4/4  great old movie.
it does run a little on the long side, but it has some of the coolest sword fights ever captured on the screen.
As far as I'm concerned Any film with Ronald Colman in it is worth the watching.
And the cinematography by James Wong Howe, i... (read full)

5/5 A wonderful classic family film
  by Richard Franks (Arcadia, Calif)
Ronald Colman and Stewart Granger play identical roles as an impersonator of a king held ransom. Both films are classic representations of what Hollywood could do. Every film buff should have these two films in their collections.

5/5 prisoner of zenda
  by Mattie E. Waden (blythewood, sc)
I recommend this movie for anyone who is a fan of the golden age of
Hollywood, when stars were glamorous with real class and not trying
to top eachother with the biggest scandle on the cover of People magazine!
Stewart Granger is wonderful in his duel role, and deborah kerr is great
as the princess. And james mason is the ulimate villian, his role should have been bigger. I've loved this movie since was a kid, and I've read the
book several times. If you love action and romance the old fashioned way,
this movie is for you.

5/5 Great Show
  by Oklahoma Mom (Oklahoma)
My Mom and I love this movie. It is great to see people acting the way they should instead of just out of love or infatuation. Duty is important. Responsibility is to be considered even when you are in love. Thanks for a great movie.

The movies are identical in dialog. Only the actors and color is different. Both are fun to watch.

5/5 A Classic & Above-Average Copy
  by Nicholas J. Ruggieri (Pittsburgh)
The Prisoner of Zenda 2 pack is a real treat for fans of the story & the films. Watching them side by side invites the inevitable comparisons and the 1952 version comes up way short. This is not a criticism of that film; rather it is an affirmation of how great the 1937 version is. The '52 entry is a shot-by-shot remake using the same script and much of
the same score but filmed in color. The action sequences are beefed up and the climactic sword duel is well-staged and goes on forever. The critical difference in the films is not necessarily the casting but the performances. In general the actors in the '52 film seem very histrionic and overwrought in many scenes while the performers in the earlier version are more subtle, nuanced, and ultimately more effective. The only performer in the second film that is not up to snuff is Jane Greer as Antoinette, who is awful. Deborah Kerr is hard to take as the virginal Flavia while Madeleine Carroll in the '37 film looks like she stepped out of a storybook. Raymond Massey, no stranger to chewing scenery, is perfectly sinister & tragic in the '37 film while Robert Douglas is just evil and unlikeable in the later version. In the lead role of Rudolph Stewart Granger is suave and certainly athletic but has an overwrought edge in tense scenes that could have used a more tongue-in-cheek flair. Ronald Colman is nothing short of brilliant in the earlier film in one of his signature roles. Perhaps the biggest gap of performance effectiveness is the actors in the role of Rupert of Hentzua. James Mason is a brilliant actor but seems miscast and too old for the role; his attempts at being a suave lady-killer are laughable. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. is a complete joy in the '37 version. He is a laughing cavalier; certainly evil but a truly likeable rogue that we are happy to see escape in the end.
Overall, I enjoyed the 1952 film but it suffers in comparison the 1937 classic. Ronald Colman was such a unique star, so suave and romantic, that the memory of him in the lead role lingers forever. The cast was perfect, the black-and-white photography lush, and the musical score both rousing and touching in appropriate spots. See this version first and the '52 copy won't stand a chance.

4/5 prisoner of zenda
  by John Martin (Essex, UK)
Extremely good - both versions but Ronald Coleman the better actor. Only differences in the two films were the actors and costumes. Dialogue exactly the same - makes one wonder why second film was made at all when the first was so very good. However, to compare performances was interesting and amusing.