The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
54 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A Constitutional Crisis In Ruritania
bkoganbing26 October 2009
Next to the 1937 version with Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., this version of The Prisoner Of Zenda is the one most fondly remembered by movie audiences. If it doesn't quite have the panache of the Colman film, it makes up for it with the introduction of some nice color cinematography.

The casting of Stewart Granger in the double role of Rudolph Rassendyll and his royal cousin, the Crown Prince Rudolph of Ruritania and James Mason as the villainous Rupert of Hentzau is hardly some stock company casting. If Granger doesn't quite have Colman's flair for the spoken word and very few ever have, he makes a fine and dashing hero which parts he played very well, too well in his opinion on his career. As for Mason, Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. took the Rupert part because he was advised it's one of the best villains ever created in drama. Mason who has also played some of the best villains on screen keeps up the fine tradition for that role.

The 1937 version benefited from having the world wide publicity of the constitutional crisis in the United Kingdom over Edward VIII choice of consort. I've wondered whether someone over at MGM after George VI died in early 1952 whether they thought it was now time to do another remake of The Prisoner Of Zenda in time to coincide with the publicity of Queen Elizabeth II's coronation. Which begs the question whether we'll get yet another version when Prince Charles eventually assumes the throne. We've seen over ten versions so far going back to the silent screen.

The women in the cast, Deborah Kerr and Jane Greer as Princess Flavia and Antoinette DeMauban respectively never come in for much discussion of their roles. The parts in relation to the hero are almost a carbon copy of the roles of Katharine DeVaucelles and Hugette from If I Were King. I've always thought that Greer as Antoinette plays one of the most tragic characters in popular literature. She loves a cold and forbidding man in Prince Michael, especially when played by Robert Douglas. But he's her man and when she does ever so slightly give in to the scheming Hentzau she regrets it when it means the death of her beloved. Personally why she falls for a cold fish that Michael is who can figure. But the heart does have its reasons.

As for Kerr her best scene is at the end when she realizes she has been hoodwinked, but in a scheme for the greater good of the kingdom. She knows what her obligations are and she too can't afford to follow her heart.

Something tells me we're far from done with The Prisoner Of Zenda. Try and figure out who could play these roles today with the flair of the players in this version, let alone the one from 1937.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Old mythology that works, for a change
Tigereyes12 September 2002
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.
28 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Colourful and entertaining version of the Ruritarian romance
TheLittleSongbird30 September 2010
This pales I think to the brilliant 1937 film, but this version is still very good. It is a little too short though and some of the exchanges of the dialogue lack the class and unique chemistry of the 1937 film. However, the colour, costumes and scenery are exquisite and the score is marvellous. The film goes at a good pace too and the romantic and exciting story never fails to engage, while the acting in general is very good. Stewart Granger is marvellous in his dashing and heroic dual role, and Deborah Kerr is ravishing as Princess Flavia. Jane Greer comes off even better, while James Mason is a menacing and somewhat austere Rupert and while his part is a little underwritten perhaps Robert Douglas is appropriately sinister as Michael. Overall, far from perfect, but worthy and colourful version. 8/10 Bethany Cox
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Film is a Blast!
builder622 November 2003
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.
39 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Something short of greatness
Igenlode Wordsmith13 February 2006
On the face of it, "The Prisoner of Zenda" has everything a swashbuckler could require to make it a glorious success: a star-studded cast with previous form, Technicolour pageantry, MGM production values, an Alfred Newman score, a classic story of self-sacrificing heroism... not to mention a setting that's not only generically but genuinely Ruritanian! But on viewing it again after a lapse of some years, I find that it still doesn't work for me; and there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason why.

There were in fact *two* films released in 1952 starring Stewart Granger in sword-fighting heroics: one of them -- enchanting, bittersweet, dancing of wit and of blade, and featuring what was to become one of the most famous fight sequences in screen history -- was, of course, "Scaramouche". The other was "The Prisoner of Zenda"... and somehow, in every aspect that melded together to produce the classic that was its counterpart, it never quite catches up. Swashbucklers should spring lightly; this one has gloss, but a certain stilted air.

