The Fighting Prince of Donegal

Audience Reviews

View More

07/21/2021 Say you're Prince Andrew and you've been caught. You objectified young girls, you took advantage of them as objects, and left the trash in a bag for the janitor to take out. Except, your janitor isn't on your side. She's not gonna take care of these women you objectified, that was your job, since you bought the ticket for that particular ride. So, if you treat women or men or them as objects for possession, those possessions need to be taken care of or they become Fatales in your future. If you cared for these former possessions, do you think they would try to kill their own support system? It's mere cause and effect my dear princes, princesses, queens and kings. If you have the means to possess, you must have a means to take care of those possessions.* *and subjects and lands, which British Imperialism--while highly friendly, intellectual and Romantic--has proven it does not and can not do. See more r 9 @RT00952237 07/27/2020 Almost good, but 'The Fighting Prince of Donegal' just falls short. It goes through too many peaks and troughs to be classed as enjoyable, but I do like the vibe of the film and the idea of the premise; which begins slowly, hits a purple patch before frustratingly reverting back immediately; quite literally given how the plot 'progresses'. The casting, meanwhile, is solid if not perfect. Peter McEnery (Hugh) and Susan Hampshire (Kathleen) both do impressive things in earlier 1960s productions 'The Moon-Spinners' and 'The Three Lives of Thomasina' respectively, but they don't work together here; I sense zero chemistry between them or their characters. Gordon Jackson (Capt. Leeds) is my pick of the rest. Should've been better. 2½*. See more s r @ScottR 03/17/2015 A poorly presented story. See more 05/06/2010 (First and only viewing - 12/6/2011) See more Read all reviews

The Fighting Prince of Donegal

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING