The Scarlet Pimpernel
Tags: action, historical fiction

Plot synopsis:
In 1792, at the bloody height of the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, vengeful French mobs are outraged when again and again French aristocrats are saved from death by the audacious "Band of the Scarlet Pimpernel", a secret society of 20 English noblemen, "one to command, and nineteen to obey". Among the latest scheduled for execution are the Count de Tournay, former ambassador to Great Britain, and his family. However, one of the Scarlet Pimpernel's men visits them in prison disguised as a priest and gives them a message of hope. As the prisoners are being escorted to the cart to be taken to the guillotine, the guards take the count away; French leader Maximilien Robespierre wishes to question him further. The countess and her daughter are rescued and spirited away to England.
Back in Paris, Robespierre meets with Chauvelin, the republic's new ambassador to Britain, to discuss the problem of the Scarlet Pimpernel. Summoning the Count de Tournay, they offer him his life in return for information from his English contacts as to the Pimpernel's true identity. The Scarlet Pimpernel is Sir Percy Blakeney, a wealthy English baronet and friend of the Prince of Wales. Sir Percy cultivates the image of a fop in order to throw off suspicion. His pose is so successful that not even his French wife Marguerite suspects the truth. Though the two are in love, Sir Percy no longer trusts his wife because of her past denunciation of the Marquis de St. Cyr, which led to the execution of the marquis and his family.
Through his network of spies, Chauvelin discovers that Armand St. Just, Marguerite's brother is one of the Scarlet Pimpernel's agents. Chauvelin orders Armand's arrest, then uses the threat of his execution to force Marguerite into helping him discover the identity of the Pimpernel, who he knows will be at an upcoming ball. At the ball, Marguerite intercepts a message given to Sir Andrew Ffoulkes, a member of the Pimpernel's band, stating that the Pimpernel will be in the library at midnight. She passes the information along to Chauvelin, who goes to the library to find only Percy, apparently asleep. While waiting, Chauvelin falls asleep; when he wakes up, he finds a message from the Pimpernel mocking him.
The next morning, Percy and Marguerite travel to their house in the country. There, Marguerite breaks down and tells her husband of Armand's arrest and her deal with Chauvelin. Confronting her, Percy learns the truth behind the denunciation of the marquis; he had her imprisoned for consorting with his son. After the revolution freed her, she told her friend Chauvelin, who was the one who denounced them. Promising to use his influence at court on Armand's behalf, Percy leaves for London. Afterward, Marguerite notices a detail on a portrait of the 1st baronet hanging in the library – on his finger is a ring decorated by a pimpernel. Realizing that she has inadvertently betrayed her own husband, she rushes out of the room, only to be presented a letter from Chauvelin announcing that he had discovered the Pimpernel's true identity as well. Racing back to London, she warns Ffoulkes that Percy's life is in danger. Ffoulkes agrees to mobilise the band to warn Percy.
To lure Percy into his trap, Chauvelin has both Armand and the Count de Tournay transferred to Boulogne-sur-Mer. Despite the vigilance of Chauvelin's men, the Pimpernel frees the two men from prison through bribery. However, one of the prison guards tells Chauvelin that the Pimpernel will be at a certain tavern (the Lion d'Or) that evening. Marguerite goes there to warn Percy, only to be arrested by Chauvelin and his troops. Percy arrives at the appointed time and is met by a gloating Chauvelin. Percy distracts him long enough for Armand and the count to board the ship, but as he prepares to leave, Chauvelin announces that he has Marguerite in custody. Percy surrenders on the condition that she be freed. He is led away by soldiers to be shot by a waiting firing squad. Chauvelin exults at the sound of gunfire, but Percy returns to the tavern very much alive, revealing that the men in uniform are in fact his. After securing Chauvelin in the basement, Percy joins his wife on the ship back to England.

Review: I have watched a lot of the BBC's excellent costume dramas, and of course was not disappointed in The Scarlet Pimpernel.
The acting is first rate, with Richard E Grant making a very handsome and witty Sir Percy, and dashing and sexy Scarlet Pimpernel.
Yes, the film deviates a little from the book, but what adaptation does not?
(i.e. Sense and Sensibility, An Ideal Husband, Gone With the Wind, etc.) Some guidlines for watching this oft-critised film: do not expect a line-for-line, blow-by-blow, true-to-the-nth-degree page to film adaptation.
