JohnHowardReid
Not quite the absolute marvel that most critics really enthuse over, but pretty exciting stuff nonetheless, what with Colman shaking hands with himself and Fairbanks Jr as the definitively cavalier villain. Colman is much more animated and interestingly personable than usual, whilst Carroll plays to the hilt. Smith and Niven, alas, are stuck with tediously explanatory roles, though both do their best. Astor's part is small. But Raymond Massey plays the sneering, black-uniformed villain with such striking precision, we can only regret that he is removed from the action too soon.However, when all's said and done, it's Fairbanks's film. He plays with such dash and panache, one can't help but admire so charming a heavy.Technically, the film proves also a second wonder, though the special effects vary from magically fascinating to pretty obvious. The sets, however, are never anything short of sweepingly magnificent. Cromwell has directed with style and finesse. His set-pieces such as the coronation and the ball (with its great introductory tracking shot) are so richly dazzling that director Richard Thorpe had no hesitation imitating Cromwell's set-ups for his 1952 remake. As Brenda Davies comments, our only regret is that Selznick saw fit to have a couple of scenes re-done by other directors. Cukor's renunciation scene marks an abrupt change of tone, but Van Dyke's sword fight with its obvious camera under-cranking, is equally graceless and out of place.Wong Howe's masterly camerawork and skilfully atmospheric lighting is somewhat undermined in present DVD prints by processing in black-and-white. Some sequences of the original were released in sepia. For some odd reason, in 1985 TV copies these scenes were printed green. Alas, they are now all black-and-white. Another problem is that when the movie was originally aired on 1960s TV - miracle of miracles! - the framing story had been restored. The sparkling 16mm prints had obviously been struck from an original negative. The 1985 prints, on the other hand, were duped on to color stock from an old projection print. Alas, no framing story. It is still missing.
Fogbraider
I've long loved the 1952 version with Stewart Granger as Rudolf Rassendyll/the King, and only recently discovered that it's a re- make (almost line by line and gesture by gesture, with only a few additions and changes) of the 1937 film with Ronald Coleman. Both do well to stick closely to the coolly witty dialogue of the novel (via an earlier stage adaptation). This is a large part of the enduring attraction of both films.I agree with the other reviewers who praise Douglas Fairbanks Jr in the role of the villain, Rupert of Hentzau (though James Mason in 1952 is excellent too, with his more cynical take). But I was disappointed in Coleman's performance. As the King's double, which is his role for the larger part of the film, he seems perpetually anxious and slightly bewildered, which might be realistic for somebody in that position, but doesn't convey the dashing Rassendyll of the novel. Granger does. It's easy to see why Flavia falls in love with Granger, but Coleman lacks that charisma. His performance reminds me of his role as the sad figure of a WWI officer with amnesia in *Random Harvest*. The girl credibly falls in love with him in that film from a starting point of pity. How does that work with Flavia? It shouldn't.The swashbuckling is well put together, but it's pretty obvious that Coleman isn't doing any at all - when he's filmed from the front, the picture is cut off so that we don't see his sword arm. The rest is done with doubles and shadows. One reviewer mentioned that Fairbanks also had a double, but at least there are frontal shots of him credibly waving a weapon about.
krocheav
Time has not been kind to this cliché ridden matinée style tale. It has an OK look, some good names in the cast but director Cromwell had not yet developed his best form (he was much better as years went by)If you grew up enjoying this film, you probably still will, others might need to beware. Selznick was known for quality works but not a great deal has survived in this production. Lighting and general photography is good (though the TCM Australian print is very poor). The early Alfred Newman score is colorful, Coleman is as grand as always (but even he looks uncomfortable within this silly situation). Fairbanks makes a formidably evil villain but editing is sloppy and screenplay somewhat stale. May have been good in its day, but.....
blanche-2
John Cromwell directed, David O. Selznick produced, and Ronald Colman, Madeline Carroll, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and David Niven star in the 1937 film "The Prisoner of Zenda." That's really all any viewer needs to know.Rudolph Rassendyll (Colman), King Rudolf V's identical cousin, is asked to impersonate the kidnapped future king (Colman) at the coronation. Otherwise, the crown goes to his younger brother.This is a top-notch film with a great performance by Ronald Colman in a dual role, something he was called upon to do during his career several times. Colman was an smooth actor of great charm. One of the comments (from a man, of course) asked if he was supposed to be handsome because if he was, the commenter couldn't see it. Just an opinion: Colman was good-looking in the style of actors in the early to mid-thirties, but it was his gentle quality, beautiful speaking voice, and fine acting that put him over with female audiences. Here his fiancé is the gorgeous Madeleine Carroll, and they make a wonderful couple.Douglas Fairbanks Jr. is one of my favorite actors, and he performs the villainous Rupert with panache, creating an excellent character. Raymond Massey is another villain, Michael, and he's very good. David Niven is in a small role - he's on his way up as a younger Colman - in fact, he was supposed to play Colman's brother in Lost Horizon.The end of the film is total action with a magnificent swordfight. Don't miss this version of Prisoner of Zenda.
AD
