It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

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.

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.

This adaptation of The Prisoner Of Zender has Stewart Grainger playing European King Rudolf V at Strelsau who is the constitutional head of a version of a feudalistic system. In order to retain this version of a European feudal system, then it is crucial for King Rudolfe to be crowned. But like some kings (for example Great Britain's Edward VII, -9 November 1841 – 6 May 1910)he leads a merry and decadent life of irresponsibility. This makes him vulnerable and as such rife for usurping by his half brother Michael, Duke of Strelsau (Robert Douglass). But Michael's threat to the the crown lays in his courtier, the villain Rupert of Hentzau (James Mason)who seeks glory and power for himself via Michael as opposed for the latter.Therefore the threat to the crown and the feudalistic system in this film is that of a republican nature in that Rupert of Hentzau has desires of power. In this respect the fairytale-like plot is not too far from what is interpreted as reality by the British press. To further explain, some sectors of the British press would have former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a one time pretender to the crown. This ambition is interpreted as being dangerous for the people in the form of Rupert of Hentzau in The Prisoner Of Zender.Elements of William Shakespeare's ( some say, propaganda) play, Richard III are found in The Prisoner of Zender. Like Richard III, the Prisoner Of Zender illustrates a fragile monarchy, and the feudal system which buttresses it destabilised by a treacherous half brother. As the film illustrates, the feudal system is bound by the loyalty of an aristocracy which in turn is furnished with a privileged lifestyle. This is illustrated by Princess Favia (Deborah Kerr) who isn't willing to give such a privileged lifestyle up. Such a privileged lifestyle comes to define the meaning of national patriotism that binds its subjects (the people) to. With the nobility defining patriotism then all who disagree with them are disloyal, traitors and usurpers as seen in Rupert of Hentzau.Indeed, Rupert of Hentzau is keen to break the feudalistic system as witnessed in the swashbuckling sword-fencing scene where he defies the rules of play. This prominent scene is one of the best in the film. Where Grainger is urbane, and charming in his style of acting his duel role, Mason is the scene stealer. The latter's acting is first rate, and it never lets up. Another prominent actor in The Prisoner Of Zender is Jane Greer who plays Antoinette de Mauban with conviction.The Technicolour of the film reflects and captures the ostentatiousness of a regal lifestyle, here directed by alleged budget conscious Richard Thorpe. Moreover, the Technicolour brings the film to life and adds to its fairytale-like appeal. This makes the film a feast for the eyes.In sum this film is on the surface superficial, but beneath its Technicolour, movie star glamour it is a Shakespereanesque tale of political intrigue!

Having not seen the 1937 version, to me the '52 movie is a perfectly serviceable movie. Hokie in some places? Sure. But still a great movie with a heart felt cast. There's a lot to be said for the simple authenticity of non CGI movies with Romantic themes.Michael is deliciously dastardly, the uniforms are quaint yet hold a sense of menace, and in particular Deborah Kerr's performance really is underrated and very well done. I think it's a tribute to the original story that it has been remade so many times. Its universal themes offer something for each of us: duty and lost love, the danger of greed, and a reminder of chivalry from 19th century Europe, whatever its paternalistic and hierarchical undertones.