Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

WiseRatFlames An unexpected masterpiece

ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

SnoopyStyle King Rudolf IV (Peter Sellers) crashes his balloon and dies falling into a well. General Sapt (Lionel Jeffries) and his nephew Fritz travel to London to retrieve the playboy son Rudolf V (Sellers) from a gambling house. The King's half-brother Michael sends an assassin to kill him. He's having an affair with the married Countess Montparnasse (Elke Sommer). Cab driver Frewin (Sellers) rescues him from an assassin. General Sapt hires Frewin as a coachman but really he's being used as a decoy without his knowledge. Frewin is attacked by Michael's men and the new King meets him. Rudolf is captured and imprisoned in Michael's castle of Zenda. Frewin is coronated instead but Rudolf's fiancée Princess Flavia (Lynne Frederick) notices the ruse.Peter Sellers is playing multiple roles once again. There is nothing wrong with the plot. It's functional as a drama except it has no intention of being one. As a comedy, there are very few laughs. It's late in director Richard Quine's career and maybe the laughs weren't in him anymore. The slapstick is lazy. The jokes aren't there.

TheLittleSongbird I really wanted to like this. How could it go wrong with Peter Sellers and Lionel Jeffries on board as well as composer Henry Mancini and script-writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais? Sadly, something did go wrong, and I am still puzzled as what the biggest problem was with this film. Not all is bad though, the film has gorgeous sets and costumes and is beautifully shot, and Henry Mancini's score is great as you would expect from the composer of the Pink Panther movies, Great Mouse Detective and Breakfast at Tiffanys. However, the writing had all the ingredients to be funny but instead came across as forced(which is bad news for a spoof remake, which considering the source material was something I felt wasn't going to work in the first place), while the story as well as being sluggishly paced just lacks wit and thrills and the characters are rather cartoony(especially George Sierra). The acting fares little better, with Peter Sellers, who I consider a comic genius, coming across as both exaggerated and uninterested, while George Sierra even with bulging eyes makes little of his admittedly cartoony character and everyone else, especially John Laurie, have little to do and are dull as a result. In conclusion, not a complete disaster but just didn't work for me. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Wizard-8 I should probably begin this review by mentioning my familiarity of the source material - or rather, the lack of it. I have never read the novel, nor have I seen any of the previous film versions. Pretty much all I knew about "Zenda" before watching this movie was the basic premise. I also knew the story was originally serious in tone. But I was open to it being done in a comic fashion, because with stuff like mistaken identity, the premise did indeed have comic possibilities.Sadly, everyone involved with this movie drops the ball. I'll start with Sellers. I have found him funny in other movies, but he simply isn't funny here. His performance here simply lacks energy and seems sluggish. I do know he was having health problems at this point in his life, and this may explain his lack of enthusiasm.But even if Sellers was in top form here, it's unlikely he could have saved the movie. The movie is terribly directed - the slow-moving story feels as sluggish as Sellers. And when it comes to delivering the (very sporadic) comedy, there is a curious feel to it. The comedy feels like it's being directed by someone intentionally trying to make it as serious as possible. Though many of the gags would still be dead on arrival even with a top comedy director, since they are predictable and very familiar.Judging by the ragged look of the old print Universal is currently using for the movie's television appearances, they are in no hurry to restore this movie. No wonder.

Tom May The 1979 remake of Hope's Zenda story is a prime example of the sort of poor judgement Peter Sellers was so often subject to in his choice of films. The whole thing is roundly dispiriting to watch, and "palpably uneasy" as Halliwell's Film Guide comments. The script lacks any sense of the comic or adventurous that one would expect of a Zenda filming with Sellers. So often, exaggeration and chatter take the place of any sort of acting. Even Sellers, often impressive in such bad films, creates two very uninteresting characters, based it seems, solely on the rather stereotypical voices he creates for them. Other performances pass by, indistinguishable from each other and unwanted. John Laurie has nothing to do whatsoever, the token females are particularly dull... the whole thing is completely pointless and all too far from being enjoyable... Most certainly as bad, if not worse than the more derided "The Fiendish Plot of Fu Manchu". Rating:- */*****