User reviews

One of the intriguing aspects of this historical drama is the way the "Tories" or British American Loyalists are portrayed, and the sort of gloss given to their ardent support for King George III. In many ways the American Revolution was definitely a family affair, in that some of the wealthier colonial families were split asunder by it. If there is a strong criticism to be made of this film, it is that perhaps the people in this story are made out to be a little bit nicer than they were in real life.

In some regards, the actions of the character of Major Boulton, played by Cornel Wilde, make him the least likable member of the cast and the flaw in the storyline. He seems to vary from being a prickly kind of patriot to being a kind of 'anything for the cause,' fellow. This film does concentrate heavily on the notions of personal honor and personal prestige which were a major social 'norm' in that day and age.

In its subtext, the fact that about twenty-five percent of the colonial population was decidedly pro-British is glossed over, too. But the strength of the Tory element is not obviously maligned, although the good doctor character is about eighty-five percent upper class twit ( to steal a fine phrase from Monty Python's Flying Circus ). Anne Francis does a whole lot with a rather thin section of the script, and it stands out. She was a good choice for the woman of divided loyalties, a 'gal' who was rather more modern than the social conventions of that day might have allowed -- if there had not been a life and death struggle going on.

One good aspect of the film is the way the rivalries of the American revolutionary leaders degenerated into outright jealousies, and how these personal conflicts very nearly sabotaged the entire revolutionary effort. All in all, the leading characters are very well drawn, the minor characters are not just human "props" and the fight scenes are believable enough to carry the dramatic action.

This is a great spy movie. It's not quite a great historical drama, but it does satisfy well enough. It rates a seven largely because Cornel Wilde is so deeply immersed in his role, and does it so well, and because Anne Francis makes the most of her supporting effort.

The color print used on Turner Classic Movies was very clear, as well, and so it was an enjoyable presentation in that important regard.

Hope it runs again soon.

At the film's beginning, a card tells us this is to be about Benedict Arnold's unmasking as a traitor. So, I expected the usual historical action film, depicting the heroic Americans and the villainous British. And, at first, the film seemed to be going this way.

But then, it became richer as it focused not so much on Benedict Arnold as on Major John Andre, the British Adjutant General, and Major John Boulton, an American secret agent. The essential plot point is that Boulton will pretend to desert the American forces and go over to the British, his object being to learn who the mysterious Gustavus is. Gustavus is a pseudonym for an American (Arnold, of course) who is revealing secrets of the American forces to the British.

But once Boulton has "defected," he encounters two very interesting men. One is Dr. Jonathan Odell, who never trusts Boulton, thinking from start to finish that Boulton is an American agent. The other is Major John Andre, who accepts Boulton as a true defector. In his guise as defector, Boulton appears to be a man without ideals, someone interested in making money for the information that he can carry.

As the film develops, Boulton and Andre come to respect each other, tho they are men on opposite sides. Andre always claims that Boulton has ideals, and so it proves to be. And Andre comes across as a loyal British subject, a man of integrity. It was amazing to see the story line develop in this way: both sides in the Revolutionary War (and every war) have fine people, people of honor and integrity, loyal to their country and its ideals. Were it not for the war, these people might be good friends and work together.

In the climatic scene, Andre is found guilty of enticing Arnold to betray his country, even to offering Arnold money for information. As Andre makes clear, that is his job, and there are Americans who are trying to do the same thing with British officers as well. Andre is sentenced to death.

Boulton so respects Andre he goes to George Washington in an attempt to get a reprieve from the death penalty for Andre. And Washington does provide a solution: If Andre will sign the papers, he will be exchanged for Arnold, who has deserted to the British and is among their troops. But Andre refuses. As Andre explains, from his position as a British officer, he sees Arnold as having "seen the light," i.e., that the British position is correct and the Colonists are wrong for rebelling. Andre rises to heroic status in this scene, a man to be respected, and a true British patriot, willing to sacrifice his life for his ideals. And so he does. He was executed October 2, 1780.

The film is beautiful. I saw a pristine Cinemascope print. A note in the credits (read carefully) indicates that much of this film was shot at the Sleepy Hollow Restoration on the Hudson where many of the original events took place. It was shot in the autumn with the color of the leaves at their full beauty. The costumes rival the colors of nature, particularly the scarlet coats of the British officers. But color is well used (symbolically) throughout the film. For example, Odell is usually dressed in brown or gray. And Boulton is often in blue, sometimes a very vibrant blue. The film makes fine use of the Cinemascope aspect ratio.

