably colourful, with great costuming, and good acting performances, it's a dull affair all told. It doesn't even have historical accuracy to fall back on as an excuse for how lacklustre it is. The romance is lukewarm and there's never any exciting pay off as regards the battle for Mary's love between Buckingham and Brandon. There's fun value in Justice's take on Henry VIII, while the sets are exemplary, but even allowing for it being a Disney family effort, it's a film that can bore both adults and children alike. 4/10
The source material had already inspired two films to be made in 1908 and 1922, suggesting that as a story it has much to offer. But although it's undeniably colourful, with great costuming, and good acting performances, it's a dull affair all told. It doesn't even have historical accuracy to fall back on as an excuse for how lacklustre it is. The romance is lukewarm and there's never any exciting pay off as regards the battle for Mary's love between Buckingham and Brandon. There's fun value in Justice's take on Henry VIII, while the sets are exemplary, but even allowing for it being a Disney family effort, it's a film that can bore both adults and children alike. 4/10
Not a swashbuckler but an enchanting romance
piapia5 August 1999
This is not an action picture, but an enchanting historical or pseudo-historical romance taken from a Charles Major novel which was very popular, especially with women, many decades ago. It tells the story of Mary, the sister of Henry VIII who was married to king Louis XII of France. But the movie tells chiefly of his love for a commoner, Brandon, and how it eventually succeeded. An excellent reconstruction of the ambiance and ways of living,of the English Court in the 16th century, a screen play full of humor (incidentally, what became of the scenarist, Lawrence Edward Watkin, whose thirties novel "On Borrowed Time" was such a delight?), magnificent photography, all this contributes to make The Sword and the Rose one of the better Disney films. But what makes it exceptional, is the magnificent performances of Glynis Johns and James Robertson Justice. In Miss Johns' hands, Mary is a woman every man would be proud and satisfied to fall in love with. And the Henry VIII of Mr Justice justifies comparison with Charles Laughton's.
Great Visuals Overwhelm the Actors
boblipton30 March 2018
Having recently looked at the the silent Marion Davies extravaganza based on its source material, WHEN KNIGHTHOOD WAS IN FLOWER, I was interested in how the film makers would balance the grandeur of the production with the wish we have to look at human beings dealing with situations and making a story out of their lives.
Well, they made a story out of it, but alas, the magnificence of the settings and sumptuousness of the costumes overwhelms the actors. Glynis Johns, one of my favorite performers, looks mousy in her arrays, and while John Robertson Justice's voice still booms out, to make him look regal, they have to cut to tight close-ups of his face.
Does this mean that I think this a poor movie?> By no means! visually it's magnificent. Geoffrey Unsworth's Technicolor camerawork is as good as any of his work, and the glass shots by Peter Ellenshaw and Albert Whitlock are beautiful and flawless -- a lot easier on the eyes and harder to spot than modern CGI work.
I'm not sure if a story like this can be transferred to the intimacy of the screen; the grandeur of the settings would likely overwhelm just about any modern actor. However, it's a gorgeous attempt.
Well, they made a story out of it, but alas, the magnificence of the settings and sumptuousness of the costumes overwhelms the actors. Glynis Johns, one of my favorite performers, looks mousy in her arrays, and while John Robertson Justice's voice still booms out, to make him look regal, they have to cut to tight close-ups of his face.
Does this mean that I think this a poor movie?> By no means! visually it's magnificent. Geoffrey Unsworth's Technicolor camerawork is as good as any of his work, and the glass shots by Peter Ellenshaw and Albert Whitlock are beautiful and flawless -- a lot easier on the eyes and harder to spot than modern CGI work.
I'm not sure if a story like this can be transferred to the intimacy of the screen; the grandeur of the settings would likely overwhelm just about any modern actor. However, it's a gorgeous attempt.
Delightful Movie for the Whole Family
spotless-182520 January 2012
After reading all of the negative reviews on this movie, I just had to give one on my opinion. This is my all time favorite movie. I love the dynamics between the actors and the chemistry between Charles Brandon and the Princess Mary. I love that I can sit down to watch it and feel the emotion that was meant for the viewer to feel. So what if there are discrepancies in the storyline, the wardrobe, and the actors portrayal of the real people from history? I don't really care. This is a great movie, and it will always be at the very top of my favorites list. If you know what's good for you, you will watch it, you will LOVE it, and you will tell your friends how amazing it is, too!