Stewart Granger differentiates his dual roles admirably, to the extent that I caught myself becoming sceptical as to the actual resemblance between the two supposed doubles! His final duel is as athletic as any in his screen career, although the plot demands dogged defence rather than flashing brilliance; indeed, the outcome is refreshingly unconventional. However, I didn't find Rudolf Rassendyll to be one of his more memorable characters.

It was James Mason, sporting an incongruous Prussian bullet-head haircut, who was the real disappointment for me. No stranger to charismatic villainy in the likes of "The Man in Grey", "Fanny by Gaslight" or "The Wicked Lady", he is here oddly lacking in Rupert of Hentzau's essential perverse charm, in what should have been a scene-stealing part. The other male characters are little more than one-dimensional down to Duke Michael's villainous limp, although Louis Calhern makes an upright Colonel Zapt.

The women fare better. Deborah Kerr is sweet, fiery and entirely convincing as Princess Flavia, next in line to the throne, and Jane Greer is more than equal to the pivotal role of Antoinette de Mauban, whose complex motives prove the key to the whole plot.

Ultimately, I found this a decent film, but not as outstanding as it should have been, given its constituent parts. It isn't the best work of any of the actors involved. I am reminded of Zoltan Korda's re-make of his own "Four Feathers" as the widescreen "Storm of the Nile": the story (and indeed in that case the script) is the same, but the spark is missing.

Given the parallels, I must admit that I'm now very curious as to how the 1937 "Prisoner of Zenda" -- which I've never seen -- stands up in comparison! This one is a plush literary adaptation, but lacks the rollicking rapier-edge of laughter and daring that characterise the great classics of its genre.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Stewart Granger duels James Mason
wes-connors25 June 2011
"He has the appearance and manner of the king, yet he's really a lookalike… and on his shoulders rests all hope of foiling a blackguard's plot to usurp the throne. Adventure, pageantry and royal intrigue are forged at sword point in the two finest screen versions of the beloved 1894 novel filmed many times," according to the Warner Home Video release, "Ronald Colman plays the double role in the resilient 1937 David O. Selznick production (Side A), making palpable the heartbreak of the royal stand-in whose gallantry is tested by his love for the real king's fiancée (Madeleine Carroll). Stewart Granger stars in the eye-filling 1952 color version (Side B), romancing Deborah Kerr and wielding bold steel in the film's bravura climactic duel."

Thanks to whoever at Warner/Turner decided to release these two versions of "The Prisoner of Zenda" together. Considering the way things are usually handled in Hollywood, the obvious has become inspired. Adding extra movies, for less than the price of two (or more), also encourages sales. They could have added "The Prisoner of Zenda" (1922) for even better measure, assuming the three "Metro" features are owned by Warner Bros. Of the two available here, the 1937 "black-and-white" version wins the sword fight, though the 1952 color version is inoffensive and beautifully photographed (by Joseph Ruttenberg).

Examined together, the three films support the widely held belief that the more villainous role in a drama is often the one to act. In this case, observe how the character "Rupert of Hentzau" supports this thesis. In the 1927 version, the role made Ramon Novarro a star. In the 1937 and 1952 versions, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and James Mason are always above or equal to anyone else in the cast. The fact that Mr. Colman can his own against Mr. Fairbanks helps make their version a classic. Lewis Stone appears in two versions, and Louis Calhern played the lead on stage. In each case, "The Prisoner of Zenda" is an attractive production.

****** The Prisoner of Zenda (11/4/52) Richard Thorpe ~ Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, James Mason, Louis Calhern
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Factory refurbished product.
rmax30482330 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Well it's a lot more colorful than the more familiar 1937 version, mainly because it's shot in Technicolor. Otherwise it's an almost shot-for-shot remake. If there were any changes in the dialog they slipped past the transcendental unity of my apperception.