My only objection to the sets is this: Everything looks new, as if the furniture had just been purchased at a local store, as if the painters had just left yesterday, the lawn crews had just finished mowing the grass and tending the flower beds. Of course, the trees at the Sleepy Hollow Restoration have almost 175 years on them from what they looked like in 1780. The roughness of the true colonial days isn't here.

Cornel Wilde and Michael Wilding do fine jobs with their roles. A lot of critics wrote off Wilding as a lightweight actor. But here his British demeanor and accent are perfectly correct for Andre, and Wilde's rougher looks are correct for the American he plays.

Sanders is also satisfactory in a good part of the suspicious doctor. And Bobby Driscoll--remember him from "Song of the South"?--has a small supporting part as a teenager anxious to join the Revolutionary forces.

Anne Francis is window dressing as Sally Cameron, whom both Andre and Boulton are in love with. At his end, Andre asks Boulton to look to Sally, for, should the Colonists win the war, she will probably be treated as a traitor because of her late husband's British sympathies.

The script was written by Karl Tunberg, who'd done the script for "Beau Brummel" just before this. Earlier (1945), he'd written "Kitty." "The Scarlet Coat" is finer than either of these.

There was only one line that was false, a storybook line: Andre says, "I must go to my rendezvous with history." But, apparently, Andre actually said this line or legend has attributed it to him. It is on his tomb in Westminster Abbey.

This film is well worth your attention.

It seems rather strange that with the American Revolution being so important that very few films have been made about it...even by Hollywood. In fact, during the 1930s, Hollywood made tons of films about the British Empire and how magnificent it was...which is rather strange as well! While "The Scarlet Coat" is not one of the best of them, it is one of the few American Revolution films you can find.

The story purports to be true and while I know nothing about Major Boulton (Cornel Wilde), the other events in the movie are based on the true story of Benedict Arnold and his becoming a traitor to the United States' cause. Boulton is a spy who pretends to be working for the Brits and the film consists of him working hard to determine WHO the British are contacting within the Continental Army.

There is nothing wrong with this movie other than the fact that it is a bit talky AND there's a female relationship in the film that seems unnecessary. Wilde is fine, though not one of the best actors of the day. All in all, adequate is the best way to describe this movie.

Although no one should depend on this film for his honor's thesis on the American Revolution. But this account of the foiling of the plot of Benedict Arnold to betray the American Revolution is certainly a fine drama with Cornel Wilde in the lead as an American secret agent who stops the Arnold betrayal of the fort at West Point way before the site became where the U.S. Military Academy is located. Wilde is no James Bond type spy, he's got the charm of an 18th century Bond, but he survives on his wits not any gadgets.

The focus on this story is Major John Andre who was the go between for Arnold with the British. Andre is played with the charm and heroic dash that he has come down in history with by Michael Wilding. He's captured but Arnold escapes and joins the British army in the last year of the Revolution. A little too late for the Mother country to put his knowledge to good use.

Although I liked this film very much I wish a film would come out with Arnold as the central character instead of Andre. Arnold is played here by Robert Douglas. With some very good reason Arnold felt he was not getting his due from the colonial cause. He may have been a sellout rat, but he was in possession of a brilliant military mind. His second wife Peggy Shippen of Philadelphia who was of Tory sympathies had a lot to do with him selling out the Americans. She's fascinating in herself and we don't see her.

Wilde and Wilding are a matched pair of gallant adversaries. I recommend The Scarlet Coat for dash and élan, if not accuracy.

Although Cornel Wilde gets top billing as an American double agent, the true star of this film is Major John Andre (Michael Wilding), the British officer who was captured as a spy and hanged for his plot with Benedict Arnold to betray West Point. Unfortunately the acting is wooden by almost everyone, so a good story and some interesting moral dilemmas are hard to hit home.

