It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I really wanted to like this. How could it go wrong with Peter Sellers and Lionel Jeffries on board as well as composer Henry Mancini and script-writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais? Sadly, something did go wrong, and I am still puzzled as what the biggest problem was with this film. Not all is bad though, the film has gorgeous sets and costumes and is beautifully shot, and Henry Mancini's score is great as you would expect from the composer of the Pink Panther movies, Great Mouse Detective and Breakfast at Tiffanys. However, the writing had all the ingredients to be funny but instead came across as forced(which is bad news for a spoof remake, which considering the source material was something I felt wasn't going to work in the first place), while the story as well as being sluggishly paced just lacks wit and thrills and the characters are rather cartoony(especially George Sierra). The acting fares little better, with Peter Sellers, who I consider a comic genius, coming across as both exaggerated and uninterested, while George Sierra even with bulging eyes makes little of his admittedly cartoony character and everyone else, especially John Laurie, have little to do and are dull as a result. In conclusion, not a complete disaster but just didn't work for me. 3/10 Bethany Cox

This is a very lavish looking, picturesque romp that should have been a sure fire hit. "Porridge" scriptwriters Dick Clement and Ian Le Frenais were the men responsible for turning the classic Anthony Hope into a comedy, which shouldn't have been too difficult bearing in mind the ridiculous scenario linked to the main story. However, this scenario is all they went for, and any characterisation or satirical touches are abandoned and a lot of cartoonish setups such as Gregory Sierra's role and also other segments such as the explosive bowls game and the early scene in the restaurant replace any serious comedy. Therefore, in his dwindling health and sorrowful state, Sellers looks a bit out of place amongst the diving into the water routines and the jumping of a tall castle stints. It is very similar to his Fu Manchu experience two years later (when he also played two roles) in that he's still putting the work in but to little effect. The film is a reminder of his earlier years and really backfires as a poor man's Pink Panther. However, he still proves that he can act (which is a lot more than most actors these days) despite the poor material and backed by a host of regular artists such as Catherine Schell, Elke Sommer (both stars of Pink Pantherfs), Graham Stark, John Laurie, Jeremy Kemp (who had starred in Sellers' The Blockhouse in 1972) - it should have been better considering the quality of Sellers' other films at the time, but it does fall very flat.

I`m not very familiar with THE PRISONER OF ZENDA . I know it`s a novel by Anthony Hope that involves an English commoner who so resembles the King of Rurtinia so much that he becomes a stand in , I know that Robert Donat starred in a well regarded film version , and that the 1978 DOCTOR WHO story The Andriods Of Tara was based on Hope`s novel . That was all I really knew as I sat down to watch this comedy version of the story I was totally unimpressed , not by the bare bones of the story but by the obvious fact that there`s no laughs in this alleged comedy . I can`t think of one moment when I cracked a smile never mind burst out laughing . In fact about half way through all the evidence points that writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais just gave up attempting to make lame jokes and just wrote a traditional version of the story . But my major gripe is with director Richard Quine who spent twelve and a half million dollars on this movie which looks like it has a budget less than a tenth of that sum . All the interior sets look totally cheap and fake and there`s an action sequence involving a stage coach which is laughably bad . The whole sequence is shot at ground level to disguise the fact that the coach isn`t moving more than 10 mph , cut to some abysmal back screen projection with Peter Sellers wrestling with one of the bad guys , then cut back again to an exterior shot of the 10mph coach with all the characters looking away from screen so you won`t notice the characters are played by stuntmen . I wasn`t fooled by this type of sequence in James Bond films from the 1980s and I wasn`t fooled here

The 1979 remake of Hope's Zenda story is a prime example of the sort of poor judgement Peter Sellers was so often subject to in his choice of films. The whole thing is roundly dispiriting to watch, and "palpably uneasy" as Halliwell's Film Guide comments. The script lacks any sense of the comic or adventurous that one would expect of a Zenda filming with Sellers. So often, exaggeration and chatter take the place of any sort of acting. Even Sellers, often impressive in such bad films, creates two very uninteresting characters, based it seems, solely on the rather stereotypical voices he creates for them. Other performances pass by, indistinguishable from each other and unwanted. John Laurie has nothing to do whatsoever, the token females are particularly dull... the whole thing is completely pointless and all too far from being enjoyable... Most certainly as bad, if not worse than the more derided "The Fiendish Plot of Fu Manchu". Rating:- */*****