writers_reign 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.

MartinHafer 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.

bob the moo Englishman Rudolf Rassendyll travels to see his distant relative King Rudolf V. When he arrives in the country he gets some funny looks and, when he meets King Rudolf he understands why – they are the total spit of one another, apart from a moustache. The two men spend all night drinking, a habit King Rudolf is oft to entertain but Rassendyll is a light weight and has fallen asleep long before the final bottles are opened. The next morning he wakes up with a sore head but the King is out for the count for much longer due to a drugged bottle of wine – the work of his brother Michael, who seeks to claim the throne in the chaos that he hopes will follow the cancellation of the day's coronation. Rassendyll steps into the place of the King in a cunning ploy to keep the country steady; however he finds himself in the midst of a much more serious ploy than drugged wine.Despite the fact that it has been made many times, I must confess to this being the first time I've seen this story told. I must also confess that for the most part I found it quite dull. On paper I can see how fascinating it could have been because it has political intrigue, betrayals, sword fights and action. However the film opens with a sort of criss-cross humour that didn't really engage me at all. It wasn't funny and it seemed to undercut the serious business of telling a good yarn. Things get a bit better once the villains turn up but even then I was surprised by how plodding it was all delivered. The final scenes were pretty good and it was a welcome arrival for sword fighting in a very talky film but I did wish there had been a bit more swagger to the rest of the film, if not actually action.The cast are reasonably good. Granger does well but his sudden transformation from innocent abroad into action hero at the end was a gear change too much. Kerr is pretty but mostly pretty bland. Calhern is solid and Greer was a strange find. I liked Douglas but it was Mason who dominated the film. He seems a bit out of place but he has some great lines and generally he looks like he is having fun and not taking any of it too seriously. He is a breath of fresh air among the rest of the stiff material and he stole every scene he was in.A good story then but delivered in a rather flat and dull fashion that put me off early on and never really got me back. It all looks good in glorious Technicolor but other than that the only other thing that kept me with it was a delicious little turn from Mason, who at least has the good taste to have a bit of fun – something that I had hoped to do myself but sadly did not.

necesitoukemi 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.