User Reviews

This story has been filmed several times over the years, but I'm afraid this one comes near the bottom of the list. There are some decent performances, including Oliver Reed (I never thought I'd say that!), but Mark Lester holds back the entire film with his paper thin portrayal in both parts. He delivers his lines as though reading them at rehearsal. He may have had a certain appeal to the teenage girls in the audience, but today he just comes across as a nervous boy actor in a school play. The direction seems more suited to a children's teatime TV serial than a feature film too. I've given it 5, but with a better actor in Lester's place it could have got a 7.

Brought to us by the same producers of "The Three Musketeers" and "The Four Musketeers" of several years earlier, this also brought along some of the same cast - Reed, Welch, and Heston - in an attempt to duplicate the success of those earlier adventures. It doesn't quite reach that level but is a fairly faithful adaptation of the Mark Twain story, with solid entertainment value. This was a final gasp in the child star career of Mark Lester, who gained fame as the title character of "Oliver!" from 9 years earlier. A tall gangly young man by this point, he seems out of place here, as if they waited a couple of years too long to film this. He plays the pivotal dual roles of a poor pauper kid who switches places with his double, Prince Edward of England. Reed is the wandering soldier of fortune who takes pity on and befriends the prince, now mistaken for a peasant who seems mad. Reed basically repeats his 'Athos' role from the Musketeers movies, but that's not really a bad thing - it is Oliver Reed, after all.

The movie also piles on as many big stars as possible, a habit of the producers, though many of these stars had their best roles behind them. Heston is on hand as the blustery King Henry, dying about halfway through. Welch doesn't appear until the 2nd half, playing Reed's old girlfriend, now married to his evil brother (Hemmings). Borgnine hams it up as the mean brutal dad to the pauper, while Scott puts in an appearance as a ruler of thieves or beggars, whatever. Harrison is a royal duke, reminding one of his role as Caesar long ago in "Cleopatra"(63). This benefits from the long experience of most of the actors, who lend a humorous, carefree style to most of the scenes. There's even some poignancy in the later scenes between Lester & Reed, who begins to wonder if this may truly be the new king of England he's trying to protect, and it helps to have a nice score, as usual, from Jarre. Twain knew how to write a good story, complete with suspense as we wait for the finale, and this shows through at the end.

The major stumbling block in this all-star version of Mark Twain's classic children's story is Mark Lester, he just does not convince as a begging urchin, he lacks the street-wise cunning of a young man who has been dragged up, beaten up and abused by his monster of a father. There is no disguising his cultured and well-spoken dialect when attempting the pauper's lower class diction, and the Harpo Marx hairstyle doesn't help his cause. Charlton Heston, the only American actor ever to play King Henry VIII, gives a towering performance as the gout-ridden Tudor monarch and completely dominates every scene he is in. Oliver Reed is great as Miles Hendon, and proves to be a rollicking good swashbuckler in his clash with fellow British 60's hell-raiser David Hemmings.(It's sad when viewing GLADIATOR and seeing what twenty years of hell-raising did to these two talented actors). Coincidentally, Errol Flynn, the daddy of all hell-raisers, made a better version of THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER in the 30's, and also a terrible turkey called CROSSED SWORDS, which was the American title used for this film in 1978. What this version has over all the others is the marvellous supporting cast, not just Rex Harrison, George C. Scott and Ernest Borgnine (who is frightening as the pauper's father) but the excellent British character actors who keep cropping up in the minor roles. Michael Ripper, veteran of countless Hammer horrors, does a fine turn as the servant of Raquel Welch; Ripper also appeared in the very good Walt Disney 1962 version of this tale, as a broom merchant. THE PRINCE AND THE PAUPER is excellent family entertainment, the sets and costumes are superb, and this movie may inspire younger viewers to pick up and read the wonderful Mark Twain classic story.

Nice adaptation from Mark Twain's classic also titled ¨Crossed Swords¨ with a top-of-the range cast . It's a Richard Fleischer's gorgeous film plenty of action , costumed adventure , humor , swashbuckling and lots of entertainment . The movie is very amusing and funny , capturing the flavor of the old times . On the same day two boys cross their fates : the pauper Tom and prince Edward (Mark Lester in double tole) . As a street beggar, Tom flees from pursuers and sneaks into the palace garden and meets the King Henry VIII (Charlton Heston) . Later on , the pickpocket Tom meets prince Edward VI , they change clothes with each other but the guards discover them and throw out the prince, since they are almost identical. Nobody believe them when they try to tell the truth and the young prince has trouble reclaiming his crown. Soon after, the old king dies and the prince will inherit the throne. The young prince turned beggar is aided by a swashbuckling soldier-of-fortune ( Oliver Reed who steals the spectacle as intrepid adventurer ) .