I really do like the characters and cast here, but
r96sk23 May 2020
Mixed feelings for 'The Sword and the Rose'.
I really do like the characters and cast here, but the overall pacing is sluggish and the premise itself isn't wholly interesting. The set designs don't look the greatest either, though the humour is amusing.
Glynis Johns is very good as Mary Tudor, she gives a simple yet effective performance. She has fair chemistry with Richard Todd, who plays Charles Brandon. Ernest Jay (Lord Chamberlain) and Michael Gough (Edwin) are also more than decent here. The most noteworthy portrayal, as you'd predict, comes from James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII. He is brilliant, I loved all of his scenes as the King of England.
I come away from viewing this underwhelmed, I just feel they could've nailed it more; there was a tonne of potential for it due to the cast and characters involved. Still a solid film, mind.
I really do like the characters and cast here, but the overall pacing is sluggish and the premise itself isn't wholly interesting. The set designs don't look the greatest either, though the humour is amusing.
Glynis Johns is very good as Mary Tudor, she gives a simple yet effective performance. She has fair chemistry with Richard Todd, who plays Charles Brandon. Ernest Jay (Lord Chamberlain) and Michael Gough (Edwin) are also more than decent here. The most noteworthy portrayal, as you'd predict, comes from James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII. He is brilliant, I loved all of his scenes as the King of England.
I come away from viewing this underwhelmed, I just feel they could've nailed it more; there was a tonne of potential for it due to the cast and characters involved. Still a solid film, mind.
Okay kiddie costume drama
neroville1 October 2004
I really think Disney, when doing period films, did best when sticking to the musical comedy vein, as in "Mary Poppins" or the lesser-known (but hilarious) "Adventures of Bullwhip Griffin." When they tried to play it straight, the results are usually nothing to write home about, such is the case in "The Sword and the Rose." Now, Glynis Johns is beautiful and provides a very fine performance, and James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII, doing his best Falstaff impersonation, is quite amusing. I also enjoyed many of the supporting players, from the pratfalling King of France to his evil Pepe le Pew successor, Francis.
Unfortunately, Richard Todd as Charles Brandon is dull, dull, dull. One thing is for certain, he is no Errol Flynn. I kept thinking- why would Princess Mary want to run off with this guy? Todd is unfortunately typical of many 1950s leading men, like Cornel Wilde and Rory Calhoun, who seemed to substitute square jaws and blank stoicism for actual charm, charisma, and talent. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the film more if there had been more action scenes and swashbuckling, but there were so many scenes of Brandon and the Princess cooing over each other that I found myself getting restless. At times like this, a vaudeville number would be much appreciated.
However, the movie is relatively fast paced enough, so I wasn't too bored. The costuming, for a '50s Disney movie, is okay, although of course no one will be surprised to hear that it actually bears little resemblance to early Tudor fashions circa 1514. Justice is way too old to be playing Henry (Henry would have been in his mid 20s at the time) and all of his clothes look to be taken from the Holbein portraits from the 1530s and 1540s. All the women are wearing farthingales (not introduced until later), and most annoying, is that Catherine of Aragon, who was really a plump, sweet-natured redhead, is portrayed as a dour stick-thin black-haired hag who flounces around in a succession of horrifically gaudy outfits. Well, what else can be expected of a Disney movie, I suppose. It's a reasonably pleasant, inoffensive way of passing the time, and I very much liked Glynis Johns, although I constantly expected her to burst out singing: "Well done, Sister Suffragette!"
Unfortunately, Richard Todd as Charles Brandon is dull, dull, dull. One thing is for certain, he is no Errol Flynn. I kept thinking- why would Princess Mary want to run off with this guy? Todd is unfortunately typical of many 1950s leading men, like Cornel Wilde and Rory Calhoun, who seemed to substitute square jaws and blank stoicism for actual charm, charisma, and talent. Perhaps I would have enjoyed the film more if there had been more action scenes and swashbuckling, but there were so many scenes of Brandon and the Princess cooing over each other that I found myself getting restless. At times like this, a vaudeville number would be much appreciated.
However, the movie is relatively fast paced enough, so I wasn't too bored. The costuming, for a '50s Disney movie, is okay, although of course no one will be surprised to hear that it actually bears little resemblance to early Tudor fashions circa 1514. Justice is way too old to be playing Henry (Henry would have been in his mid 20s at the time) and all of his clothes look to be taken from the Holbein portraits from the 1530s and 1540s. All the women are wearing farthingales (not introduced until later), and most annoying, is that Catherine of Aragon, who was really a plump, sweet-natured redhead, is portrayed as a dour stick-thin black-haired hag who flounces around in a succession of horrifically gaudy outfits. Well, what else can be expected of a Disney movie, I suppose. It's a reasonably pleasant, inoffensive way of passing the time, and I very much liked Glynis Johns, although I constantly expected her to burst out singing: "Well done, Sister Suffragette!"
Charismatic acting, but ridiculous plot
atleverton12 May 2023
This movie was made because the UK had this policy of keeping some money from their box office from the studio and encouraged studios to reinvest it in the British film industry. This movie was not a success at all, and it's kind of hard to say why. It is the story of Queen Mary of England, king Henry's sister. The story is that Lady Mary is this very free spirited woman with a lot of personality, and she has this very nice relationship with her older brother, who is King Henry the 8th. Eventually it transpires that for reasons of politics, the king wants to marry his sister off to the king of France. The entertaining thing about the movie is the relationship between King Henry the 8th and Mary. Mary is played by this really charismatic actress, and she plays the part really well just over the top and Henry also is played as this over the top, larger than life character. The craziest part about the whole inaccuracy of the movie is there's this big thing where the love interest originally wants to go to America to start his life, but England didn't have any colonies during the reign of King Henry the 8th. That started mostly under his daughter Elizabeth and his nephew James the first Although, I think if you're watching a movie a Disney live action movie from the 1950s, and you're expecting historical accuracy I think you're you're barking up the wrong tree. The actors are very charismatic, and they perform the roles quite well, so, but the plot is kind of laughable.
The Sword and the Rose
CinemaSerf25 March 2023
Hats of to Walt Disney (and to James Robertson Justice) for managing to turn the rather unpleasant English King Henry VIII into an engaging, cheeky character who likes nothing better than to spat with his younger sister Mary (Glynis Johns) who is determined to live her own life, despite her brother's dynastic ambitions for her. She alights on the newly appointed captain of the King's Guard "Brandon" (Richard Todd), a character with ambitions to sail the world seeking plunder and glory, but her kingly sibling has decided to wed (sell, basically) her to the aging French King Louis XII (a fun scene with Jean Mercure). After a few escapades, she is forced to acquiesce - otherwise her beau will face the axe - but she does manage to exacts a few useful pre-conditions that will allow her to choose her next husband herself! Quite an achievement for a Princess in 16th Century Europe. It's got the odd bit of swash and buckle, but mostly it is a sort of pantomime-does-history romantic romp with a cast having fun, a remarkably dashing Michael Gough as her would-be suitor Buckingham, and some fine looking sets and costumes. True, the facts are treated with a certain degree of "latitude" but I really quite enjoyed it... It's the sort of family drama that this studio did well.
Charles Brandon wins his Tudor Rose
bkoganbing11 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a remake of the great 1922 silent film When Knighthood Was In Flower that starred Marion Davies as Princess Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII of England. Glynis Johns essays the part here and her verbal duels with James Robertson Justice as Henry VIII are what gives this film it's spark. Richard Todd is a fine and dashing Charles Brandon, object of Mary's affections.
It's a quaint tale for today's audiences which is now used to seeing royalty marry commoners. But back in the 16th century that wasn't done. Just entertaining the thought could get you clapped in irons. But the story of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor is one of the great romantic tales of English royalty.
Charles Brandon is a soldier of fortune who catches the eye of Princess Mary Tudor while at Henry VIII's court. Henry's idea is to get an alliance going with France by offering up his sister as the second wife of the aged Louis XII. We also have the Duke of Buckingham as the constable of England who's got his own plans concerning Mary.
Mary does go to France and marries Louis XII. But inside of a year she's a royal widow. This being a Disney film and such things are not dealt with there, but it is clearly indicated that the young princess wore the old king out in every conceivable way, as might have been her plan in the first place.
Richard Todd and James Robertson Justice are doing their second film for Disney having both been in the earlier Robin Hood. Todd was at the height of his career and it's a pity he faded out in the sixties. He had the looks and charisma and should have been a lot bigger.
That booming voice of James Robertson Justice is a treat to listen to in every film he's in. It was years later that Henry VIII was busy changing wives and religions and chopping off heads. Here he's a merry king as he was reputed to be in those years of his reign. James Robertson Justice gives a delightful interpretation.
One of Disney's better products and highly recommended.
It's a quaint tale for today's audiences which is now used to seeing royalty marry commoners. But back in the 16th century that wasn't done. Just entertaining the thought could get you clapped in irons. But the story of Charles Brandon and Mary Tudor is one of the great romantic tales of English royalty.
Charles Brandon is a soldier of fortune who catches the eye of Princess Mary Tudor while at Henry VIII's court. Henry's idea is to get an alliance going with France by offering up his sister as the second wife of the aged Louis XII. We also have the Duke of Buckingham as the constable of England who's got his own plans concerning Mary.
Mary does go to France and marries Louis XII. But inside of a year she's a royal widow. This being a Disney film and such things are not dealt with there, but it is clearly indicated that the young princess wore the old king out in every conceivable way, as might have been her plan in the first place.
Richard Todd and James Robertson Justice are doing their second film for Disney having both been in the earlier Robin Hood. Todd was at the height of his career and it's a pity he faded out in the sixties. He had the looks and charisma and should have been a lot bigger.
That booming voice of James Robertson Justice is a treat to listen to in every film he's in. It was years later that Henry VIII was busy changing wives and religions and chopping off heads. Here he's a merry king as he was reputed to be in those years of his reign. James Robertson Justice gives a delightful interpretation.
One of Disney's better products and highly recommended.
Richard Todd and Glynis Johns Never Fail
jessical-3097730 March 2018
Richard Todd was a Disney star for a short while, but he certainly didn't disappoint. He and Glynis Johns were in more than one movie together and I have to say that this is their strongest collaboration. Richard Todd is dreamy, eloquent and enchanting. Glynis Johns is strong, ethereal and flawless. The story is fun and surprising. I had never even heard of this movie and am so happy to have gotten the opportunity to watch it. I HIGHLY recommend this film. It's a proper treat!
Gorgeous insight into the romantic times of the first part of the reign of Henry VIII.
clanciai14 December 2019
It's important to remember that this is actually a true story, Henry VIII had a sister like that, and she finally got her Charles Brandon after many ordeals on the way. This Walt Disney production directed by Ken Annakin is a sumptuous costume film, and your eyes will gloat in the flamboyant colours and scenery - it is a regular feast for the eyes all the way. Although Charles Major's novel romanticised the true story somewhat, and the film has romanticised it even more, there is still a great amount of original charm coming so to say directly from the 16th century, giving a very positive and inspiring picture of the golden age of the Tudors. The novel was my grandfather's favlourite novel, he read it many times, and it was by surprise I came across the film and found it was a screening of that novel. Richard Todd is irresistible as Brandon, as is also Glynis Johns as Mary and James Robertson Justice as a slightly overdone Henry VIII, but above all it is a thoroughly enjoyable and uplifting film, more Hollywood than Tudor England, but still with very much of the Tudor spirit well taken care of.
The Most Delightful Screenplay of Any Disney Live-Action Film
joe-pearce-119 August 2015
Amazingly, although this film is 62 years old, having come out when I was a teenager, and stars a load of some of my favorite English actors (Glynis Johns, James Robertson Justice and Michael Gough, to name only three), I had never seen it until tonight. I was absolutely amazed at how delightful it was, how great and authentic every scene in it looked, how seriously the actors took their very excellent dialogue - it's a bit more of a comedy than anything else, but it has its dramatic moments - and just the general air of intelligence that permeated what was, of course, a Disney film primarily intended for young audiences. Yet much in the screenplay was quite adult, perhaps most especially Mary Tudor's idea of getting the old French King (and her new husband) to imbibe liberally of the wine at their wedding festivities in order to incapacitate him and not have to consummate their marriage that night. That may not be very much in 2015, but in 1953 it was nearly licentious and quite a great deal to put into a Disney film meant primarily for kids. Of course, the trick here is that if one accepts the overly romantic nature of the film, it is one that will appeal to most intelligent adults, too, if only due to the excellence of the dialogue in the hands of Johns and Justice. And at the start I actually thought Michael Gough was going to play somebody truly noble - Michael Gough, noble? - but by the middle of the film he was deep into his usual villainy; one should never trust Michael Gough any more than one might have trusted Victor Jory a decade or two earlier! Anyway, the wrestling scene, the Mary Tudor ball and the dance introduced into it, the hunting scene, etc. looked totally authentic to me, whether they really were or not, and remember folks, this is all make-believe and made to be enjoyed rather than examined too closely. All in all, I think this has immediately become my favorite Disney live-action film (certainly of the "costume-variety" ones) thanks to the wonderful give-and-take of the dialogue. I think it achieves 100% of what was intended by its makers, and it's hard to find fault with that!
a most worthy film
elpelvis23 October 2020
Todd, Johns and Justice deliver excellent performances. This is not a "B" movie. Being a romantic adventure movie, there is not the tension of a disaster occurring. Still the plot keeps us absorbed and interested in the outcome.
Perhaps the most underrated Disney film.
gilbertayres12 April 2018
Although this is hardly the best Disney film, this is almost certainly the most underrated. James Robertson Justice and Glynis Johns are both utterly hilarious and intensely dramatic as the plotting royal siblings. Richard Todd poses a dashing romantic figure as Charles Brandon, and Michael Gough is a sly villainous Duke of Buckingham who at first comes off a lot nicer than he turns out. Clifton Parker's score is subtle in its magnificent usage of leitmotif (the lavolta dance theme from the ball sequence in particular is modified in all sorts of ways to the point where it almost dies and is only half represented in places). There are blatant historical inaccuracies, in particular the character of Queen Catherine as well as Brandon's commoner status (which does add a class element missing in the historical reality), and the female costumes are about as Tudor-era as Henry VIII's being overweight in 1514 (when the events of the film roughly take place).
In context, this film was the third totally live-action production made by the Walt Disney Studios. It was also the third of four Disney live-action films made in Britain, and the second of three to star Richard Todd. Leonard Maltin gives it ***1/2 out of **** and considers it to be as historically significant as 1940's Pinocchio. Although obviously a costume drama, critics have noted that, for a film from 1953, it has a strong liberated bent to it. Glynis John's Mary Tudor is a woman to be reckoned with and in most instances her own agent. The aforementioned ball sequence can be interpreted as a reference to contemporary 1950s youth dances as well as a triumph of love for the two lovers. One can also tell that no expense was spared on this production, Disney had hoped it would at least be nominated for Best Picture, but although not a box office failure, it wasn't a success either. As a film, however, it is certainly Oscar worthy. Thankfully a gem that has grown more well known with time and I think Glynis agrees.
In context, this film was the third totally live-action production made by the Walt Disney Studios. It was also the third of four Disney live-action films made in Britain, and the second of three to star Richard Todd. Leonard Maltin gives it ***1/2 out of **** and considers it to be as historically significant as 1940's Pinocchio. Although obviously a costume drama, critics have noted that, for a film from 1953, it has a strong liberated bent to it. Glynis John's Mary Tudor is a woman to be reckoned with and in most instances her own agent. The aforementioned ball sequence can be interpreted as a reference to contemporary 1950s youth dances as well as a triumph of love for the two lovers. One can also tell that no expense was spared on this production, Disney had hoped it would at least be nominated for Best Picture, but although not a box office failure, it wasn't a success either. As a film, however, it is certainly Oscar worthy. Thankfully a gem that has grown more well known with time and I think Glynis agrees.
Beautiful
nightroses10 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
The 50's and 60's owned historical films. Everything looks so gorgeous, even the sky, which appears always like Summer, and the costumes are really beautiful. The sets are lovely. The dialogue is almost archaic but easy, without any swearing or cussing. This was made by Disney and it's take on villain characters like Henry VIII is almost grating, because he was an abusive and violent king, but in this flick, he's a jolly old chap! Mary Tudor comes across as a sassy independent princess and not a damsel in distress. The Volta dance scene at the royal court was funny but not historically accurate since it wasn't unknown in England during the time itself. Overall an enjoyable, colourful and gem of a movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
