There are some including previous reviewers here who would argue that The Scarlet Pimpernel afforded Leslie Howard his finest screen role. I wouldn't argue the point.

This Pimpernel guy, a sort of English Zorro/Lone Ranger is one tricky fellow. He's declared his own private war on the French Revolution and while not prancing about Regency society, he's over in France rescuing as many aristocrats as he can from Madame Guillotine.

Like Zorro in order to throw off suspicion, Sir Percy Blakeney affects the guise of a fop so that no one will think him capable of anything bold. Unlike Don Diego De La Vega, Blakeney's a married man, married to a French woman played by Merle Oberon who has her own dirty little secrets she's keeping.

Come to think of Don Diego and Sir Percy were operating in roughly the same period.

There's a guy named Chauvelin who's got a mission from the head guy at the Revolution, Robespierre himself. Bring back the Scarlet Pimpernel to face Revolutionary justice or you will. That's one great incentive.

Raymond Massey is a ruthless hunter as Chauvelin. And he believes in his mission. As another reviewer quite plainly put it Massey well remembers all the excesses that the aristocrats indulged in for centuries. He's pretty good too, but Leslie Howard is a tad better.

Leslie Howard is one of those players you can listen to and never be bored. He had that marvelous ability to make some of the most trite dialog sound like Shakespeare. As did his fellow British players Ronald Colman and Robert Donat. No one ever played the jaded world weary soul quite the way Howard did, whether it was Alan Squire, Ashley Wilkes or Percy Blakeney.

The Scarlet Pimpernel after over 70 years holds up well as classic entertainment. No one, but a jaded regency fop could not like this film.

Have said many times about being a huge fan of classic film, of all genres. The cast consists of immensely talented actors, hard to go wrong with Leslie Howard and Raymond Massey. Have always had a lot of fondness for period adventures, many classics around, and Baroness Emma Orczy's 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' is deservedly highly regarded. So this 1934 version of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' had a lot going for it.

Fortunately, this version of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' does the source material justice, one of the better adaptations of 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' and one of the better available adaptations of Orczy's work. In terms of how often Orczy's work has been adapted, she is hardly obscure but she is not as prolific as other authors (which won't be named for fairness sake but one gets the idea),she does in my opinion deserve to be adapted more. 1934's 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' is evidence of that.

There is hardly anything to complain about. Maybe there is a little too much talk in places.

Also thought there was some occasional moments where it was a little static and staginess occasionally came through.

On the other hand, there is so much to recommend. 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' goes at a lively and crisp pace, to me it did not creak at all. The script was literate and also very witty and deliciously ironic as it should have been. The story on the most part was immensely absorbing and entertaining with well staged and exciting action. The odd static moment aside, Harold Young's direction was more than capable.

Where 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' most excels is in the lavish production and costume design, beautifully complemented by the photography, and the pitch perfect casting of Leslie Howard, bringing boundless dashing charisma and haughtiness to the title role. The rest of the cast are on the money, with Raymond Massey's ruthlessness and Merle Oberon's (nice chemistry with Howard too) charm standing out. Nigel Bruce doesn't overdo his character thankfully and it suits him well.

In conclusion, very good, often great actually, and well worth seeking. 8/10 Bethany Cox

If I had never seen the 1982 mini-series version (shown on successive nights) of THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL (with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour),I probably would have really loved this Leslie Howard/Merle Oberon picture a lot more. However, the 1982 version was so perfect in every way that when I later saw the 1934 film, I was a bit let down. This isn't because the 1934 film is bad--on the contrary, it's excellent. But the story is simply too much for a conventional movie lasting only 97 minutes. As a result, many of the plot elements are a bit vague or have been removed altogether. Plus, the wonderful romance of the 1982 film is mostly gone because the production had to be rushed and the romance wasn't allowed to be explored in such a beautiful fashion. The extra 47 minutes of the later film REALLY made the film a wonderful experience that the earlier film just couldn't match. Plus, this is one costume drama that really was helped by filming it in color.

Now as for the 1934 film, the acting was very good. In particular, Leslie Howard did a great job as the lead, Merle Oberon was fine and Raymond Massey was fine as the villain. They had nothing to be ashamed of in their performances (though I also think that the remake DID have slightly better acting--mostly due to the characters being more complex). The direction was fine and the cinematography was fine as well--no complaints. It's a good film that I do recommend--just not as highly as the later version. And, this IS saying something as I usually prefer the original versions of most films.