The flick deals about the Prince Edward VI ,son of Henry VIII of England, who's replaced by a beggar and vice versa . The film mingles comedy, adventures, humor, tongue-in-check and history. The starring boy is excellent and Oliver Reed as the preceptor is sublime. Also are splendidly, the supporting roles : Rex Harrison , Harry Andrews , Charlton Heston , Ernest Borgnine , David Hemmings , George C Scott , all are magnificent , including Raquel Welch. In the movie appears several historical characters, such as Henry VIII, Edward VI , Duke of Norfolk , and Lady Jane, princess Elizabeth , both of whom will be queens.

Colorful and evocative cinematography by Jack Cardiff . Imaginative score by Maurice Jarre who includes sensible chores . Direction by Richard Fleischer is very good . This is still one of the best versions along with the starred by Errol Flynn. This entertaining movie should satisfy young and old . Other adaptations about this vintage story dealing with mistaken identity between a prince and a child from the London slums are the following : The classic rendition ( 1937) by William Keighley with Errol Flynn , Claude Rains ; Disney version by Don Chaffey with Guy Williams , TV take on ( 2000) by Gilles Foster with Aidan Quinn ; furthermore , several versions on cartoons .

This is a good film but it is spoiled by the ineptitude of Mark Lester who wisely retired after this film.Age was irrelevant,acting ability is far more to the point.Enjoyable to watch the stars go through their paces.

This film has a lot to recommend it. It is has some rather beautiful scenes (the scene of Henry VIII on his deathbed with his jester at the foot of the bed lingers long in the memory and deserves to be in a better film), some good fights and an all-star cast. Oliver Reed in particular puts in his usual charismatic performance. There is some impressive technical wizardry by which Mark Lester is made to appear as his own twin. But I agree with other reviews that Lester is not up to the task of the central role unfortunately. He is too old, for a start. That would not not necessarily be a problem except he is involved in some fight scenes and appears to be too gangly and delicate an adolescence to be able to best his opponents. Nor does he have much presence and one gets the distinct impression that the all star cast was drafted in to distract from his rather dull performance. Still it is worth watching.

I know it is not a popular opinion, but I rather like Mark Lester in the title role. Some of his scenes are quite touching, the scenes with him speaking to the Ruffler's gang, and his banter with Oliver Ried stand out amongst the highlights. It is certainly a star studded affair, with some acomplished character actors, enhancing the film.

For those who are expecting a straight telling of Mark Twain's story or a remake of the Errol Flynn classic, you're going to get more than you bargain for. The characters have been greatly expanded and several new ones have been created to give the plot a little more body.

Mark Lester, nine years after being the screen's Oliver, plays the dual role of Edward Tudor who becomes Edward VI of England and Tom Canty the beggar boy doppleganger. Young Tom is a much brighter lad and has been given the curse as his father Ernest Borgnine sees it of reading which encourages idleness. It's not good to be idle when your father is trying to teach you the family trade of thievery.

Tom's not cut out for it and one day in eluding pursuers he stumbles into the royal palace where Prince Edward notices the resemblance straight off. As a joke the two of them exchange clothing, but then the real Prince of Wales gets tossed out of the palace and back into Ernest Borgnine's clutches.

In the meantime King Henry VIII played by Charlton Heston with considerable padding is dying and shuffles off the mortal coil with Tom Canty given some real upward mobility, unheard of in Tudor England. And the real prince struggles dealing both with his father's death and how to get out of this predicament, making only one real friend out there, Oliver Reed as Miles Hendon.

Director Richard Lester was lucky enough to secure four Best Actor Oscar Winners for his cast, Borgnine, Heston, Rex Harrison as the Duke of Norfolk and George C. Scott as the Ruffler. My favorite in the film is Scott in the added role of the Ruffler, former monk now turned head of an outlaw band because Henry VIII closed the monasteries and looted them for his treasury. It's one droll and witty performance, Scott steals the film when he's in it.

The Ruffler is only addition to the plot. There's a subplot involving David Hemmings as Reed's brother Hugh stealing the family estate out from under Reed while he was serving abroad and his bride Raquel Welch besides. So Crossed Swords now deals with two usurped heirs.