My one and only favorite American Revolution film is John Ford's classic "Drums Along the Mohawk" (1939). "The Crossing" (2000) runs a distant second. Most of the rest, like "The Devil's Disciple" (1959), "The Howards of Virginia" (1940), and "John Paul Jones" (1959) are merely OK and some, like The Patriot" (2000) and "Revolution" (1985) are just plain silly. The Disney "Ben and Me" (1953) is entertaining and historically accurate (forgetting the mouse). The TV mini-series "The Adams Chronicles" (1976). "The Revolution" (2006), and "John Adams" (2008) are probably one of the best sources about the period. If you like Pre Revolution 18th Century American history, Michael Mann's breath-taking "Last of the Mohicans" (1992) is a great film from this period, as is King Vidor's "Northwest Passage" (1940).

scarlet coat like most revolution flicks wasnt well received but is nears perfection in the art of movie making. a great character study of john andre the heroic redcoat who is revered by both friend and foe for courage,,, scarlett coat also probes the duality of the undercover agent ,,, as a counterfeit traitor maj bolton befriends andre and undertakes a high level penetration of british intelligence yet he defends andre in andre's courtmartial ... the film captures the moral ambiguity of the spy

how much of the spy's world is real ,,, which reality does he belong to the reality of his mision or the reality which the cover story creates

andre's capture and courtmartial is a success for bolton in his mission beyond that whch wahington would have ever demanded ,,, the mission was merely to identify the traitor in us ranks ,,, bolton has knocked out enemy intelligence as well ,,, yet bolton mourns the death of the man he was sent to destroy

ann francis plays a stock american character,,, compliant with the british but willing to engage them in a war of wits

a movie well worth revisiting

It's hard to believe that John Sturges directed this film because he has several excellent films to his credit. He must have been pre-occupied or very limited by his execs during this film. This film is a textbook example of a poor overly complex screenplay coupled with poor directing, like a high school play with a Hollywood budget. The film tells the American revolutionary war story of Benedict Arnold's spy accomplices and exposure at West Point, in an amateurish confusing production that can best be described by yawning. The verbose script was rattled off by emotionless speed-reading manikins posing as actors in fancy phony sets and fancy phony stiff costumes. The camera shots were pretty basic in all the scenes with little variety and no reaction shots or embellishments at all. For some reason Sturges and his production crew couldn't manage action scenes or war scenes, so the film mostly consists of the principle characters posing in a string of boring convoluted stage scenes looking like store manikins with jaw hinges. Most outdoor 'action' scenes were short clips thrown in here and there of horse and riders trotting down Autumn New-England country roads.

Don't waste an hour and half of your life watching this poor attempt at movie production. Use your time instead for something much more interesting, like sleeping or watching paint dry. Better yet, read a good history book about Benedict Arnold.

I was glad to see that THE SCARLET COAT, after being absent from television for many years, has begun showing up on cable - usually on TURNER NETWORK. It is one of those films that I have referred to elsewhere that once was shown pretty frequently but then vanished from the small screen.

It is not as well recalled as other films about the Revolution - many of which are inferior. People recall 1776 for the solid musical underneath it.

They remember THE DEVIL'S DESCIPLE for Laurence Olivier's excellent (and fun) performance as General Burgoyne, and for the good work of his co-stars Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. But they remember THE HOWARDS OF VIRGINIA, a dull film from the early 1940s that may be the most mediocre performance in Cary Grant's career. Except for 1776 the other two films have stars in them (1776 had some good character actors, William Daniel as John Adams - repeating his stage performance fortunately - and Howard De Silva as Ben Franklin - even in the small role of Edward Rutledge there is John Cullum singing that fascinating economic lecture "Mollasses to Rum to Slave".). So it goes with all of the other films - Griffith's America does have a diabolic performance of Lionel Barrymore as Walter Butler, the Tory. LAFAYETTE has Orson Welles portraying Ben Franklin (oddly enough nobody thought of making the musical BEN FRANKLIN IN Paris into a film - with Robert Preston in the lead as on Broadway). Robert Stack starred as JOHN PAUL JONES (a movie sunk by a wooden, lifeless script). Even Al Pacino could not save REVOLUTION. As for Mel Gibson's THE PATRIOT, it collapses in his desire to show sadistic British incidents which never happened (if a British Cavalry officer had burned down an Anglican Church with it's parishioners inside in the South in 1780, King George III - who took his being head of the Anglican Church seriously - would have had that officer hung!). A sad list - fortunately there is 1776 and DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK and THE SCARLET COAT.

The conspiracy of Benedict Arnold - Sir Henry Clinton - and Major John Andre is a subject that has only appeared in two movies - and oddly enough both were good. One is the comedy THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES, where Abbott and Costello link their colonial characters to the fate of Arnold's local co-conspirators. However, only the first twenty minutes of the film deal with the conspiracy at all (though the plot hinges on clearing Costello's name of treason charges).