So if the story is the same, and the dialog is the same, and the direction is almost the same, where are the differences between the 1937 and the 1954 versions? There are some slight differences in the staging and direction. The most notable is in the climactic sabre duel between James Mason as Rupert and Stewart Granger as Rudolf. This one lasts longer and is better staged. More use is made of furniture and there are more dramatic touches. And the wardrobe in this scene is a bit more splashy in the case of Stewart's character. Here he wears a rather dashing dark blue outfit accented by a designer silver dagger at his hip. In the earlier version poor Ronald Coleman was stuffed into a homely and somewhat raggedy looking woolen turtleneck sweater.

And the principle parts are played by different actors and actresses so there are additional variations on the theme of intrigue, action, and love in Ruritania. Jane Greer is comelier than Mary Astor was. Robert Douglas is a sneering villain, much like Raymond Massey, his predecessor, but brings less character to the role. Douglas simply can't sneer with such complete contempt as Massey did, but then hardly anybody could. Deborah Kerr perhaps wins by a nose over Madeleine Carrol in the part of Flavia. She looks just fine and is appealingly breathless and helpless whereas Carrol, though beautiful, played her stock part as if it were a stock part. A man might love her and want to ravish her but he would also want to protect Kerr. The guy playing Fritz is without distinction while David Niven in 1937 was a memorable sidekick.

Stewart Granger seemed to be stuck in Errol Flynn's pictures in Hollywood, as he is here, and doesn't have a chance to invest much of his considerable talent in the role of the play actor. And although he maintains an amused distance from the proceedings he isn't full of gaiety and doesn't chuckle so often as Ronald Coleman did. His tall, solid, muscular figure does suggest a man more suited to physical action than Coleman.

I enjoyed James Mason as the sardonic villain. He's got the same lines as Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., in the 1937 version but he gives them a very different twist. Fairbanks was all smiles, laughter, devil-may-care, reckless. Mason's every sentence begins with a high contemptuous whine -- awwwmmmm. He still smiles a lot, but it's an evil calculating smile, as if he truly believes he sees through all the social ritual and is able to read the dark and dreadful desires in each human soul. And, as in earlier versions, he's given by far the most engaging lines. When he tells Robert Douglas that the real king has been replaced by a ringer, he adds that it may be hard to believe that two people could look so much alike, "But I knew twin sisters once who -- but that's another story." Fairbanks was like a child misbehaving. Mason is like a supercilious snob.

I enjoyed it as much as I did the 1937 version and I suppose many others did too. Santa Maria, the hoary story has been remade so many times that we have to wonder if it's not time for still another rendition to be trotted out. Perhaps its announcement has been delayed because no one is able to figure out exactly how to fit a car chase and an exploding fireball into a story set in Mitteleuropa in 1903. Maybe they can update it. Instead of being a REAL king, somebody can play the King of the White House. And they can change the title to, "The Prisoner of Karl Rove."
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A highly romantic costumed adventure...
Nazi_Fighter_David24 August 1999
Warning: 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...
39 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I'm Wrong And I'm Okay With That
gavin694221 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
An Englishman vacationing in a Ruritarian kingdom is recruited to impersonate his cousin, the soon-to-be-crowned king when the monarch is drugged and kidnapped.

This version of "The Prisoner of Zenda" used the same shooting script as the 1937 David O. Selznick film directed by John Cromwell and starring Ronald Colman and Madeleine Carroll. Slight variations in the screenplay were added by Noel Langley. In addition to the dialogue, the same film score, composed by Alfred Newman for the 1937 version, was also used for this version. A comparison of the two films reveals that settings and camera angles, in most cases, are the same.