Though I liked seeing all these people, I'm not sure that a more straight forward version of the story wouldn't have been better. Still the film is entertaining enough, but I think the classic Warner Brothers film is better.

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.

"Crossed Swords" is a lavish and lively adaptation of the Mark Twain classic "The Prince and the Pauper". Producing the picture were the Salkinds, the father and son team responsible for "The Three Musketeers" films, as well as the "Superman" blockbusters. Released in England by Twentieth Century Fox as "The Prince and the Pauper" in 1977, it reached American shores (now distributed by Warner Brothers) in 1978 as "Crossed Swords" and with eight minutes of footage deleted.

Veteran director Richard Fleischer moves the familiar story along quite briskly, while still giving audiences ample opportunities to appreciate the handsome sets and costumes. The all-star cast is mostly impressive. Mark "Oliver" Lester is too old and stiff to give a truly authentic performance in the dual role of Prince Edward and pauper Tom Canty, but he doesn't spoil the film. Oliver Reed is a hearty and touching Miles Hendon, and Ernest Borgnine, fake cockney accent or not, shines as the pauper's cruel father. Charlton Heston perhaps overdoes the part of old King Henry, but how else can you play a character like that? Rex Harrison is smooth as an ill-fated Duke, George C Scott impresses as a beggar king, Raquel Welch looks stunning in her too-few scenes as Edith, Hendon's true love, and she beautifully underplays her part (though her surprising adeptness at comedy is evident here as well). The same cannot be said for scenery chewing David Hemmings, cast as Hugh, Hendon's evil brother, who forced Edith into an unhappy marriage. Among the supporting cast are such familiar faces as Harry Andrews, as a duplicitous Court Minister, Julian Orchard as a court fop, and Sybil Danning as Tom's mother. Two young beauties (Lalla Ward and Felicity Dean) appear as, respectively, future Queen Elizabeth and Lady Jane.

With a rousing music score by Maurice Jarre, perfect for a swashbuckler like this, and beautiful scenery photographed by the great Jack Cardiff, this is light-hearted, spirited adventure at its finest. Surprisingly, the film did not fare well on either side of the Atlantic but, like most period adventures, it has worn well. Incidentally, the DVD release restores the cut footage and includes a theatrical trailer and television spot (for the U.S. release) which compliment the flawless Anamorphic Widescreen transfer.

Pah! Doesn't follow the book very closely (rhubarb, rhubarb!)... Frankly, who cares? The book was a work of fiction to start with, and this "version" of the story makes a classic '70's swashbuckler in the fashion of the Three Muskateers. It's got witty dialogue, colourful characters, an all-star cast, a good soundtrack and a happy ending. What more does anyone want? Okay, it was never going to be shortlisted for Oscars, but back then that was often a good sign (Kramer vs Kramer, anyone? Please, God, noooooo!!). If you like swash and buckle, and you've a few hours to kill, this will do the job, so don't dismiss it from your list of films to see. It's a little hard to find on DVD though.

Don't get me wrong I loved this film as a kid, but after revisiting it after five or six years, it didn't quite gel for me. Of course the sets, costumes and cinematography are superb, and the score is rousing enough. And the story is delightful, despite the fact it has been done to death so many times, while there is some great acting from Oliver Reed, Rex Harrison, George C. Scott and especially Ernest Borgnine in very meaty roles. However, despite all the extravagance and the fine acting from the supporting cast, there are shortcomings. Mark Lester is very unconvincing in the lead double role, while Raquel Welch looks alluring but she is left with little to work with. The direction never feels solid enough, while the pacing is uneven and the action like the direction lacks solidity. Overall, disappointing but worthwhile film adaptation. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I haven't seen this movie in 20 years, but I remember going to it mostly because of the impressive cast. The lead, playing the dual roles of the prince and the pauper, was Mark Lester, lately of "Oliver". It was too "lately". By the time this movie came out, Lester was FAR too old for the part(s) of street urchin and child king. Charlton Heston (he's Henry VIII here) seems attracted to this phenomenon. He also did Treasure Island with a too old Christian Bale as Jim Hawkins. Anyway, Heston and the rest of the cast did fine jobs, and the picture is good fun if you can fully suspend disbelief in deep voiced Lester as an innocent child.

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.

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.

Sounds strange an American writer had wrote a novel about The Tudor's tale, Richard Fleischer and producer make a re-reading over the classic novel including some characters, and changing the movie's name to Crossed Swords instead the original, in this version the highlight is Oliver Reed, even with stellar casting as Charlton Heston, Rex Harrison, Harry Andrews, Raquel Welch, Ernest Borgnine, George C. Scott, David Hemmings and Sybil Danning not bad to start, but aside a fine casting the picture didn't have any impact as its furerunner.

