The Warriors

During the Hundred Years' War, in the aftermath of the English victory at Poitiers King Edward the Third (Michael Hordern) lays down the terms of his truce to a group of captured French nobles: If they promise to submit to English rule in their province of Aquitaine, they'll be released and allowed to keep their lands and titles.

Although the nobles are at first inclined to tell the King what he can do with his truce, even at the cost of their lives, the wilier Comte de Ville (Peter Finch) persuades them that the wiser move would be to appear to accept the truce while working on the sly against their English overlords.

So the stage is set for nasty plots and feats of derring-do, as the King leaves his son, Prince Edward (Errol Flynn) to rule the barely-pacified province in his stead, while he returns to England. When Edward's widowed cousin and romantic interest Joan (Joanne Dru) is kidnapped by the Comte de Ville and held hostage, this hands-on monarch embarks on a quest to rescue her and her children.

Flynn the actor doesn't seem to have much zest for this production, no doubt regarding Allied Artists as a B-list outfit (as they generally were) compared with the major studios for whom he'd once worked. The romancing here is decidedly muted, compared to the classic swashbucklers of his early career. But even though his years of high living have obviously told on him, Flynn's still a commanding presence, and this role as a middle-aged warrior prince suits him well.

The story is nothing remarkable, with its share of duels and disguises and battles and hair's-breadth escapes. Although there's an interesting ambiguity to its being set during the Hundred Years' War: Here the conquering English prince is the hero, while the Comte de Ville and his French compatriots are the villains. Yet barely ten years prior to the release of this movie, who would have questioned the morality of resisting an invading army by fair means or foul? At least as regards Europe, and by this time colonialism had mostly fallen out of favor, too. So it seems to me a bit hard to believe that most viewers then or now wouldn't feel at least a little sympathy for the French conspirators, even if Edward's claim to the Aquitaine had some foundation in medieval law and custom.

For an Allied Artists flick, though, this has unusually good production values. (I was lucky enough to catch it on TCM, in letterbox format in a near-pristine print.) Besides Flynn himself, and a brief role for stunningly beautiful Yvonne Furneaux, the best things about this film are the cinematography, the fine British actors, the sets and costuming, and the staging of the battle scenes, especially de Ville's assault on the castle where Edward and Joan take refuge. For once, the armor is appropriate to the era and in a scene that's pretty unique for the genre, a pair of authentically primitive-looking cannon (yes, they had them back then) protected by a kind of giant shield-on-wheels known as a "mantlet" are used to shatter a castle gate.

This is the sort of movie that used to be called a "popcorn cruncher", before the reign of the frenetic, bloated, CGI-saturated summer blockbuster. It makes no pretense at being anything but what it is: A passable way to spend a rainy afternoon.

The reviewers here are full of semi-dismissive 'average, seen it before' type criticisms. Well now, I think if you take a good look at this thing you'll find a good amount of bone jarring, armor clanking broadsiding. Even the talk is entertaining- I guess I have a weakness for truculent knights shouting at each other about their 'rights' and 'honor' and so forth. Good stalwart English cast adds to the authenticity. Yeah, I know Joanne Dru is the boring weak link, but this is a guy flick and unless the ladies actually get naked the guys aren't going to care about them that much. And Errol sure did look every one of his 46 years; but Errol's still Errol to me, no matter. The VHS print is very crummy, too. If they could find a clean, widescreen print of this film and put it out on DVD, I'd snap it up in a minute!

After 85mins, you will say "Seen it before" and you have. This is another swashbuckler starring Errol Flynn and it's pretty average, run-of-the-mill stuff.

The story is okay, but I don't think Errol looked that good in this one. You have the love interest and the villain, end of story.

The acting is okay, nothing bad, but not spectacular.

The widescreen frame is beautifully done, the entire width is used with perfection. Shot in Cinema Scope. The photography is quite realistic, the British certainly know how to light a film.

Overall, this is average stuff. You'd be better off watching The Sea Hawk.

Years ago I read a book on the Hundred Years War by an English historian named Desmond Siward. The author's premise was that there is indeed an English and a French interpretation of the conflict. The English see it as a great period of glory and conquest in their history. The French look on it as a century of agony for their people. Professor Siward came down pretty hard on his fellow countrymen and said the French version is far closer to the mark.

Case in point is Edward, Prince of Wales, eldest son of Edward III of England and military genius bar none. He was in fact the architect and inspiration of their military victories at Crecy and Poitiers. Edward was also a pretty bloodthirsty guy who led a massacre at Limoges and also negotiated an alliance with the Castilian Ruler Pedro the Cruel. I'll let his name speak for itself.

The movie here has the English as liberators as Edward comes to the continent to enforce his father's claim on Aquitaine. In fact that had been part of the English crown through their descent from Eleanor of Aquitaine. In point of fact the Black Prince was there trying to enforce Dad's claim on the throne of France itself through his mother who was a daughter of the French king Philip IV the Fair. That was what the whole Hundred Years War was about, the English trying to conquer France, pure and simple.

An aged Errol Flynn who's dissipation is plainly showing is the Black Prince. He looks older than Michael Hordern who appears briefly as Edward III. I think Flynn may very well have been older than his "dad."

Joanne Dru plays Joan of Kent, widow of Sir John Holland and beloved of the Black Prince. The love story is one of the great medieval legends of Merrie Old England and maybe they should have made a film on just that. But Ms. Dru looks bored throughout. She was soooo much better in Red River, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, and All the King's Men.

Peter Finch plays the "villain" Count Robert DeVille, deputy of the Constable of France, DuGuesclin who waged a successful guerrilla war against the English although it wasn't called that then. Finch is a villain because he and other nobles won't accept a peace treaty with England that their King John has signed in captivity. How rude of them. Finch is the best one in this film and he could easily have been written as the hero.

This was the last of Errol Flynn's swashbucklers and he was clearly getting too old for believable swordplay.

Yes he's 46; nothing odd in the 1950's or the 60's or 70's. Most actors playing heroes were at that age - Robert Taylor, Stewart Granger, Burt Lancaster etc - however, I agree that living in the fast Lane has taken a toll on Errol; he looks much wizened and puffy-faced than in Crossed Swords, but he still got the Midas touch, the X factor. A commanding presence. Errol is a natural born star, nothing really eclipses his ability, especially in this medieval adventure where Flynn as Prince of Wales fights against the rebel French forces of the Comte De Ville (Peter Finch) for king and country.

Set during the Hundred Years' War, the Dark Avenger ( or the Warriors) is a western in disguise, and has plenty of Villainous schemes, battles on the field, sword fights.

I first saw it on channel 4 ( UK TV channel) in the mid-90's and I was entertained. It's good not to read too much into this film, and just accept it for what it is - an enjoyable mediaeval romp with Errol Flynn putting the world for rights for one last time.