THE SCARLET COAT is a solid dramatic treat, and wisely concentrates on the real tragic hero in the story: Major John Andre. Yes, he was a spy, and had he succeeded American history would have been part of the British Empire for at least another century (Arnold was selling more than control of West Point and the Hudson - Washington and his staff were scheduled to be there on the day the trap would have been sprung). But unlike Arnold (whatever blows he unfairly received after doing such marvelous service for the American cause up to 1777) Andre never betrayed his country - he was fighting for his king and homeland, and thought he was in the right. Michael Wilding makes this point very eloquently in the film's court-martial scene. As a result, the viewer's sympathies (as well as those of Cornell Wilde's character, and all the other characters in the film) remain with the Major even unto death. It is interesting to note that in the 19th Century the Arnold Conspiracy did remain the subject of American drama - but the play that held the boards was not named "Arnold" but "Andre". He couldn't be saved but we still regret what happened to him.

And then there is this 1955 film.

the scarlet coat is about bendict arnold betraying his country but he really isn't in the movie too much the main focus is on major Boulton (cornell wilde) and major Andre (micheal wilding)Wilding steals the movie as a officer and a gentlemen also as a freind to Boulton. As Boulton tries to uncover who is gustavus the man leaking secerts to the british.Wilde has to deal with the british the suspisous Dr o"dell(George Sanders)who watches his every move and love intrest Anne Francis this is a very enjoyable movie

The Scarlet Coat is based on Benedict Arnold's 1780 plot to surrender West Point to the British and end the revolution in favor of the redcoats. Cornel Wilde plays Major John Boulton, an undercover counterspy who goes behind the British lines to learn the identity of the mysterious "Gustavas" the man the Americans know is in contact with the redcoats. Michael Wilding plays real life hero Major John Andre, adjutant general of the English army. Ann Francis plays Sally Cameron, a woman of questionable loyalties who is attracted to both Andre and Boulton. George Sanders is on hand playing a Tory doctor who suspects Boulton of being a spy. All in all, the cast is uniformly good. While the story gets a little talky and complicated, it's still quite interesting. The technicolor is great and keeps the viewer's eyes riveted to the brilliant colors on the screen. The film takes a lot of literary license, but is historically accurate enough to count as a real history lesson.

I just finished watching The Scarlet Coat on TCM. Each year the TCM 4th of July schedule always includes several great films about the Revolutionary war, including: The Howards of Virginia, The Time of Their Lives, The Scarlet Coat, John Paul Jones, and The Devil's Disciple. The Scarlet Coat is my favorite and I always try to watch it. Thanks to TCM for keeping the Spirit of 76 alive on their channel every July 4th.

Another Movie Directed by the Overrated John Sturgess, this is Another Example of the Stiff, Pedestrian, and Wooden Style that Permeated His Pictures. Some of His Films were Popular but were Mostly Driven by "Star Status", like the Great Escape (1963) and The Magnificent Seven (1960). Both those Films are Above Average but Hardly Deserve their Elevated Status as "Classics".

This has One Stodgy Scene after Another, the Movie Barely Moves and the Highlights are the Technicolor Cinemascope Postcard Images and some Good, Interesting Dialog. Anne Francis is a Stunning Beauty but doesn't do much, Cornel Wilde is a Dashing Swordsman but is Robotic if Interested most of the time, but the Standout Performance is Michael Wilding as the Central Character of the Piece Maj. John Andre.

The Benedict Arnold Hook is Background and this may have the most Unexciting Action Sequences in a War Film Ever. George Sanders is a Slimy, Sharp-Tongued Heavy and is the Second most Interesting Character on Screen. Overall, Worth a Watch but the Film is so Boring it does No Justice to Any of the People, Time, or Place.

Unusual for John Sturges this spy adventure yarn, taking place in the USA during the late eighteenth century. It is a bit talkative, a bit much but interesting to watch. Not my favourite fromTHE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN director. I will watch it again later, not now, because it brings something that most other adventure films from this period don't. Not the most known from Sturges, and the production design is absolutely well done, convincing. But I am not a historian, so I won't comment the accuracy or not of the details of this movie. I was glad to see this one, which I had never heard about before the late eighties. I did not know that Sturges made this feature.