The premise is the same when England was ruled by the womanizer Henry VIII (Charlton Heston) who was ill and about to die, his only son the Prince Edward (Mark Lester) was the next to inherit the crow, but appears a pauper Tom (Mark Lester in double role) on the Eduard chamber and they realize the extreme similarities over themselves and the Prince switch their clothes appearing to the court members that spelled such pauper of the castle.

He was helped by a soldier of fortune Miles Hendon (Oliver Reed) that taken to his room for overnight stay, Eduard swears be the real Prince, meanwhile Hendon mocking him, although his good manners and so polite to speaking of the teenager let him puzzled.

Then Hendon meets the ruthless John Kent (Ernest Borgnine) Tom's father to clarifies the unusual case, the meeting wasn't successful ends up in a widespread braw, Hendon seemingly is dead and John Kent running away to hidden on the Ruffler's lair, taking Eduard, there he prove to Ruffler a skilled fighter, the wise man let him goes away,

Aftermaths bumping into Hendon who was at his trail, the finally Hendon told his past to Eduard who he really is, a owner of a ritzy palace, when he leaves to make fortune at European's wars and going back to your property and wife Lady Edith (Rachel Welsh), nonetheless his brother has another plan to him, meanwhile in London King Henry already died and a phony prince will be crowned.

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First Watch: 1987 /How many: 5 /Source: TV-Youtube /Rating: 7.5.

The Tudor dynasty has always been popular with makers of dramas based upon English history- we have, for example, "Anne of the Thousand Days", "Mary Queen of Scots", "Lady Jane", "Elizabeth" and the two versions of "A Man for All Seasons". "The Prince and the Pauper" (I will use the British title rather than the American one) falls within this tradition, the main difference being that it is based upon a fictitious story rather than historical fact, even if Mark Twain did try and suggest that his tale was based upon an old legend which may have had a kernel of truth.

The idea is that Edward Prince of Wales, the only son of King Henry VIII, has an exact double in Tom Canty, a London street urchin and the son of a notorious thief. The two meet by chance when Tom, fleeing after stealing a purse, manages to break into the Tower of London. Edward, struck by the likeness, suggests that the two should exchange clothes for a joke, but the joke goes wrong when Tom is taken for the real Prince and Edward for a beggar. Edward is thrown out onto the street, leaving Tom behind in the Tower. Both find that they are unable to escape from their predicament; when they try to protest their real identities they are assumed to be mad.

Edward is befriended by Miles Hendon, a soldier of fortune recently returned from the Continent. Although Miles does not really believe Edward's story about being the Prince of Wales, he takes pity on him. When Miles attempts to return to his family home, however, he finds himself in a similar predicament. He finds that his wicked younger brother Hugh has forged a letter purporting to contain news of Miles's death and has used this not only to steal Miles's inheritance but also to marry his sweetheart Edith. Now it is Miles's turn to find that he is not believed when he proclaims his identity. Miles and Edward have to find a way to undo Hugh's wickedness as well as ensuring that the rightful heir is crowned King of England, Henry VIII having died during his son's absence.

The most curious thing about this film is the casting of Mark Lester in the dual role of Tom and Edward. As others have pointed out, Edward VI was only nine years old at the time of his accession, and only sixteen at the time of his death, so it was strange to cast the nineteen-year-old Lester in the role. Moreover, Lester was not convincing in either part, being too obviously well-bred and well-spoken for a Cockney guttersnipe and not regal enough for a Prince. The point of Twain's tale is that Tom, forced to assume the role of King against his will, finds himself growing in authority, whereas the haughty princeling Edward is humanised by his contact with the common people. There was no sense in this film of either of these developments taking place. This was Lester's last film, and it is clear why he joined the long list of child stars who did not go on to an acting career as an adult.

Few of the other acting contributions, with two exceptions, stand out. Raquel Welch, despite her second billing, has very little to do as Edith except stand about looking glamorous, and Rex Harrison as the Duke of Norfolk looks as though he is not taking anything seriously, even being sentenced to death for treason. The two exceptions are Charlton Heston as the ailing, care-worn Henry (very different to the autocratic younger man portrayed by Robert Shaw in "A Man for All Seasons" or Richard Burton in "Anne of the Thousand Days") and Oliver Reed, who makes an attractive Errol Flynn-style hero as Miles. (I have not seen Flynn's own version of this story from 1937, so cannot make comparisons).

