IMDb > The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) > IMDb user comments
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 31 comments in total 

28 out of 31 people found the following comment useful :-
A highly romantic costumed adventure..., 24 August 1999
9/10
Author: ironside (robertfrangie@hotmail.com) from Mexico

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

When a British subject, Rudolf Rassendyll (Stewart Granger) arrives to Ruritania, in a fishing trip, he was ignoring that he is a replica of the man who would be king...

He was also surprised to find out that Rudolf V will be betrayed by two enemies: his half-brother Michael, Duke of Strelsau (Robert Douglas) who dreams to be the future sovereign, and by the impertinent, ambitious Officer Rupert of Hentzau (James Mason) who wishes to be the first man in the Kingdom...

Michael, after drugging the King, wants the Crown to be offered to him by the people... He poses as their savior from the excesses of an incompetent King...

But two faithful Officers, Colonel Zapt (Louis Calhern) and Lieutenant Fritz von Tarlenhein (Robert Coote), actively in favor of 'crowning the King,' persuade the 'Englishman on holiday' to substitute the 'twin cousin' and to stand assuming the position of a true king at his Coronation...

Rossendyll discovers himself involved in a tensional political web as well as in a strange human sensation...

He couldn't play the impostor after meeting Princess Flavia (Deborah Kerr). He couldn't care about the king and the crown anymore... Only her! He instantly falls in love with the young princess... And his love was more than truth or life or honor...

Flavia didn't either understand 'why' the King is so different... She never liked the King... She didn't love the King... Why, since the coronation, everything seems so different? Rudolf was so serious, so impartial, so indifferent... Now, so careful, so concerned, so in love...

After the success of "Scaramouche," Stewart Granger performs with dignity the king part in "Prisoner of Zenda." He plays with certain charm the innocent hero, the swordsman, the perfect English gentleman in love... He proves to be 'the finest Elphberg of them all.' Granger will be always remembered as the handsome elegant actor of them all...

Deborah Kerr, who worked with Granger in "King Solomon's Mines," is exquisite as the delicate, sensitive princess, 'born to her cares and duties.' Her honor lies in keeping faith with her country and her house...

Jane Greer plays the French Lady madly in love with Michael... Her only care was 'no harm' to her lover...

"The Prisoner of Zenda" has all the elements of a highly romantic costumed adventure: secret plots; confused courts; honor; power; fame; duty; bravery; flirt; passion; love; hate; and swordsplay...

Filmed in Technicolor, the film is a beautiful exact remake of the 1937 Version with Ronald Colman, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Madeleine Carroll and Raymond Massey...

Was the above comment useful to you?

22 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Extravagant Remake of 1937 Classic Nice, but..., 7 September 2003
Author: Ben Burgraff (cariart) from Las Vegas, Nevada

Hollywood has always had a philosophy, that if a film makes money, either do a sequel, or remake it! While sequels are most common (offering original cast members, older and less believable in their roles, performing variations of the same plot that made the original film popular...usually less successfully...), remakes have a long history, as well, with some remakes an improvement over the original (John Huston's THE MALTESE FALCON far outshines both of the earlier sound versions), some just as good (1939's BEAU GESTE, with Gary Cooper, has as loyal an audience as Ronald Colman's silent version), and some truly disastrous (why anyone would even CONSIDER remaking Frank Capra's LOST HORIZON, much less turning it into a 70s MUSICAL, defies comprehension!)

MGM, in their 1952 remake of 1937's classic THE PRISONER OF ZENDA, tried to surpass the earlier version by creating a 'scene-for-scene' duplicate of the film, while utilizing some of their biggest stars in each role, reworking Alfred Newman's original score, and shooting it all in glorious Technicolor. The end result, however, was a mixed bag...

Stewart Granger, MGM's resident 50s swashbuckler, certainly was more athletic than Ronald Colman in the lead, but lacked the older actor's panache, and more importantly, 'The Voice', that distinctive, oft-imitated but never duplicated speaking voice that made Colman so unique. It still wins hearts, nearly 50 years after his death, and was the reason Colman made the transition from a star of silent pictures to sound so effortlessly. While Deborah Kerr was as regally beautiful as Madeleine Carroll, she lacked the fragile quality that made Carroll's doomed love of the commoner Colman so heartbreaking. Louis Calhern, in C. Aubrey Smith's role, as Col. Zapt? No way! Robert Coote replacing David Niven as Fritz had some novelty value, as both would costar, twelve years later, in the television series, THE ROGUES, but the younger Niven was far more appropriate in the role of a young but loyal assistant to Zapt. While Robert Douglas was every bit as sinister as Raymond Massey as Black Michael, the most disastrous miscasting came with the film's other major villain, Rupert of Hentzau. While James Mason was a truly gifted actor, he was too old, and actually too villainous in the role! While the character has to be truly jaded and unscrupulous, he also has to be such a young, likable scoundrel that his escape, after the climactic duel, disappoints no one, not even the hero he nearly defeats. The role ideally suited Douglas Fairbanks Jr., whose prowess with a sword was unmatched, and whose scenes with Colman were instant classics of sophisticated wit. When Granger and Mason repeated the same lines, their exchanges came across as typical 'good guy vs. bad guy' dialog, lacking the unique chemistry Colman and Fairbanks brought to the roles.

As for shooting the film in Technicolor...While the regal color photography certainly made the Palace scenes more impressive (don't forget, Great Britain was crowning Elizabeth as Queen when the remake was released, and American audiences were rabid Anglophiles, totally enthralled by all the Pomp and Circumstance), it also 'dated' the story, making the adventure seem quaint and old-fashioned in the Cold War era. The black-and-white photography of 1937, with it's masterful use of light and shadow, gave the earlier version a timeless quality it still carries to this day.

David Niven, in his autobiography ('The Moon's a Balloon'), said he thought MGM's remake was a ridiculous idea, and that he was pleased that the newer production, even as a scene-for-scene copy, failed. While I think he was, perhaps, too hard on the Granger film, I have to agree that no other version has ever even come close to the magic of Ronald Colman's 1937 classic!

Was the above comment useful to you?

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
This Film is a Blast!, 22 November 2003
Author: builder6 from Indiana, US

Knowing nothing of this film, the book or previous versions, I watched TPOZ expecting nothing but a star-studded cast. I sat enchanted throughout, undisturbed by thoughts of "carbon copy" scenes, recycled musical scores and previous performances. For me the movie was timeless, not a word nor scene wasted, Granger and Kerr were engaging lovers. The sword fight was one of the best. The only "glaring" production fault was the 300 watt shadow. Otherwise, fantastic cinematography and score, and wonderful Granger, Kerr and Mason.

Was the above comment useful to you?

16 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
I like this version more., 26 March 2004
8/10
Author: mvfever from Taiwan

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 .

Was the above comment useful to you?

14 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :-
Old mythology that works, for a change, 12 September 2002
8/10
Author: Tigereyes from West Hollywood, CA

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent adventure, terrific fun!, 6 May 2002
9/10
Author: gofan1 from Washington, USA

This is a wonderfully adventurous romp! Granger is at his best in this type of role! Handsome and daring, he fills all romantic girl dreams of period heros. Deborah Kerr and Stewart Granger have great chemistry and are obviously having fun. The story line is that the King has been kidnapped and a British man who looks exactly like the King has to step in and take his place, to keep the government under control. He however, falls in love with the King's cousin, who is also the King's betrothed. The rest you must see, it is a classic.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
A colourful but superfluous remake of the 1937 adventure classic, 24 December 2002
Author: silverwhistle (docm@silverwhistle.free-online.co.uk) from Glasgow, Scotland

'The Prisoner of Zenda' (1952) is a remake - using the same shooting script, which was in turn adapted from the 1890s stage-play - of the 1937 Ronald Colman/Douglas Fairbanks jr version. While the colour photography makes quite an impact, especially with the costumes, sadly Stewart Granger is not in the Colman league in the dual role of Rudolf Rassendyll and Rudolf V. In fact, the film seems as unnecessary as the recent remake of 'Psycho' - Yes, it's in colour, but with a less interesting cast than the original, so why bother? There was scope for a new film based on Hope's novel, but it needed to be opened out more, with greater development of some of the subordinate characters (always a problem in filming a story written in the first-person).

Stewart Granger was one of the better of the later generation of swashbuckling stars, but somehow he lacks Colman's dignity as Rassendyll. Deborah Kerr at least has the merit of having the 'Elphberg red' hair (which the hero too should have!), and does well enough as the highly idealised Princess Flavia. Much as I generally like James Mason, he's no substitute for Douglas Fairbanks jr. Although he brings out the underlying viciousness of Rupert von Hentzau more effectively than Fairbanks did, he is too old and rather too austere for the role. Hentzau's deep malevolence is far more disturbing coming from what appears to be a flippant and charming boy in his very early 20s. Mason could have been a *wonderful* Duke Michael, although here - as per the 1937 version - that character was still under-written, and again cast too old (Robert Douglas).

Probably the most successful piece of casting in this version is Jane Greer as Antoinette de Mauban, the French courtesan who has attached herself to Michael. As in 1937 (with Mary Astor), an actress best known for her 'film noir' roles is ideal in this part, because Antoinette *is* in many respects an enigmatic, double-crossing 'noir' dame in 19C costume, who must choose whether to betray her lover in order to save him. Whose side is she really on? - It's a great, ultimately tragic sub-plot, which could have been given more weight as a counterpoint to the bittersweet Rassendyll-Flavia romance - but the antique 1890s-1930s script throws it away.

In conclusion: while this film gains some visual charm from the use of colour, the 1937 version has the more memorable performances; but neither quite lives up to the expectations in my imagination, fuelled by the books with their Charles Gibson plates.

Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Romance, gallantry, and pageantry -- I loved it!, 7 February 2000
9/10
Author: julikell from United States

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.

Was the above comment useful to you?

10 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Recycled Cocktail, 18 September 2003
Author: harry-76 from Cleveland, Ohio

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.



Was the above comment useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Average Technicolor remake of a 1937 classic...the fight scenes are a big improvement here..., 25 October 2006
6/10
Author: Peter Andres from Petersburg, Vasaria

The 1937 film version, produced by David Selznick and starring Ronald Colman as Rudolf Rassendyll/King Rudolf V, Madeline Carroll as Princess Flavia, and Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as the villainous Rupert of Hentzau, is an escapist fantasy adventure classic in many respects. It's one of my all-time favorite stories and one of my favorite films to enjoy whenever I'm bored. Besides, the film inspired me to create written adventures of my own imaginary European country as a high school student.

Many years later the MGM studios decided to produce a Technicolor remake of the 1937 film. In few elements, such as in the production values and action scenes, it's an improvement. In most elements it's not.

Here we have a scene-for-scene remake that's virtually identical (even in the camera angles, dialog, and stirring music score by Alfred Newman) to the 1937 film except for the casting. And the casting is the weakest flaw here. Apart from Jane Greer in the Mary Astor role, we have Stewart Granger who has the required athleticism but lacks Ronald Colman's urbane panache in order to act regal. Deborah Kerr's Princess Flavia is a one-dimensional character here. The love scenes and chemistry between Granger and Kerr seems forced and unconvincing. The suave James Mason lacks Douglas Fairbank's young, devilish charm as Rupert of Hentzau, which made Fairbanks so enjoyable to watch in the 1937 version. The supporting characters, Colonel Zapt (Louis Calhern) and Fritz (Robert Coote), are reduced to mere puppets here and lack the buddy charm that C. Aubrey Smith and David Niven contained in the 1937 version.

Even worse, MGM contract director Richard Thorpe captained the film. Being an average director who always relied on shooting as few takes as possible and caring little for artistic temperament or actors' performances, his vast film work was only average and mostly unsatisfactory. He was never one of my favorite classic film directors.

However, it is the magnificent Technicolor production design, as well as the improved final duel between Rassendyll and Rupert, that makes the remake worth watching. Thanks to the bright lighting required for shooting in Technicolor, the night scenes are easier to watch this time. Even better, the exciting final duel is much more elaborately and imaginatively staged this time, while the two opponents in the 1937 version only looked as if they were fencing someone off-camera in close-ups and relying on stunt men in their long shots. Next to THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1938) THE MARK OF ZORRO (1940), and THE SEA HAWK (1940), this one ranks as one of my favorite film duels. However, despite the extravagant settings, the period look goes a little too far...the men smoke ladies' cigarettes and in two scenes Granger wears the most effeminate fur overcoat I've ever seen!

A beautiful Technicolor production and an awesome duel scene within...but after watching this version it's like you've just ate a slice of French silk chocolate pie, which is rich and filling but lacks the substance and nutritional value of a healthier dark chocolate bar.

Stick to the 1937 version, please.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history