Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

JohnHowardReid A London Film Production. Filmed at Denham Studios, England. (Available on a poor quality Network DVD). Copyright 27 January 1938 by London Film Productions, Ltd. Released worldwide through United Artists. New York opening at the Rivoli: 10 April 1938. U.S. release: 29 April 1938. U.K. release: 20 December 1937. Australian release: 28 April 1938. Running times: 94 minutes (UK), 88 minutes (USA), 79 minutes (American TV).SYNOPSIS: Paris, 1794: Robespierre's assistant at tempts to trap the Scarlet Pimpernel by luring his wife to France.NOTES: A sequel to The Scarlet Pimpernel (1935), this seems to be the last film directed by Hanns Schwarz (another of those guys who don't know how to spell their own names. How do idiot computers handle bozos like this I wonder!) who died in Hollywood about seven years later. He has a long list of German films to his credit, with stars of the first rank like Emil Jannings, Lillian Harvey, Brigitte Helm, Dita Parlo, Anna Sten, Hans Albers and Willy Fritsch. His only previous English-language film seems to have been The Prince of Arcadia (1933) starring Carl Brisson, Margot Grahame and Ida Lupino.COMMENT: To judge from the American version broadcast on TV in May, 1994 (a nice print, but running only around 75 minutes, with deletions and jump cuts all over the place), this was an entertaining enough sequel. True, Barry K. Barnes has an enviable task in trying to fill the shoes of Leslie Howard, but he does quite well on his own account, even managing a couple of clever impersonations. In fact with the exceptions of Francis Lister's Chauvelin and Henry Oscar's equally villainous Robespierre, he tends to over-shadow the rest of the players. James Mason gives a muted performance and Sophie Stewart makes little impression, though Margaretta Scott has a few fiery moments.True to the spirit and flavor of Orczy's novels (which were exceptionally popular in the 1940s and 1950s), the script makes it as hard as possible for the hero, piling an impossible situation, a hair's breadth escape, and a one against-all-odds dilemma on top of another, all coming to an exciting conclusion.Pictorially, the film looks great. Wonderful costumes and sets, lots of extras milling around — and no doubt a bit of stock footage or perhaps out-takes from Korda's original Pimpernel. In the U.S.A. print under review, the pace is rapid, the direction showing plenty of drive and style. Greenbaum's camera-work as usual is first-class.ANOTHER VIEW: Sequels are invariably down graded by critics. Part of the appeal of the original novel lies in its novelty. On the other hand, the general public is often more comfortable (and forgiving) than the critics with familiar characters and situations. And of course there is always an audience for a sequel to whom the picture is new anyway, as they haven't seen the original. This sequel offers more of the same — and does it handsomely. The problems are mainly that although the plot has dash, it lacks freshness, and that though Barnes may even be a more convincing actor than Howard, he lacks Howard's charisma.

trimmerb1234 This is a sequel which instead sets its own terms. Lacking a star name, it is not a vehicle for a star to lift and be given entertaining scenes (and mask weaknesses), instead it is a very well crafted artistic production. Completely unremarked is the quality of the cinematography there is a still photographer's eye at work not to mention the sets and the handling of action. Instead of a star and their schtick which a production is obliged to both labour and indulge, there is point and purpose throughout in the screenplay which reflects the mixture of brutality, passion, paranoia, scheming and insecurity of the times. The pimpernel is more subtly acted than the sign-posted performance of a big star. His ruses, being the centre piece of the character, have to be and are more impressive including the disguises than in the case of a star who probably wishes to be recognisable at all times. Lacking any stars, it must rely on pure merit - and succeeds. It is after all a Korda production so would one expect less?

SimonJack "The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel" is a sequel to the 1934 movie, "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Most Hollywood sequels are creations by studios to cash in on big hit movies. But not so, this one. It is based on the further writings of author Baroness Emmuska ("Emma") Orczy. The Hungarian-born aristocrat became a highly successful writer of mystery, intrigue and detective stories. She lived most of her adult life in England and wrote in English, which was her third language. Her most famous character is English nobleman, Sir Percy Blakeney. His cunning and organization of the Scarlet Pimpernel underground helped many of the landed gentry in France escape the guillotine under Robespierre.Orczy wrote more than a dozen novels and stories in the Scarlet Pimpernel Series. Four were made into movies. The original and "The Elusive Pimpernel" were first made as silent films in 1917 and 1919. The first sound film of "The Scarlet Pimpernel" came out in 1934. Its cast of Leslie Howard, Merle Oberon and Raymond Massey was superb. This film, "The Return of the Scarlet Pimpernel," is the second sound film. The third film was "Pimpernel Smith" in 1941, and the fourth was "The Fighting Pimpernel" in 1950. Later British TV programs ran Pimpernel stories, and a couple of TV series aired in 1956 and 1999-2000.While all of the Pimpernel stories are entertaining, none of the sequels could come close to the original. Perhaps that is in part because the subject was new and very fresh when introduced. But, I think also that it is due to the superb casting for the original story – in 1934 and in a 1982 remake movie for TV. The color, lavish sets, excellent scenery and screenplay of the latter film equaled or bettered the first sound production of 1934. And its cast of Anthony Andrews, Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen was equally superb. Only a few of the first film actors are in this or the other two sequels. This film continues with the action of the original, but it is lacking in other areas. Barry Barnes is fair as Sir Percy, but Sophie Stewart is a very weak Lady Marguerite Blakeney. Francis Lester is far too gentle in the role of Chauvelin. Henry Oscar is too old as Robespierre, although he shows the citizen's paranoia that most likely led to his downfall. The introduction of the real person, Jean Tallien, and the undoing of Robespierre's hold over the revolution add much to earn this film its rating. James Mason is excellent as Tallien. While this film can't match the original story for intrigue, interest, action and acting, it is an interesting work of historical fiction. That was a favorite style of Baroness Orczy. She excelled at it as seen, especially, in all of her Pimpernel stories. I think most people will find this movie entertaining.

ctomvelu1 Hollywood is hardly the only one to crank out unnecessary sequels. Britain was also guilty of it, and early on, too. "Return" is essentially a rehash of the first movie, made a couple of years earlier. It even reuses footage and sets from that classic. The leads have changed, but not the basic plot, which has Sir Percy forced to go back to France one last time, in this case to rescue his wife from the clutches of the sinister Robespierre. It clearly is a trap, but nothing will keep the good old Pimpernel from carrying out his mission. He is up against the usual clods and dolts, after all. A young James Mason has a small role. This is no worse, I suppose, than "Son of Monte Cristo" or "Son of Robin Hood." Mercifully, there was to be no third Pimpernel film.