Well Deserved Praise

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I love the story, but barely recognized it under the laborious plot derivations and bad dialogue. What were they thinking? These poor actors did a fine job with the terrible material that they had. A nine year old would do a better writing job. I was saddled with this horrid thing when I purchased a DVD collection of period pieces. Why on earth did Percy never get into disguise? That was a significant part of setting up the story. They put him in some stupid kind of Zorro face mask. WHAT?!?! I was sorely disappointed after my delight at anticipating a new version of this lovely story. The characters engaged in behaviors that were, frankly, beneath them. Percy's character was written so poorly - he is supposed to come across as a consistently ridiculous character to everyone, except when he is functioning as the Pimpernel. This is an essential element of his disguise! They completely missed the mark here. Also, the marriage between Percy and Marguerite is so poorly written. You don't have a clue about their animosity for each other. You just see that they seem to despise each other from the get go and there is no HINT whatsoever as to what brought them together in marriage in the first place. A well-written Pimpernel story will show you the prior evolution of the marriage through dialogue. These actors had no opportunity to tell you about their relationship - you are left thinking they hated each other from "I Do." Frankly, "The Matrix" had a better love story!" Don't waste a minute on this - watch any other version.

Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/JaneSeymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seeminglyfoppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and cleverwhen he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored asPercy and mean as the Pimpernel. Marguerite is supposed to bethe most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due tobad make-up). Richard E. Grant has done much better things, andElizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat. The wit anddash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replacedby brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut. I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous versionor read the book, it would probably look ok.

I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel. I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat. This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility. I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed. There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals. I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.

The movie was wonderful. Percy's character was captured perfectly, witty and without that awful voice in the movie version. I have only one disparaging thing to say: I don't think the writer ever read the book except for perhaps the first 10 pages.