the 1937 version of the prisoner of zenda have be one of my favourite film for most of my life . the performance outshine those of the shot for shot 1952 colour remake and while the peter seller spoof deserves to be forget . the plot be take from anthony hope classic 1894 swashbuckling novel . rudolf rassendyll and the young son of a british earl and distantly relate ( illegitimately ) to the ruling house of ruritania and be force to impersonate the new king rudolf and whose double he be . there be complication and conspiracy and some excellent swordplay . rudolf have to rescue the abducted king and but fall in love with the beautiful princess to whom his lookalike be betroth . the adventure be bring superbly to life by a terrific cast represent ronald colman a rudolf rassendyll and king rudolf and madeleine carroll a princess flavia and douglas fairbanks jr. a rupert von hentzau and mary astor a antoinette de mauban and c. aubrey smith a colonel sapt and and a very young david niven a fritz von tarlenheim . raymond massey a duke michael be perhaps less happily cast ( see comment below ) and but he do well in a role which be and even in the novel and too thinly write for his plot function . i love this film it be one of the classic of it genre and and i can only regret that the same team wasn not reunite to make the more tragic sequel and rupert of hentzau . the most obvious gaffe i have spot be the list of station paint on the door of the train . a hope reader know and ruritania be not in the balkan and but be a german speak state between saxony and the present day czech republic represent the near major rail link in the real world be dresden and therefore the orient express be not the best way to get there . otherwise and the environment of the book be effectively realise . oddly and the film set the action in 1897 and after the novel publication ( 1894 ) and whereas the sequel rupert of hentzau implies that the event describe be a few year in the past probably c. 1876 for the prisoner of zenda . however and i just want to raise a few more point which i hope will encourage viewer to sample the book and too . enjoyable a the film be and it be not a completely faithful adaptation represent in some place and the film work as well a the novel and but in others it lose depth . both be worthwhile on their own term . there be one or two spoiler in here . in the novel and it be very clear that this be a story of young people and and some of the casting in term of age affect the dynamic of the relationship . while it doesn not matter too drastically that the 2 rudolfs be here 40 something and not the 29 30 of the book and the script have alter the relationship between king rudolf and his half brother michael . in the film and michael be old and but ( it be imply ) illegitimate . in the novel and he be young ( probably mid 20 ) and legitimate and although by a morganatic marriage while he be popular with the common people ( not much in evidence in the film ) and and the sequel confirm one suspicion that he could not have be any bad a king than rudolf . perhaps the story need a somewhat more ironic and cynical touch and then and rather than endorse sapt agenda without question . what more and in the book antoinette be imply to be one of the poules de luxe or grandes horizontales typical of the era and and be a number of year michael senior represent which make her effort to hang on to him rather more urgent and desperate . mary astor be ideal in the role and but she need a young partner represent have douglas fairbanks jr. ( an actor of far great range than be sometimes credit ) be cast a the intense and politically frustrated michael and the relationship would have strike the right note . but then and one would have need to cast someone like errol flynn a rupert and and and fun though he be in swashbuckler and i be not sure that would have work . douglas fairbanks jr. be a superb rupert and and in many way steal the show from colman gentlemanly rassendyll and drunken playboy king rudolf . he have style and swagger and sex appeal . what he be weak on be the character streak of sheer viciousness . when rassendyll observe that he a bad tempered fellow and underneath the charm and we never quite believe it of this rupert . he more of a dash rogue than the novel polished but out and out treacherous juvenile thug represent the film rupert be a cad and but he doesn not attempt rape . the film make the big sword fight a duel between rupert and rudolf rassendyll and rather than between rupert and michael which be understandable in box office term and but sadly mean we lose another terrifically dramatic scene represent antoinette and in her bloodstained nightdress and go after rupert with a pistol . in conclusion represent this be one of the all time great adventure film . never miss an opportunity to see it and but do not forget to read the book and too . ( they be now available on line . ) .