Richard Fleischer was a very versatile director who could turn his hand to films in many different genres. His work also varied greatly in quality; he was capable of making a film as good as "Ten Rillington Place" but also one as laughably bad as "Red Sonja". "The Prince and the Pauper" falls somewhere between these two extremes. While never as bad as "Red Sonja" (few films are), it is a rather mediocre film which never succeeds either as a convincing recreation of Tudor England or as a swashbuckling adventure. 5/10

Some goofs. The story is set during the winter of 1546-47; Henry VIII died in January 1547 and Edward VI, as the film informs us, was crowned King in February. The film, however, was clearly shot during the summer months as all the trees are in leaf. Henry states, not long before his death, that he has been on the throne for thirty-five years; he ascended the throne in April 1509, so at this point he would have been king for over thirty-seven years.

Rather chintzy retelling of Mark Twain's "The Prince and the Pauper", though one with a good director (Richard Fleischer) and a fine cast behind it. Mark Lester has the dual roles of the Crown Prince of England and his lookalike pauper who exchange places, and he's a decent young actor if a bit colorless. Older children might enjoy the film, though a comic rendering of the material may have been more successful. Fleischer is too literal and reverent to the text, and his pacing is often stilted. Audiences at this point were eager for a little broad satire and, while Oliver Reed and Raquel Welch do grace us with their presence, one waits in vain for someone like Marty Feldman or the Monty Python troupe to invade the territory and give it some juice. *1/2 from ****

I am not a connoisseur of Mark Twain's work, so I was curious to read some things about the original story he wrote after a trip he made to the European continent. From what I've read on the internet about the story, I believe the movie does justice to the source material, but as I didn't get the story to read it, I want to make it clear that I could be wrong.

Summing up in a few words the whole plot, what we have is a story in which a poor teenager, whom his father taught to steal, penetrates the palace of King Henry VIII and comes across the heir to the crown, Prince Edward. The two quickly realize that they are identical lookalikes and the prince decides to change clothes with the beggar so they both go to a masked ball. It turns out that the disguise turns out to be too good, and the real prince ends up expelled from the palace. After some misadventures, he enlists the help of a nobleman who returns to the kingdom after a long journey, making it imperative to undo the mistake before the coronation of the new king, since, in the meantime, Henry VIII dies.

The story has its appeal, but I have to confess that it sounded so far-fetched and hard to believe that I couldn't really like it. Forgive me, Twain fans. In addition, I was not pleased with the work of the director, Richard Fleischer. I felt he didn't give the film the most appropriate pacing and dynamics. Technically, the film is not very brilliant: I really liked the costumes, although it is not believable that all that gold and silk apparatus was routine and every day, even for the royalty of the time. And I also liked the scenarios used, which put us in the atmosphere of the time very quickly, both in the courtrooms and in the environments where the poor and the marginalized live. The soundtrack, sometimes a little raucous, works reasonably. Unfortunately, the cinematography has a lot of light and I didn't like it very much, overall.

I left the cast for the end because I felt, throughout the film, that there was a huge dissonance between the various actors, something that, associated with bad direction, can help to understand why the film was a failure. There are a lot of solid and well-known names to the public at the time, but even that didn't help to convince people to pay the ticket and see it. We have, however, good interpretations that, ironically or because of the bad conception of the script, fall into the most indigestible characters in the film. Oliver Reed is the most impressive actor and leaves us very impressed, but the character is superb and boastful. Ernest Borgnine also does a good job and is very convincing, but it's impossible to like John Canty and the actor doesn't have much to do other than being obnoxious. Rex Harrison has an interesting role and is good at what he does, but appears very little. The rest of the actors can't enjoy what they get: Charlton Heston almost erases himself, Raquel Welch has absolutely nothing to do and never behaves like a lady, Mark Lester is a weak protagonist and is unable to convince.

This is a great classic! With so many brilliant actors in one movie they couldn't go wrong! Charlton Heston as always, is excellent and oliver Reed plays the lead part as no one! A lot of action, some comedy and a great story makes this movie very much worth watching! Don't watch another remake, this one is without a doubt the very best!! A lot of actors from this movie, teamed up several times, and that was for a reason. Oliver Reed and Charlton Heston also stared in The Three musketeers, The Four musketeers, Treasure Island and although they never had so many scenes together, the movies always were GREAT!! Of course Oliver Reed also teamed up with Michael York in a few movies, like the Musketeers movies and in The Lady and the Highwayman.