I borrowed a dvd volume from the library that offered 9 "classic" romance movies. The selling point for me was seeing a picture of Hugh Grant on the back in a movie I had not seen. Well, though this was a sweet story, this movie was so full of cheese it made me laugh. Hugh Grant is still nice to look at but, as another poster pointed out, his voice sounds really funny. Would I recommend this? No. It was almost a complete waste of time...but Hugh Grant was worth it for me. :)
shareAll of the Barbara Cartland movies are like that - though, unfortunately, this is the only one with Hugh Grant and his weird voice. Well, "A Hazard of Hearts" is a little better than the rest. In my opinion, the unprecedented level of cheesiness, the dated cinematography, the over-acting, the bizarre appearances of respected actors, the corny music, the opening credits, the occasional plot event that has no explanation, etc. are actually what make these movies worth watching - provided that you don't go in with the expectation that they should be taken seriously. While they're far from intellectually satisfying, I find them very enjoyable. They're funny - and part of the fun of watching them is wondering whether they're supposed to be that way or if the scripts were written in complete seriousness.
shareI think your right. When I think back to this movie it makes me smile. Not because it was any good, but because it was funny. The story would have almost worked. I wonder if Hugh is embarrassed...lol.
shareHe probably is at least a little bit embarrassed. After all, he did have to utter lines like "Farewell... Panthea" and "You may have the king's seal, but you have Cromwell's heart" (amazingly, I haven't seen this film in awhile and I still remember large chunks of its masterful script). But he should be consoled by the fact that he himself isn't awful in it - the stand-out in the bad acting department (scene-stealer, really) is the actress who plays Barbara Castlemaine.
shareTrue story! She was awful. Maybe old Hugh thinks back at this and laughs. Maybe it was a fun one to shoot. I can imagine a lot of out-takes. I would not be able to recite those lines with a straight face. He was still fun to watch in this. He's a cute one!
shareI agree with pretty much everything you said except imo Duel of Hearts is the better film of the four, not A Hazard of Hearts.
Just in case you're interested in reading my reasons, I posted them last year on the board for aHoH http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093159/board/nest/39988312?d=latest&t =20100729170453#latest
As for hugh grant being embarrassed, perhaps he is, but I'm betting the actors who appeared in these films had a BLAST on set, working together. Just imagine how little pressure there would have been, given how non-serious the material is.
I have wondered if the reason why so many high calibre performers were willing to appear in these films is due to the creators having been some of the team that did did the amazing AVENGERS series from the 1960s: Terrence Feely (writer), John Hough (producer), Laurie Johnson (producer and scored the music), et al.
"Duel"'s Lady Caroline Fay is one of the more admirable, resourceful, and clever heroines (imo, superior to "Hazard"'s Serena), but I still think the central twists and the character's motivations are weak, and that "Hazard" has a more interesting hero and more formidable villains. Then again, I'm rather biased in favor of "Hazard" because I find it more entertaining than "Duel", I haven't seen the latter in a couple of years, and I've always found Vane Brecon irritating.
Regardless of which is best - after all, they're all of *nearly* the same quality - I can imagine these movies being very fun for the actors to make, even if they may be somewhat embarrassed looking back upon the finished work. And if I were an established thespian, I wouldn't mind taking a break from serious dramatic roles to do this sort of thing once in awhile. It's actually a pity that these cheesy period romance novel adaptations haven't been done in a couple decades; today's films seem so inclined to the darker and more serious works, a little light-hearted nonsense would be a nice change.
I so remember seeing Hugh Grantfor the first time in this movie, he was not terribly impressive (especially his hair!) The worst thing about all the movie adaptations of the Barbara Cartland novels (Especially this one, which was always one of my favorites) is how they completely butcher large chunks of the story needlessly and not in a way that seems necessary to adapting to a screen version. The whole fighting their way up the steps of the gallows was ridiculous, and I love a good sword fight! And some of the dialog, painfully cheesy (not that her novels aren't extremely predictable. They say Princess Di read her Step Grandmother's books, she obviously glossed over the regency ones and the role of the Prince of Wales-but, but I digress!)
Oliver Reed (one of my all time favorite movie bad boys) wasn't aging well but did make a delicious bad guy!
I don't know why, but I loved this cheesy "bodice rippers." Duel of Hearts was my favorite too.
share