Wonderful Movie

Great Film overall

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Next to the 1937 version with Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., this version of The Prisoner Of Zenda is the one most fondly remembered by movie audiences. If it doesn't quite have the panache of the Colman film, it makes up for it with the introduction of some nice color cinematography.The casting of Stewart Granger in the double role of Rudolph Rassendyll and his royal cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Ruritania and James Mason as the villainous Rupert of Hentzau is hardly some stock company casting. If Granger doesn't quite have Colman's flair for the spoken word and very few ever have, he makes a fine and dashing hero which parts he played very well, too well in his opinion on his career. As for Mason, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. took the Rupert part because he was advised it's one of the best villains ever created in drama. Mason who has also played some of the best villains on screen keeps up the fine tradition for that role.The 1937 version benefited from having the world wide publicity of the constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom over Edward VIII choice of consort. I've wondered whether someone over at MGM after George VI died in early 1952 whether they thought it was now time to do another remake of The Prisoner Of Zenda in time to coincide with the publicity of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Which begs the question whether we'll get yet another version when Prince Charles eventually assumes the throne. We've seen over ten versions so far going back to the silent screen.The women in the cast, Deborah Kerr and Jane Greer as Princess Flavia and Antoinette DeMauban respectively never come in for much discussion of their roles. The parts in relation to the hero are almost a carbon copy of the roles of Katharine DeVaucelles and Hugette from If I Were King. I've always thought that Greer as Antoinette plays one of the most tragic characters in popular literature. She loves a cold and forbidding man in Prince Michael, especially when played by Robert Douglas. But he's her man and when she does ever so slightly give in to the scheming Hentzau she regrets it when it means the death of her beloved. Personally why she falls for a cold fish that Michael is who can figure. But the heart does have its reasons.As for Kerr her best scene is at the end when she realizes she has been hoodwinked, but in a scheme for the greater good of the kingdom. She knows what her obligations are and she too can't afford to follow her heart.Something tells me we're far from done with The Prisoner Of Zenda. Try and figure out who could play these roles today with the flair of the players in this version, let alone the one from 1937.

The Stewart Granger - Deborah Kerr movie version of Anthony Hope's THE PRISONER OF ZENDA is an entertaining film, but it comes off second best to it's 1937 predecessor with Ronald Colman and Madeleine Carroll. The fact that the film was in Technicolor (Colman's was in black and white) is odd but possibly part of the reason for the slightly lesser result. All of the performers in the 1952 version did very good work that was comparable to the work that the previous cast did. Yet the later film is not quite as good.According to the Turner Classic Movie's Stewart Granger was at a dinner at Ronald Colman's house where they ran the 1937 film as entertainment. Granger liked the film and convinced MGM to do a remake. The film was like a scene by scene remake - with a small screen set up showing the original film for the cast to review when they did their scenes. The only changes was the production crew, the cast and the color film stock.Granger comes off as good as Rudolf Rassendyl and King Rudolf V, but he is a trifle self conscious. When Colman played the part he had a great lightness of touch that helped color his performance (particularly when dealing with both Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Rupert of Hentzau and Raymond Massey as Black Michael). Granger tries to copy this but it seems a little forced. It's odd because he had an advantage over Colman regarding the cast - Rupert in the 1952 film was played by James Mason, who had already appeared in two films (as deadly adversary) to Granger (THE MAN IN GRAY and FANNY BY GASLIGHT). Colman never appeared opposite Fairbanks in any previous movie to their version of THE PRISONER. As a result there is a screen chemistry between Granger and Mason, but it doesn't translate to a better pair of performances. Some critics point out that Mason seems to old for Rupert, but except for being called "Young Hentzau" by Colonel Sapt (Louis Calhern) there is nothing to suggest he is in his early 20s. However, Fairbanks was leaner in appearance than Mason, so that his youthful qualities did shine through while Mason's just did not do so.The part of Michael is handled by Robert Douglas as though he is just jealous of his half-brother's luck of birth. Yet he is shown with one thing that Raymond Massey's performance did not have - Massey was not crippled. Douglas constantly walks with a cane, which suggests a physical weakness that is a mirror to his emotional one. But it's too little, and it is never really developed.Deborah Kerr's Flavia is appealing (any performance of Kerr's is appealing) but Madeleine Carroll was able to get the jolt of that sense of duty that prevents Rassendyl and Flavia from leaving at the end - Kerr seems to be just repeating her lines by rote in their last scene. Mary Astor and Jane Greer both were equally affective as Michael's mistress, as were C. Aubrey Smith and Louis Calhern as Sapt (Calhern was able to give a devilish twist to the Colonel at one point when commenting on a hidden passage in the royal palace at Streslau which was useful for protecting royal reputations). David Niven and Robert Coote were Fritz von Tarkeheim in the two versions, and both played the role effectively but not remarkably.The color was useful in the 1952 film in making the sets more evocative of that period from 1890 to 1897 (Victoria's upcoming Jubilee is mentioned at one point). But it only goes so far - it just reminds us that the characters are in a realistic setting. But the story is such romantic fluff that the realism seems unimportant. In short the 1952 film is really good, but the earlier one is nearly perfect in comparison. I still would stick to Colman's version than Granger's. As for the 1979 Peter Seller's spoof, or the 1975 Malcolm MacDowell "George Macdonald Fraser's" ROYAL FLASH, or the 1965 partial spoof in the Blake Edwards' THE GREAT RACE, they are in a special class as they are not serious remakes but done for laughs mostly.