Now, the consensus is that the 1937 version is the superior and definitive version. Typically, I agree with critics and tend to think older versions of films are generally better (though not always). On this one, though, I simply found the remake more engaging. The lead was more persuasive and I think there was just more emotion conveyed. It was more passionate than the original and this kept me far more interested.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Romance, gallantry, and pageantry -- I loved it!
JulieKelleher577 February 2000
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.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Moving and exciting film about an Englishman on a Ruritarian holiday must impersonate the king
ma-cortes27 November 2021
This is a story of royal romance and of adventure , as breathless and flashing as a sword play . This is a classic swashbuckler concerning an innocent traveler , Rudolph Rassendyll (Stewart Granger) , Rudolf V's identical distant relative , in a small European country , as he results to be the exact double of its king and gets involved in a murder plot . In order to save King Rudolph of Ruritania (Stewart Granger as well) from assassins and murderous usurpers , the kingdom aristocrats (Louis Calhern, Robert Coote) hire a look-a-like London man, a distant cousin , to impersonate the Monarch . Upon the death of his father the King, Rudolph V is set to assume the throne of Ruritania and the honest Britishman as his stand-in . Both become involved in troubles , along with his half-brother , Grand Duke Michael (Robert Douglas) , his orphaned cousin who lives in a wing of the palace located in the Ruritanian capital of Strelsau and the lovely Princess Flavia (Debora Kerr) . When the rightful monarch is drugged and kidnapped , the adventurous knight goes into action . If Rudolf V isn't present at the ceremony, he will forfeit the crown to his older half-brother. Complications ensue when Princess Flavia, the king's cousin and betrothed, begins to notice a "personality change" in her fiancé . The Grand Duke of Strelsau , with his longtime faithful companions and Rupert of Hentzau (James Mason) , plan to detain the King at the Grand Duke's hunting lodge on the grounds of his castle at Zenda on the day of the coronation so that Michael can assume the throne in Strelsau in his place . A reckless love that fought to live ¡ . They fought for the right to rule she fought for the right to love ¡ . The most thrilling swordfight ever filmed... Romance and adventure to thrill you! Confusion reigns in Ruritania ¡ . They dared not kill him; They dared not let him live In this dilemma were conspirators against the King of Ruritania. This is but one of the amazingly dramatic situations in The Metro Golwyn Mayer Production of The Prisoner of Zenda ¡.

This is a slight and hugely budgeted retelling about the durable Anthony Hope's novel with all-star-cast . It is packed with derring-do , suspense , a sensitive love story , action , drama and thrilling as well as dazzling swordplay between Stewart Granger and James Mason . Entertaining swashbuckling with lavish production , glamorous gowns and luxurious settings . The fifth of six movie versions of Anthony Hope's famous adventure , a blockbuster of its day . This is a flashy Technicolor remake of the notorious and better 1937 Ronald Colman rendition . Stewart Granger plays the nobleman forced to impersonate a king in a mythical European country , as he's asked to risk his life and impersonate the would-be king when his relative is kidnapped before his impending coronation , a situation that rises to some moments from which filmmaker Richard Thorpe manages to extract the maximum of intrigue and tension . As the tale carries its excitement with thrills , noisy action, swashbuckling , an attractive romance and anything else . Cast and support cast are frankly excellent , such as the gorgeous Deborah Kerr , the mysterious Jane Greer , the tall Louis Calhern and the sympathetic Robert Coote . And Lewis Stone who performed the dual leading character in a silent version made in 1922 , has a small cameo here as a Cardinal . In this The Prisoner of Zenda (1952) stands out James Mason as the ominous villain with a Rommel haircut as well as a penchant for irony and heel-clicking . The rest of the casting is exemplary and with good reason the movie has never lost its reputation of being one of the most enjoyable aventure-romance ever produced . Adding an impressive final duel between Stewart Granger and James Mason was almost as good as the one Ronald Colman and Douglas Fairbanks in the past retelling . The motion pictue was professionally directed by Richard Thorpe .

There are several versions about this classy story , these are the following ones : ¨The prisoner of Zenda¨(1922) by Rex Ingram with Lewis Stone , Alice Terry , Robert Edeson , Stuart Holmes , Ramon Novarro . ¨The Prisoner of Zenda¨ (1937) by John Cromwell with Ronald Colman as Major Rudolf Rassendyll / The Prisoner of Zenda , Madeleine Carroll as Princess Flavia , C. Aubrey Smith , Raymond Massey . ¨The prisoner of Zenda¨ (1979) by Richard Quine with Peter Sellers , Lionel Jeffries , Elke Sommer , Lynn Frederick , among others.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
God save the kings!
dbdumonteil7 September 2008
"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.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fun Costume Drama-The Prisoner of Zenda
arthur_tafero25 March 2022
This is a nice hour and change of mindless entertainment that will keep your attention and gain your appreciation. There is no great message here; no unique storyline; just good old Hollywood casting and shooting of scenes that are well done. All of the actors do an admirable job; Granger and Kerr as the romantic interests, and Mason as the heavy. The direction and cinematography are crisp and a good time is had by all (except Mason).
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
I hope the crown's a better fit? Ah, but is this remake a better fit?
hitchcockthelegend8 June 2010
While on holiday an Englishman who resembles the king of a small European nation gets mixed up in palace intrigue and royal romance when his royal doppelgänger is kidnapped.

A Technicolor remake of Anthony Hope's much filmed story sees Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr and James Mason star, while directing is Richard Thorpe, composing the score is Alfred Newman and cinematography is by Joseph Ruttenberg.

Lush and at times lavish, this MGM production is however rather ponderous at times. The first hour positively crawls and while Granger is just fine in the dual roles of Rudolf Rassendyl/King Rudolf V, the dynamism and breezy pace of the Ronald Colman starring 1937 version is sadly lacking. A better director than Richard "One Take Only" Thorpe could have made better use of the budget. There's also a distinct lack originality in the piece since it's practically the same film as the 37 movie. Even using the same Newman score. You have to wonder what was the point really?

Still, there are some enjoyable moments in here to not make it a complete waste of time. James Mason, in spite of it being a rare occasion where he's miscast, is worth a watch for his line in campy villainy. While Ruttenberg's camera-work doesn't waste the chance to swash that buckle in a Technicolor sheen. The duelling sequence, that sadly seems to take forever to arrive, is well choreographed (better than anything in the 37 movie actually), and the costumes by Walter Plunkett are very pleasing on the eye. 5/10
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Extravagant Remake of 1937 Classic Nice, but...
cariart7 September 2003
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!
52 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Disappointing
Calysta17 January 2000
High budgeted MGM film of fantasy and another time is typical of the work the studio was doing in the early 1950s. Although they were as usual doing some great work around this time, there were some pretty forsaken awful films getting a release at this time, and this was a film which could have been more, but wasn't.

Remake of the 1937 Ronald Colman classic, the latter is a disastrous film, probably an ill advised adventure. Probably inspired and riding high by the big biblical hit "Quo Vadis" made the year before, art decorative sets of mammoth proportion formed a Zenda which is noticeably studio bound and lacking magic. In bold technicolour, these sets stick out annoyingly like a sore thumb. However, the costumes were a nice touch.

Stewart Granger was laughably miscast. His performance in the dual role, I found, was dull and almost unbearable. Deborah Kerr is actually better as the beautiful Princess Flavia, but on the whole she too is disappointing. The supporting cast even worse, but with the mediocre script, the actors cannot be entirely blamed themselves.

This is a classic example of a good story ruined for Hollywood overpriced grandeur. I found the remote control to press onwards more easily than a laugh or even a good stretch of a scene. Only the Deborah Kerr sections were watchable, and its a wonder that after this would-be junk that the film spawned a gem that year, "Singin' in the Rain".

Rating: 5.5/10
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A lovely but completely unnecessary film.
planktonrules12 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very familiar but fun tale of a man whose exact double is the kidnapped prince of a fictional European country. This exact double is asked to fill in for the man who is to be crowned king--and gets caught up in all sorts of intrigue and romance.

If you watch this film, you will no doubt enjoy it. After all, the story is wonderful and the actors are quite good. The problem for me is that although this is a lovely film, it's also completely unnecessary, as the 1937 film version was nearly perfect. Ronald Colman was perfect in the lead and his supporting cast (including C. Aubrey Smith, David Niven, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. And Raymond Massey) were perfectly cast as well. Here, Stewart Granger and James Mason (among others) were good but at no point did they make me prefer this over the classic 1937 version. My advice is to just see this earlier film. Other than being in black & white, it's better in every way.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Two kings
Prismark1027 May 2017
Stewart Granger plays twin roles. An Englishman called Rassendyll on a fishing trip to a small European kingdom of Ruritania and gets strange looks from the locals. This is because he looks a lot like the new King Rudolf, a distant cousin of his.

