The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel

Hollywood is hardly the only one to crank out unnecessary sequels. Britain was also guilty of it, and early on, too. "Return" is essentially a rehash of the first movie, made a couple of years earlier. It even reuses footage and sets from that classic. The leads have changed, but not the basic plot, which has Sir Percy forced to go back to France one last time, in this case to rescue his wife from the clutches of the sinister Robespierre. It clearly is a trap, but nothing will keep the good old Pimpernel from carrying out his mission. He is up against the usual clods and dolts, after all. A young James Mason has a small role. This is no worse, I suppose, than "Son of Monte Cristo" or "Son of Robin Hood." Mercifully, there was to be no third Pimpernel film.

"The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel" is a sequel to the 1934 movie, "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Most Hollywood sequels are creations by studios to cash in on big hit movies. But not so, this one. It is based on the further writings of author Baroness Emmuska ("Emma") Orczy. The Hungarian-born aristocrat became a highly successful writer of mystery, intrigue and detective stories. She lived most of her adult life in England and wrote in English, which was her third language. Her most famous character is English nobleman, Sir Percy Blakeney. His cunning and organization of the Scarlet Pimpernel underground helped many of the landed gentry in France escape the guillotine under Robespierre.

Orczy wrote more than a dozen novels and stories in the Scarlet Pimpernel Series. Four were made into movies. The original and "The Elusive Pimpernel" were first made as silent films in 1917 and 1919. The first sound film of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" came out in 1934. Its cast of Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon and Raymond Massey was superb. This film, "The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel," is the second sound film. The third film was "Pimpernel Smith" in 1941, and the fourth was "The Fighting Pimpernel" in 1950. Later British TV programs ran Pimpernel stories, and a couple of TV series aired in 1956 and 1999-2000.

While all of the Pimpernel stories are entertaining, none of the sequels could come close to the original. Perhaps that is in part because the subject was new and very fresh when introduced. But, I think also that it is due to the superb casting for the original story – in 1934 and in a 1982 remake movie for TV. The color, lavish sets, excellent scenery and screenplay of the latter film equaled or bettered the first sound production of 1934. And its cast of Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen was equally superb.

Only a few of the first film actors are in this or the other two sequels. This film continues with the action of the original, but it is lacking in other areas. Barry Barnes is fair as Sir Percy, but Sophie Stewart is a very weak Lady Marguerite Blakeney. Francis Lester is far too gentle in the role of Chauvelin. Henry Oscar is too old as Robespierre, although he shows the citizen's paranoia that most likely led to his downfall. The introduction of the real person, Jean Tallien, and the undoing of Robespierre's hold over the revolution add much to earn this film its rating. James Mason is excellent as Tallien.

While this film can't match the original story for intrigue, interest, action and acting, it is an interesting work of historical fiction. That was a favorite style of Baroness Orczy. She excelled at it as seen, especially, in all of her Pimpernel stories. I think most people will find this movie entertaining.

Hanns Schwarz is known to most cinephiles as the director of the miraculous 'Incredible Lies of Nina Petrovna'. Hardly surprising that with the surname of Schwarz he felt obliged to leave Germany pretty smartish in 1933. He directs this sequel to the successful 'Scarlet Pimpernel' of 1934. This is lame, mediocre stuff and is saddled with the curse of twee, 'teddibly, teddibly' acting. Notable exceptions are Henry Oscar as Robespierre although a little mature for the role, the appealing Margaretta Scott and James Mason. Huddersfield born Mason is really the only feature of interest in this and impresses with his earthy presence and modern delivery. He is not yet the finished article but has ingredient 'X' in spades. The title character is played by someone named Barry K. Barnes. The screen empties whenever he is on it. Such a pity that the directorial career of Schwarz finished so disappointingly. Following this he went off the radar and died in California in 1945. At least we have Nina Petrovna to remember him by.

Or should I say: more of the same? Nevertheless, this is a decent if somewhat unremarkable follow-up to THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL. This time, the Pimpernel's wife is being kidnapped in order to set the trap for him, forcing Sir Percy to go to France to save her. What follows is an amusing film, nothing more, but certainly nothing less. The sequel has to do it without the leads of the first film, but the cast here generally does a pretty good job as well. They all make very likeable characters, what surely makes up for the quite far-fetched story.

This obviously is a little-known film, but if you have the chance to see it, you might want to check it out. It's not a masterpiece and not as good as the first "Pimpernel", but rather good fun. 6/10

This is a sequel which instead sets its own terms. Lacking a star name, it is not a vehicle for a star to lift and be given entertaining scenes (and mask weaknesses), instead it is a very well crafted artistic production. Completely unremarked is the quality of the cinematography there is a still photographer's eye at work not to mention the sets and the handling of action. Instead of a star and their schtick which a production is obliged to both labour and indulge, there is point and purpose throughout in the screenplay which reflects the mixture of brutality, passion, paranoia, scheming and insecurity of the times. The pimpernel is more subtly acted than the sign-posted performance of a big star. His ruses, being the centre piece of the character, have to be and are more impressive including the disguises than in the case of a star who probably wishes to be recognisable at all times. Lacking any stars, it must rely on pure merit - and succeeds. It is after all a Korda production so would one expect less?