This movie came highly recommended to me. And though the execution was average, it was the main character, Peter Blood that spoiled the movie for me. Captain Blood starts around 1685, a time very different from ours. A rebellion is happening against the king and one of the rebels is wounded. Peter Blood is a doctor and he goes to help the wounded man. Now unless the person is very naive, he should have known that what he was doing was a punishable offense in that day and age. I would fully agree with some doctor trying to help a wounded man, but he should be aware of the consequences. But apparently he wasn't. Even as the soldiers come to take the wounded man away, they never say a word to him. But Blood has to interfere, he says that patient shouldn't be moved. And when the Captain, tries to warn Blood, he angers the Captain as well.
OK so may be he is an idealist and naive, but no soon after he is sentenced to slavery he becomes cunning and total opposite of his former self. When I am seeing a film from 1935 I am not looking for action sequences. I know they are not going to impress me. I am more used to Pirates of Caribbean. So I am looking for a good story and believable characters, which this movie lacked.
OK so may be he is an idealist and naive, but no soon after he is sentenced to slavery he becomes cunning and total opposite of his former self. When I am seeing a film from 1935 I am not looking for action sequences. I know they are not going to impress me. I am more used to Pirates of Caribbean. So I am looking for a good story and believable characters, which this movie lacked.