After a night of partying with the king, Rassendyll soon discovers that thanks to the king's brother their is intrigue to wrest the crown from the decadent Rudolf before his coronation. Rassendyll agrees to step into the place of the King to keep the country steady. He falls in love with Princess Flavia (Deborah Kerr) while dastardly Rupert of Hentzau (James Mason) also wants to take control of the kingdom.

This is a lavish Technicolor remake of the Ronald Colman version, a faithful pedestrian remake though. It should had been more cavalier but Mason makes a sinister villain and there is plenty of swashbuckling.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent adventure, terrific fun!
gofan16 May 2002
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.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Dual In The Crown
writers_reign11 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The concept of turning to a proved success rather than come up with an Original Screenplay is something that seems to beset only producers of today whereas this film is proof that it has been going on for more than half a century. They may have opted to film the 1937 version shot for shot but, alas, they couldn't replicate the original cast and had to settle for acting joke Stewart Granger, insipid Deborah Kerr and rely on James Mason to supply the only decent acting amongst the principals, plus strong support from Louis Cahern and Robert Coote. The story itself retains all its Boy's own Paper razzamatazz and it's one of the few properties which does not suffer by the addition of colour. Once you get past the wooden Granger and the passionless Kerr you can bask in the charisma of Mason and beguile the time pleasantly.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I like this version more.
mvfever26 March 2004
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 .
34 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sanitized entertainment for family viewing
JuguAbraham7 June 2002
Anthony Hope's novel never appealed to me as a young man--the story of look-alikes ruling countries abound in "The Prince and the Pauper" and its ilk. To film the story, one would expect a director to go beyond the text and put an intelligent perspective to the story. Anthony Thorpe does nothing of the kind but settles for good looking actors and good sets. Children would love it because it is so uncomplicated and you do not have to think beyond what you are told on screen.

The only redeeming feature in the film was James Mason's above average performance. Deborah Kerr's performance is lackluster compared to her fine performance in The Night of Iguana, which convinces me that an inspired director can make an actor come alive on screen--and an unspired one merely make one look good. The other actors do not deserve mention.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A Colorful but lesser Ruritania
theowinthrop3 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Stewart Granger - Deborah Kerr movie version of Anthony Hope's THE PRISONER OF ZENDA is an entertaining film, but it comes off second best to it's 1937 predecessor with Ronald Colman and Madeleine Carroll. The fact that the film was in Technicolor (Colman's was in black and white) is odd but possibly part of the reason for the slightly lesser result. All of the performers in the 1952 version did very good work that was comparable to the work that the previous cast did. Yet the later film is not quite as good.

According to the Turner Classic Movie's Stewart Granger was at a dinner at Ronald Colman's house where they ran the 1937 film as entertainment. Granger liked the film and convinced MGM to do a remake. The film was like a scene by scene remake - with a small screen set up showing the original film for the cast to review when they did their scenes. The only changes was the production crew, the cast and the color film stock.

Granger comes off as good as Rudolf Rassendyl and King Rudolf V, but he is a trifle self conscious. When Colman played the part he had a great lightness of touch that helped color his performance (particularly when dealing with both Douglas Fairbanks Jr. as Rupert of Hentzau and Raymond Massey as Black Michael). Granger tries to copy this but it seems a little forced. It's odd because he had an advantage over Colman regarding the cast - Rupert in the 1952 film was played by James Mason, who had already appeared in two films (as deadly adversary) to Granger (THE MAN IN GRAY and FANNY BY GASLIGHT). Colman never appeared opposite Fairbanks in any previous movie to their version of THE PRISONER. As a result there is a screen chemistry between Granger and Mason, but it doesn't translate to a better pair of performances. Some critics point out that Mason seems to old for Rupert, but except for being called "Young Hentzau" by Colonel Sapt (Louis Calhern) there is nothing to suggest he is in his early 20s. However, Fairbanks was leaner in appearance than Mason, so that his youthful qualities did shine through while Mason's just did not do so.

