The Scarlet Pimpernel

I'll confess, I've never read the books. I have however seen several productions of the play onstage and I prefer this beautiful miniseries by far. All of the productions I've seen before cast elderly men with cute lines but no charisma. The choice of Richard E. Grant for the Scarlet Pimpernel surprised me, but he did a wonderful job with it. I was very surprised by his performance, as I'd only ever known him as a supporting/character actor (like Twelfth Night and Gosford Park).

As a life-long Elizabeth McGovern fan, I can't help but love her. She's a fantastic actress, but whoever did her hair should be guillotined. For a really beautiful woman, they hid it well under ten pounds of brown wig. It sadly resulted in her looking much older than she actually is, but fortunately this isn't the case for the entire movie (at least at the end she gets a haircut!) But her striking features still shine through and her beautiful performance far outweighs that hairstyle. She also manages her accent very well (she's originally from Illinois) But, well, I watched the whole miniseries just for her, so I can't help but think she's the real star.

Ronan Vibert is another actor I've liked for a long time, and he did a fantastic job as Robespierre. Martin Shaw's Chauvelin got on my nerves a bit, but he's fine. The big surprise was sweet little Emilia Fox in the role of Minette. I'd never seen her play a villain before, and was pretty impressed by it. All in all, I really enjoyed this miniseries, and highly recommend it.

Well I knew this wasn't going to be faithful to the book -- and it definitely wasn't! -- but who cares, movies rarely are anyway, and I was expecting it to be unfaithful to the book. I thought it was hilarious!!! It's just a fun movie, so I suggest that you shouldn't take it seriously and condemn it as sacrilege just because it's a different take on the legendary Scarlet Pimpernel. Richard E. Grant is just hilarious as Percy -- he plays him as a foppish dandy, and it is the funniest thing. I didn't see what was so bad about Elizabeth McGovern. I loved the great one-liners between Percy and his wife. "I know he loves me!" LOL!!!

... this film would be a turkey. Whoever cast Elizabeth McGovern as Lady Blakeney in this film needs to have their eyes, ears, and brain checked by a competent physician. She is TERRIBLE. Also the studio needs to withhold whatever they paid the hair, makeup, and costuming people from their next paychecks because they only made the situation worse. She LOOKS as bad as she ACTS.

McGovern is not the only problem here, but she is a major one as her bad performance detracts from the overall film. It doesn't help that the the script is boring and slow in some places and some of the extras look like they have no clue. Only really good supporting player in this film is Emilia Fox.

The only thing that makes this thing watchable at all is the performances of Richard E. Grant and Martin Shaw (ALTHOUGH the British HAVE to start using REAL French people to play French people!). Both are fantastic in this. Especially Grant who gives new depth to the Pimpernel character. Something of a rough edge.

I would still go rent the classic with Leslie Howard anyway.

When I was in high school, the A&E adaption came out. I was anxious to watch the story from seeing the previews. The movie didn't let me down. Of course, I had never seen or read of the Scarlet Pimpernel before. I loved the movie so much that I wanted to read the book because books are usually better. (That only makes me want to roll my eyes at libraries in small towns.) It took me a couple of years to find a copy. Now, I read it on-line and the books following behind. I hate that the movie has received such horrible reviews.

Even after reading the book, I think that Richard E. Grant was cast exceptionally well, perfectly portraying Sir Percy Blakeney and the Scarlet Pimpernel. I was a little disappointed in Marguerite's casting. I think the make-up artist had more of a problem than Elizabeth McGovern.

Some may not have liked the adaption, but that is what it is--an adaption. Maybe the original story would have been better, but I disagree. I see it as and addition to the stories-not the original, but a new adventure--exciting wonderful adventure--to add to the past stories and characters of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Altogether, it was a wonderful series that made me want more! And more!

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.