People are voting emotionally.

Good movie but grossly overrated

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Blistering performances.

The plot - and this is valid both for movie and source material - contains enough corn, ham and cheese to feed the whole population of Indiana. It is also predicated on the remarkably daffy axiom that an English gentleman can handle any situation Fate throws at him, up to and including a solemn coronation as head of state of a foreign nation. (Listen, it's nice to have self-confidence, but a stiff upper lip and a talent for trout fishing will only carry you so far.) On the other hand there's a lot of wit and charm.This is a rousing and engaging adaptation, with a excellent cast giving excellent performances. I'm particularly fond of James Mason's suavely villainous Rupert, whose versatile and practical-minded cynicism could scare the socks off a Borgia pope. (I might be mistaken but I seem to remember that the book's Rupert is even scarier, as he is still a very young man, fully and consciously malicious at an age where most people are still trying to figure out how to order a pint.) But then, nobody could threaten like James Mason - the man practically turned it into an Olympic discipline.There's romance, mystery and comedy ; there's also some pretty decent fencing, as befits a classic swashbuckling adventure. Ah, they don't make them like that anymore !

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

"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.

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.