Claysaba
Excellent, Without a doubt!!
Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
Voxitype
Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
clvlkenpo
Of course so many versions have been made, like 10 Little Indians" that everyone knows the story, now, but a fairly original idea when it first appeared.I don't know how anyone can not like Coleman. He was outstanding in everything he did.Fairbanks is great as well, I wish he would have done the sequel, Rupert of Henslau!I can imagine seeing this film in the theater as a boy, what an impact it would have made. I wish Hollywood would give up some of the special effects, and frenetic pacing of so many films today, that never take time to develop the storyline or the characters, but jump from scene to scene every 30 seconds. Anyway, Stewart Granger is no match for Coleman, see this version if you never have. It should be on anyone's top 100 films list!
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.....
pepe4u22
This movie is everything one wants in a movie action, romance, intrigue and this production hits it one the nose. The story is set in a kingdom where their is intrigue behind the proclamation of the new king. The story involves the man who would be king, his evil half brother and an interloper who is related distantly. Well the movie moves with speed and elan the princess is gorgeous and beguiling. The fight scenes are ripe with flare and bravado. The acting superb by the leads and the supporting cast superb. This movie is in the grandest stage of classic movie making as it takes good story material and makes it alive. To me as an avid movie watcher this is why sometimes older movies are great as the story and production are memorable unlike too many movies of this generation which seem to much copy and paste and generic.
kenjha
The oft-filmed Hope novel receives what is generally considered its best screen treatment. Colman is fine if a bit long in the tooth in the dual roles of a king and a look-alike commoner. Carroll makes a lovely princess. Massey looks ill-at-ease as the king's evil brother while Fairbanks seems to be having a ball playing Massey's rascally henchman. Astor, Smith, and Niven lend able support. Given the romantic buildup between Colman and Carroll, the denouement feels false and anti-climactic. Cromwell's direction tends to be stagy and melodramatic, but he is helped by Howe's fine cinematography and Newman's rousing score. What makes the Hope novel so worthy of being filmed so often?
