AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

ChampDavSlim The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

A_Different_Drummer For the record, this film when released was shamelessly called The Prince and the Pauper.Do you remember the 70s? It helps if you do.Having survived the post-war era, rock and roll, and the chaos the 60s, the 70s ushered in big hair, big disco, big cars, big meals and ... well you get the drift.Especially big Hollywood productions like this one.Against such a backdrop it is easy to imagine a bunch of studio suits looking at the wonderful 1947 version of the Prince and the Pauper (a version your humble reviewer has seen over a dozen times) and saying something like .. bah humbug we can do better.No in fact, they could not. They could do it bigger and more lavish. But better is hardly a word I would use to describe a version so different in every way that, years after release, they even changed the title (presumably to avoid reviews just like this one.) The 1947 version is sweet and clever and constantly interesting. And very true to the original story.This version, aside from the interesting attempt to cast Reed against type, is worth one watch, maybe and my guess is you will never want to see it again.Advice? See the original. Accept no imitations.

Petri Pelkonen It's the year 1547.Prince Edward and pauper Tom Canty change clothes, so the other becomes the prince and the other becomes the pauper.They bear a striking resemblance to each other.There are many difficulties on the way to go back to their old professions.Crossed Swords (1977) is directed by Richard Fleischer.It's based on Mark Twain's novel The Prince and the Pauper from 1881.I read the book before I borrowed this movie on a VHS.There are some differences between the book and the movie, but it doesn't matter in any way.There is a great number of familiar names in the supporting cast.Mark Lester does a dual role as Prince Edward and Tom Canty.Ernest Borgnine plays Tom's sadistic father John.Sybil Danning plays his mother.Oliver Reed plays Miles Hendon and Raquel Welch his love interest, Lady Edith.George C. Scott plays The Ruffler.Rex Harrison is The Duke of Norfolk.David Hemmings plays Hugh Hendon.Lalla Ward and Felicity Dean play the parts of Princess Elizabeth and Lady Jane.Graham Stark is Jester.Harry Fowler is Nipper.Charlton Heston does the part of Henry VIII.This movie is rather fun to watch.It also brings out the differences between the lives of the rich and wealthy and those who are poor.Just like the book did.

shneur This is an oddly mangled version of the famous Mark Twain novel. Historically, Edward VI became king at age 10, and had been dead for three years when he would have been Mark Lester's age (18) at the making of this film. Why director Richard Fleischer chose to transmute the title characters from children to late adolescents is a mystery to me. It makes their bumbling in their respective reversed roles more pathetic than sympathetic. Mark Lester's performance, in both roles of prince and pauper, I thought was distinctly undistinguished in view of his earlier achievements. Perhaps he was already thinking of his medical career ahead. Now having said all that, the strength of this movie, such as it is, lies in its powerhouse supporting cast: Oliver Reed, Raquel Welch, Ernest Borgnine as the abusive father, George C. Scott as a brigand, Rex Harrison, David Hemmings, and even Charlton Heston as Henry VIII -- WOW! As I watched, I wished they had just left the protagonists out altogether and let these master actors tell the story of Sixteenth Century Tudor intrigues. To view or not to view? It's a toss-up: you decide.

didi-5 The major failing of this version of the famed classic is the presence of Mark Lester as the twins, the prince and pauper of the title. He was great as a pre-teen in 'Oliver!' but here he just hasn't the range to convince in either role.There are, however, ample compensations. Oliver Reed is really rather good as bulky swordsman Miles Hendon (following in the footsteps of Errol Flynn from four decades earlier); while others in the cast making the most of small but meaty roles are George C Scott, Rex Harrison, Harry Andrews, Murray Melvin, and Charlton Heston. There's also Julian Orchard playing his usual silly English fop, but you can't have everything.I loved this film as a child and still do; it has the right amount of adventure, romance, and silliness to get by. Get rid of Mark Lester and it would have been close to a perfect kid's film; as it is it is around halfway there.