The part of Michael is handled by Robert Douglas as though he is just jealous of his half-brother's luck of birth. Yet he is shown with one thing that Raymond Massey's performance did not have - Massey was not crippled. Douglas constantly walks with a cane, which suggests a physical weakness that is a mirror to his emotional one. But it's too little, and it is never really developed.

Deborah Kerr's Flavia is appealing (any performance of Kerr's is appealing) but Madeleine Carroll was able to get the jolt of that sense of duty that prevents Rassendyl and Flavia from leaving at the end - Kerr seems to be just repeating her lines by rote in their last scene. Mary Astor and Jane Greer both were equally affective as Michael's mistress, as were C. Aubrey Smith and Louis Calhern as Sapt (Calhern was able to give a devilish twist to the Colonel at one point when commenting on a hidden passage in the royal palace at Streslau which was useful for protecting royal reputations). David Niven and Robert Coote were Fritz von Tarkeheim in the two versions, and both played the role effectively but not remarkably.

The color was useful in the 1952 film in making the sets more evocative of that period from 1890 to 1897 (Victoria's upcoming Jubilee is mentioned at one point). But it only goes so far - it just reminds us that the characters are in a realistic setting. But the story is such romantic fluff that the realism seems unimportant.

In short the 1952 film is really good, but the earlier one is nearly perfect in comparison. I still would stick to Colman's version than Granger's. As for the 1979 Peter Seller's spoof, or the 1975 Malcolm MacDowell "George Macdonald Fraser's" ROYAL FLASH, or the 1965 partial spoof in the Blake Edwards' THE GREAT RACE, they are in a special class as they are not serious remakes but done for laughs mostly.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
What Does This Film Have In Common With The Maltese Falcon?
malvernp9 December 2020
The Maltese Falcon (TMF) and The Prisoner Of Zenda (TPOZ) have two things in common with each other:

1. Each is represented by the definitive screen adaptation of a classic novel. TMF is most famous for the 1941 version directed by John Huston (his first) starring a memorable cast led by Humphrey Bogart, Sidney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Mary Astor and many others. TPOZ is celebrated for the acclaimed Selznick-produced classic featuring Ronald Colman, Madeleine Carroll, Raymond Massey, C. Aubrey Smith and many others.

2. Each is represented by a cinematic remake that owes a great deal to an earlier version of the same novel. Huston's creation of TMF was preceded by Roy Del Ruth's 1931 film of the same name starring Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels. This 1952 edition of TPOZ directed by Richard Thorpe and starring Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr is a scene-by-scene restatement of the Selznick accomplishment except for the absence of the original film's fun, sparkle and charm, stunning black and white photography and amazing cast.

A paint-by-numbers portrait may come out as a very fine copy. But in the end, it will lack the many intangible qualities that go into the development and presentation of an original masterpiece.

What Huston was able to achieve in his remake of TMF is truly remarkable. Thorpe's lack of critical success in his effort to revisit TPOZ has been well documented and needs no further comment. The difference between the two situations provides a useful illustration about the presence or absence of genius on creative inspiration.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The Prisoner of Colman
arieliondotcom19 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
All the color in the world, and even Deborah Kerr, can't remove the Curse of Coleman from this movie. Once you have seen the Ronald Coleman version and the color he adds from his acting, you will find yourself wishing for it all through this pale excuse of a remake. Nothing else will do.

There are nice touches such as the coronation scene. And if I hadn't been spoiled by seeing what the film could have really been in the earlier version I might even enjoy it. But it is just not possible with the shallow acting here and the dragging plot. It sinks into being just a B movie schmaltz story instead of the exciting adventure it should have been. BUt here everything from plot to actors to set decoration is like watching a rouged up corpse at a wake. You can pretty it up all you want but it is dead after all the efforts.

Save yourself two hours of your life and spend it instead watching the Ronald Coleman version. You will never regret it.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed