Moonfleet (1955)

Sadly Over-hyped

Highly Overrated But Still Good

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

MOONFLEET, a swashbuckling tale of smuggling and conspiracy, is based on a historical adventure novel of old. It's all but forgotten today, which is a pity as this is a fairly good, if old-fashioned movie. Instead of focusing on the usual derring-do and feats of heroism, the focus of the movie is a relationship between an innocent young boy and one of the most feared smugglers working the coast.What follows offers twists-aplenty, steadfast direction from seasoned professional Fritz Lang, and some colourful costumes. The locales are well drawn and the characters are fun to watch. Stewart Granger is, as usual, slightly arrogant and stand-offish, but it's youthful Scots actor Jon Whiteley who holds it all together as the boy. He's not your usual whining/crying little screen kid, instead a tough and resourceful character whom it's impossible to dislike.MOONFLEET works some great set-pieces into its running time, from the lightning strike in a creepy graveyard to the subsequent hunt through smuggling dens and old crypts. The action, although limited, is jolly, and the twist ending is particularly fine, something I didn't spot coming at all. MOONFLEET is no classic but fans of classic cinema will enjoy it.

This film is overrated in France which at first sight appears bizarre to say the least but when you see that the same country gives first class status to a boring, intolerable and annoying comedian like Jerry Lewis, ANYTHING is possible ! That said, the film certainly makes for good entertainment and both Stewart Granger and George Sanders are very entertaining, as is the boy who plays John Mohune. I am not sure where this was filmed but had difficulty recognizing the Dorset Coast which is one of the most spectacular coasts in the British Isles. The main negative point of the film is the plot which is fairly limited and leaves the spectator thirsting for something a little more meaty. As much of the film is seen through the eyes of the child, this bestows an original quality upon it. I have not read the original novel so have no way of comparing it to the film but in general I tend to compare films and novels separately and not always try to see if the film adheres closely to the novel. Certain licence must be taken when bringing something to the screen. The DVD of Moonfleet was issued in France sometime during the first half of this year (2007).

This is one movie where I can honestly say that the adaptation to screen is better than the book. Not that it's great, mind you, just better. While watching Granger and Sanders in anything is entertaining, it seemed that screenwriter Jon Lustig wanted the character of John Mohune(John Trenchard in the novel) to be the focus(like, say, Jim Hawkins in "Treasure Island"), but couldn't quite figure out how to give him something useful to do without taking away from the top-billed stars. The finished film is more streamlined(and watchable) due to Lustig's and director Lang's desire for a tighter story. No way was a straight adaptation going to do *THAT* on screen! If Whitely's character, young John had acted as he does in the novel, and wrenching the story 90 degrees in a lesson on the "wages of ill-gotten gains", I probably would have thrown a brick at the t.v.(but then, that's just me). All in all, not one of Lang's(or Granger's, or Sander's, or Crain's) best, but worth a look. Especially, you've got to love Jack Elam's scene with the hats in the smuggler's grotto. THAT was funny...

A movie which is highly praised by French critics.The first thing to bear is mind is that it's based on Falkner's novel.It's not "Falkner's novel transferred to the screen".People who read the book might be disappointed.Jeremy Fox was created from start to finish by the script writers.We can wonder why it roughly replaces Elzevir Block (who's featured in the movie but in a minor role).Part of the reason can be found,I think,in Lang's work.In the book ,Block was a very good man ,and Lang's characters had always been very ambiguous .Is Fox the boy's friend?I have my doubts .He always betrays him and when he finally sides with him,it is beyond death.The boy's waiting (final scene) is a metaphor for the fear of losing childhood's illusions.But Jeremy epitomizes an already lost fight.The end of the novel(which ends when the child is an adult ,cause it spreads its plot over ten years )paraphrases the proverb "ill gotten ill spent" .John the man has sailed the sea and like Ulysses has returned to live peacefully. One can easily understand what was appealing in Falkner's "Moonfleet" for a director like Lang.The underground world,the characters who lead a double life,the secret places , any Lang fan already met them ("Metropolis" "M","secret beyond the door" "hangmen also die"...) and would later ("beyond a reasonable doubt","der tiger von Eschnapur" "das indische Grabmal").The atmosphere of the novel fitted him like a glove but the characters probably did not.However,Lord and Lady Ashwood characters (not featured in the novel too)get in the way:George Sanders delivers a funny line ("the boy would be my grandson" ) but their presence adds nothing to the plot.And Meade's characters (Ratsey,Maskew,Grace,Block) are too often sacrificed to the "new " ones.Okay they were a bit cardboard ,but they were colorful.Unlike some other users,I think that the color is dazzling.There's something circular in the directing: Liliane Montevecchi's dance,,the creek,the sinister-looking smugglers' faces surrounding the boy,the well..I think that Lang's intention was to show his story through the boy's eyes.That's probably why the scenes dealing with the aristocrats do not work.That was Lang's first attempt at an adventures movie.He would continue (IMHO,with better results) in the two German movies "der Tiger..." and "das Indische..." ,but even when he made apparently "entertaining" flicks,we could feel his inimitable touch.