Englishman Rudolf Rassendyll travels to see his distant relative King Rudolf V. When he arrives in the country he gets some funny looks and, when he meets King Rudolf he understands why – they are the total spit of one another, apart from a moustache. The two men spend all night drinking, a habit King Rudolf is oft to entertain but Rassendyll is a light weight and has fallen asleep long before the final bottles are opened. The next morning he wakes up with a sore head but the King is out for the count for much longer due to a drugged bottle of wine – the work of his brother Michael, who seeks to claim the throne in the chaos that he hopes will follow the cancellation of the day's coronation. Rassendyll steps into the place of the King in a cunning ploy to keep the country steady; however he finds himself in the midst of a much more serious ploy than drugged wine.Despite the fact that it has been made many times, I must confess to this being the first time I've seen this story told. I must also confess that for the most part I found it quite dull. On paper I can see how fascinating it could have been because it has political intrigue, betrayals, sword fights and action. However the film opens with a sort of criss-cross humour that didn't really engage me at all. It wasn't funny and it seemed to undercut the serious business of telling a good yarn. Things get a bit better once the villains turn up but even then I was surprised by how plodding it was all delivered. The final scenes were pretty good and it was a welcome arrival for sword fighting in a very talky film but I did wish there had been a bit more swagger to the rest of the film, if not actually action.The cast are reasonably good. Granger does well but his sudden transformation from innocent abroad into action hero at the end was a gear change too much. Kerr is pretty but mostly pretty bland. Calhern is solid and Greer was a strange find. I liked Douglas but it was Mason who dominated the film. He seems a bit out of place but he has some great lines and generally he looks like he is having fun and not taking any of it too seriously. He is a breath of fresh air among the rest of the stiff material and he stole every scene he was in.A good story then but delivered in a rather flat and dull fashion that put me off early on and never really got me back. It all looks good in glorious Technicolor but other than that the only other thing that kept me with it was a delicious little turn from Mason, who at least has the good taste to have a bit of fun – something that I had hoped to do myself but sadly did not.

Having not seen the 1937 version, to me the '52 movie is a perfectly serviceable movie. Hokie in some places? Sure. But still a great movie with a heart felt cast. There's a lot to be said for the simple authenticity of non CGI movies with Romantic themes.Michael is deliciously dastardly, the uniforms are quaint yet hold a sense of menace, and in particular Deborah Kerr's performance really is underrated and very well done. I think it's a tribute to the original story that it has been remade so many times. Its universal themes offer something for each of us: duty and lost love, the danger of greed, and a reminder of chivalry from 19th century Europe, whatever its paternalistic and hierarchical undertones.