Rating: 
Summary: Sink this movie and watch the other version!
Review: I read Scarlet Pimpernel in high school and then again several years later. I was sooo excited to see it made into a movie (and by A&E, who usually do a very good job of sticking to the book.) Alright, I know one should not compare literature to cinema, but the book was superb- lacking nothing... romance, action, surprises... It was all there, all A&E had to do was bring it to the screen. Well, the plot deviates so far from the book that it's painful. All the amazing disguises and clever tricks that Pimpernel used to rescue the aristocrats... GONE! And they were replaced by mediocrity. And then Margurite's character was completely wrong! I was upset to say the least. It had the makings of a classic but failed terribly. Even if I could have gotten past the fact that it wasn't anything like the book I still have to say that it wasn't a good movie. I wasn't draw to the characters or their plight at all. It had little feeling... very surfacy. There is a much better 1982 version with Jane Seymore that is more faithful to the book. Of course, it too has its flaws and gets lots of things mixed around... but Anthony Andrews does an excellent job as Pimpernel and the plot is not as wholly rewritten as it is in this newer version. My advice to you is to read the book and then watch the 1982 version! Skip this one!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Scarlet Pimpernal
Review: I really don't know what the person who gave this a one star is talking about! Richard E. Grant is fabulous as Percy and the other actors are superb as well. Why else would I be willing to pay almost sixty bucks for a boxed set? It's rich in detail and beautiful to watch - as good or better than the Anthony Andrew's version.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding
Review: I really enjoyed The Scarlet Pimpernel 'series'. It's a true action film, with great sword fights, old fashioned pistol shootouts and a convincing romance, which brings the excellent book "The Scarlet Pimpernel" to life.I am waiting for the next videos in this series, which I'll buy without hesitation. - More, please!
Rating:
Summary: Are You insane?
Review: I should not have even given this insult of a movie one star, but I think that was my only choice. This movie and whole set does not even deserve the name of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Percy is supposed to blend in to the crowds of Paris. With his black cape and red mask, he sticks out like a sore thumb. Did anyone read the book? I have nothing personal against Ms. McGovern, but, well, I'm sure that there were better choices during auditions. I suppose that if you were in the mood for an insult to filmaking and hadn't heard of the Scarlet Pimpernel before, this may not be a bad movie, but if you even know a bit of the story, Percy never killed anyone really, and none of his friends would have died. I don't recommend it, but if you don't believe me, go ahead and find out for yourself, but I'm pretty sure that you'll regret it.
Rating:
Summary: Nearly blasphemous in it's badness - I can't complain enough
Review: I was intrigued by this movie because I LOVED the excellent A&E version of Pride and Prejudice, and have always been a fan of the book. Apparently, P&P was a fluke, because this movie stunk on nearly every level. Dialogue, drama, talent, costumes, casting - this adaptation lacks all of these. The acting is almost lackluster and bland. The actors are horribly miscast - I've NEVER seen Elizabeth McGovern look worse (her character is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in Europe, yet she is the least attractive person on screen). The clothing is ill-fitting. The only similarity to the book, are the title and names of the characters. Their personalities have been almost clownishly redrawn. I could go on, but I'm trying to block it out the experience. Please, run (don't walk) from this movie - you will never regret the decision. If you're still interested, rent it before buying. If you feel a bad need for a Scarlet Pimpernel fix, buy the Jane Seymour/Anthony Andrews version on VHS.
Rating:
Summary: Nearly blasphemous in it's badness - I can't complain enough
Review: I was intrigued by this movie because I LOVED the excellent A&E version of Pride and Prejudice, and have always been a fan of the book. Apparently, P&P was a fluke, because this movie stunk on nearly every level. Dialogue, drama, talent, costumes, casting - this adaptation lacks all of these. The acting is almost lackluster and bland. The actors are horribly miscast - I've NEVER seen Elizabeth McGovern look worse (her character is supposed to be the most beautiful woman in Europe, yet she is the least attractive person on screen). The clothing is ill-fitting. The only similarity to the book, are the title and names of the characters. Their personalities have been almost clownishly redrawn. I could go on, but I'm trying to block it out the experience. Please, run (don't walk) from this movie - you will never regret the decision. If you're still interested, rent it before buying. If you feel a bad need for a Scarlet Pimpernel fix, buy the Jane Seymour/Anthony Andrews version on VHS.
Rating:
Summary: One and Three were great fun, Two had its moments.
Review: I'm a great picker of historical nits and I found very little to pick here. Richard E. Grant drives every scene he is in with his somewhat manic, adrenalin-junkie rendition of the Pimpernel. It was quite fun to see him played as a less than perfect-- but very lucky-- risk taker. One caveat-- although some of the broad outlines are there, this one wanders far from its source. I did say that the second one was weak. It was like they got to near the end of the movie, realized they didn't have time to resolve the interesting situation they had set up, so they threw up their hands, killed some characters and everyone else escaped on horseback. Disappointing in the same movie where Richard E. Grant (disquised as a French agent) grows more and more hilariously indignant as a Revolutionary official admits to ignorance of the Scarlet Pimpernel. I certainly hope there are more as long as they can keep up these high standards.
Rating: 
Summary: If you love the books, you'll enjoy these movies!
Review: I've always enjoyed Orczy's novels, and I found this adaptation to be the most satisfying of the movies based on her work. Richard Grant is striking--the most perfect Sir Percy that I could I imagined. He plays all the facets of the character's personality wonderfully. I saw the movies on A&E and liked them so much I'm going to plop down the money for them--great for idle Sunday afternoons!
Rating:
Summary: Great, no doubt about that!
Review: I've seen the scarlet pimperpel for so many times now, and I do not seem to get tired of it! It's great!I think Richard E Grant gives a wonderful performance,and that goes for Elizabeth McGovern as well, I don't see why most people dislike her, she is good, espcially in part III the kidnapped king!Most people have heard about the story about the scarlet pimpernel, and this dvd etc. is just one great tribute out of many. Do buy this title and you'll be happy I am sure of it!
Rating: 
Summary: Decent on its own merits, way-out as an adaptation
Review: If you absolutely love the 1934 version starring Leslie Howard and Merle Oberon, or the 1982 version starring Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, you might absolutely hate this version. I say "might", because your opinions of this version will definitely be colored by your attachment to the other versions and their leads. I came to this video, having only seen the 1934 version a long time ago, and I watched all three versions within one week. First, the reviewers are right in identifying both the merits and faults of this version. This is a way-out adaptation of the story, so much so, that you might not recognize the story as the original one written by Baroness Orczy. Having said this, I have to add that the way-out factor consists not so much of added scenes and characters (which the 1982 version has), but of the change in the character of the Pimpernel and the emphasis on him as a man-of-action, rather than a fop or a devoted husband. There are also some major characters (in the series) bumped off either in the first episode or in subsequent episodes. If you are going to watch this, watch it as a historical romp updated for the 1990s and as a cross between the original Pimpernel and the action movies and commando movies so popular today. Also keep in mind that the romance factor (crucial in the book and in earlier versions) is reduced to practically zero, thanks to the screenplay and the palpable lack of chemistry between the leads (not to mention the miscasting of Marguerite). The most passion Sir Percy displays for his wife is when he is trying to outrun the mob to get to her. [The prison scene, starting with him descending the steps down to this frantic race is one of my favorite clips in this movie]. As for Marguerite, she displays more feeling for her brother than for her husband or her former lover. Which former lover? Ah, you have to watch the movie to find that out, as well as the peculiar interpretation of her past in this version. Watch for Ronan Vibert's Robespierre and for Grant's varied smiles which convey different meanings. His best film is said to be WITHNAIL AND I, which I will certainly look out for. Yes, this version has a lot of things wrong with French history - but so does the 1982 version. This is *not* the film to watch to find out more about the revolution, even though it may be a cult favorite in AP History classes. My problems are not so much with the history as introduced in this version (the film after all is about a fictional character, to begin with), or with the departures from the story - but with the lack of romantic passion (crucial in the original story), and the many unexplained puzzles (such as a) why would Sir Percy trust an actress of dubious morals, b) why would no Parisian notice men walking around in masks, and c) who informed on a French sympathizer who was guillotined). Great photography and music, interesting take on the story, pity about the lack of chemistry between Grant and McGovern and the many implausibilities in this version.
| 
