Le Prisonnier de Zenda

The old swashbuckling mythology in capital letters: King, Country, Duty, Courage, and Honor, featuring a handsome, fearless Hero; a beautiful and perfectly behaved Princess; a stalwart Elderly Advisor; a grasping Villain; his insinuating Right Hand; and so on. It's so stereotyped that it could take up a whole chapter of Carl Jung.

So it's amazing that this production manages to pull it off so well. Maybe it's the unusually effective screenplay, which doesn't waste a line, and somehow manages not to rehash creaky dialogue. Maybe it's the actors, who carry their roles with as much dignity as if this is the first time anyone's ever done them. Or maybe it's James Mason as the only recognizable human in the story, a charming and calculating psychopath with razor-sharp wit and stunning powers of manipulation.

However they did it, the results are a joy. Swordplay, love affairs, grand balls, royalty, and political intrigue - it all works. Put your brain in low gear, sit back, and enjoy the ride.

"The prisoner of Zenda" (1952) is a wonderful swashbuckler ,a movie the whole family can enjoy! I've already seen it three or four times and I've never got tired of it.Stewart Granger is absolutely perfect as the hero,playing two parts with gusto:I love the crowning where he manages to be as majestic as a king and yet shows he is not completely at ease ;his waltz with Deborah Kerr is also a great moment.James Mason vies with Robert Douglas in wickedness ,greed and Machiavelism.Deborah Kerr is gorgeous as Princess Flavia.

This kind of story belongs to an imaginary remote past -although it is supposed to happen in 1897-like the fairy tales.That's why "the prisoner" is so magical.

I can never watch too many of these movies. The story was beautiful, but not overdone. Stewart Granger gives a great performance, and we get the added bonus of another stellar performance by James Mason. Of course, the breathtaking (Dame) Deborah Kerr is the real reason to watch -- and wonder how an actress can be so beautiful *and* so talented. My only regret is that she wasn't more prominent in the story. And, as usual, she doesn't get the man. Oh well. The cinematography, the costumes, the action -- all blend perfectly with the compelling story and the great acting to make this a "must see" movie.

I bought a duel set of "The Prisoner of Zenda" that contains both 1937 and 1952 versions, and like the 1952 version much more. First of all, Granger's handsomeness and style fits more to the fairy-tale adventure story of prince and princess, Coleman is too sophisticated for the Rassendyall character. Other casts are better also; Kerr is much prettier and princess like, and Mason is a more impressive villain. I also think that the fighting scenes are better, more elegant and better choreographed. With no less significance is the color ,makes the costume and characters look more sensational, and gives more feeling for the romantic fairy tale .

This movie is pure entertainment, I first saw it in high school, loved it, I still enjoy it 30 years later .

Seems to me that if you're going to do a re-make of an earlier film, you need to have a better approach than just to refilm it, scene-by-scene, from its immediate predecessor.

Watching this 1952 version of "The Prisoner of Zenda," it emerges an astonishing "carbon copy" of its 15-year-old vintage model, only with different actors and in color.

What was most surprising was using Alfred Newman's 1937 music almost note-for-note. Conrad Salinger, MGM arranger-orchestrator-composer, seemed to have merely pulled out the old score, dusted off the parts, and passed them out to the MGM Orchestra to re-record.

Since this was also the music used for the now historic early December '39 sneak-preview of "Gone With the Wind" (outside of Los Angeles prior to its premiere before Max Steiner finished his work) it's even more strange to hear it here.

While the '52 cast was talented and the production values intact, there were no particularly fresh insights or viewpoints offered here, resulting in an efficiently "cloned" confection.

Less that an auspicious feather in MGM's cinematic folio, it still probably went over well with a new "generation" unfamiliar with either the '37 film or the original novel.