Twins too old at 19...came to throne at 10. Hair? Henry 56 at death, not 35 like in film.
There have been many movie and TV movie versions of Mark Twain's story, "The Prince and the Pauper". Of the ones I've seen, this 1977 version is probably the weakest for a variety of reasons. Much of it has to do with some of the casting decisions...with a far too old Mark Lester playing the prince as well as the pauper and Ernest Borgnine as an Englishman.
The story is familiar to most of you. The Prince of Wales, the soon to be Edward VI meets a young pauper who is identical to him. On a lark, they exchange clothing...and the staff assume the Prince is a poor beggar and toss him out of the palace. The real pauper insists he is NOT Edward...but no one believes him. What's next?
The real Edward became King Edward VI at age 10...but Mark Lester was nearly 20 when he made this film. Additionally, I don't want to be mean, but Lester just wasn't very good. As for Borgnine...he spoke with a rough American accent and just seemed out of place in the movie.
So is it worth seeing? Yes, as the basic story is entertaining. But you might want to consider the 1937 version with Errol Flynn instead...it's better in every way.
By the way, I have no idea why the film was retitled "Crossed Swords". The title change makes no sense unless the film was a bomb and they wanted to rename it...hoping folks wouldn't know it was "The Prince and the Pauper".
If you do watch this film, watch after the pauper and prince trade clothing. Suddenly, the prince's hair is the pauper's and vice-versa...which is pretty sloppy.
There have been many movie and TV movie versions of Mark Twain's story, "The Prince and the Pauper". Of the ones I've seen, this 1977 version is probably the weakest for a variety of reasons. Much of it has to do with some of the casting decisions...with a far too old Mark Lester playing the prince as well as the pauper and Ernest Borgnine as an Englishman.
The story is familiar to most of you. The Prince of Wales, the soon to be Edward VI meets a young pauper who is identical to him. On a lark, they exchange clothing...and the staff assume the Prince is a poor beggar and toss him out of the palace. The real pauper insists he is NOT Edward...but no one believes him. What's next?
The real Edward became King Edward VI at age 10...but Mark Lester was nearly 20 when he made this film. Additionally, I don't want to be mean, but Lester just wasn't very good. As for Borgnine...he spoke with a rough American accent and just seemed out of place in the movie.
So is it worth seeing? Yes, as the basic story is entertaining. But you might want to consider the 1937 version with Errol Flynn instead...it's better in every way.
By the way, I have no idea why the film was retitled "Crossed Swords". The title change makes no sense unless the film was a bomb and they wanted to rename it...hoping folks wouldn't know it was "The Prince and the Pauper".
If you do watch this film, watch after the pauper and prince trade clothing. Suddenly, the prince's hair is the pauper's and vice-versa...which is pretty sloppy.