The story of The Scarlet Pimpernel is well known, so I won't bore you by recounting what you already know, but I will say this - I and those who have watched with me found ourselves laughing at the exhanges, loving Sir Percy, and cheering on Marguerite.
I have read the book, and can say that Richard E.
Grant brings a vivacity and new depth to the Pimpernel, and Elizabeth McGovern, though not always outstanding, is wholly adaquate as the passionate, willful and dedicated wife of Sir Percy, Marguerite St. Just.
Just watch this film, and enjoy it for what it is.
Of course, I had never seen or read of the Scarlet Pimpernel before.
I loved the movie so much that I wanted to read the book because books are usually better.
Now, I read it on-line and the books following behind.
I hate that the movie has received such horrible reviews.Even after reading the book, I think that Richard E.
Grant was cast exceptionally well, perfectly portraying Sir Percy Blakeney and the Scarlet Pimpernel.
I think the make-up artist had more of a problem than Elizabeth McGovern.Some may not have liked the adaption, but that is what it is--an adaption.
I see it as and addition to the stories-not the original, but a new adventure--exciting wonderful adventure--to add to the past stories and characters of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
I have always been interested in the time of The French Revolution and have always found the story of The Scarlet Pimpernel to be awfully dramatic and romantic.
Grant is amazing in the Role of the dashing Scarlet Pimpernel and of course as the arrogant upper class Sir Percy Blakeney.
He is exactly the right actor for the role!Give this mini-series a chance to charm the pants off you!
I have however seen several productions of the play onstage and I prefer this beautiful miniseries by far.
Grant for the Scarlet Pimpernel surprised me, but he did a wonderful job with it.
I was very surprised by his performance, as I'd only ever known him as a supporting/character actor (like Twelfth Night and Gosford Park).
As a life-long Elizabeth McGovern fan, I can't help but love her.
It sadly resulted in her looking much older than she actually is, but fortunately this isn't the case for the entire movie (at least at the end she gets a haircut!)  But her striking features still shine through and her beautiful performance far outweighs that hairstyle.
She also manages her accent very well (she's originally from Illinois)  But, well, I watched the whole miniseries just for her, so I can't help but think she's the real star.
Ronan Vibert is another actor I've liked for a long time, and he did a fantastic job as Robespierre.
I am not quite sure I agree with the director of this version of The Scarlet Pimpernel.
I imagined Sir Percy Blakeney a very calm, seemingly lazy aristocrat.
This particular Sir Percy Blakeney appears to be teeming with overwhelming energy and volatility.
I did not appreciate the Houdini, James Bond, Mission Impossible style escapes that Sir Percy engineered either.
Neither were the characters of Marguerite and Chauvelin adequately portrayed.
There seemed to be little energy or chemistry in the interaction between the characters.I do not wish to assign any blame, for perhaps the reason for my dislike of this movie might simply be a matter of difference in interpretation.
The Scarlet Pimpernel was a wonderful movies!!
Grant was great as Sir Percy Blakeney (aka the Scarlet Pimpernel).
I have never read the book nor heard of it until i saw this movie.
However, I trust that the book is as wonderful as the movie!
The only thing that I thought wasn't so great was Sir Blakeney's coolness toward Lady Blakeney (Elizabeth McGovern).
However, the movie was still great and I still give it 10 stars!
Before I start to tear apart this movie, mark you--I LOVE THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL.
The movie staring Jane Grey is very good and the musical on Broadway is the hottest thing there.
So, I thought when I heard that this film was coming out that it would be great since it was a BBC film.To my surprise, it was a weak, totally stupid story that UTTERLY failed in capturing the gorgeous tale.There were no exciting escapes with daring disguises.
There was no deep love that made your heart flutter as Percy left the room and Marguerite sighed as her husband was leaving her again.All it had was a confusing plot and a lot of out-of-the-blue sex and violence.Sink me!
Severely lacking in the necessary dash and wit, but will do if you've never seen the other versions or read the book....
Having read the books and seen the 1982 Anthony Andrews/JaneSeymour version, I have to say that this is not good at all.According to the books, Percy is supposed to be a seeminglyfoppish aristocrat when he's being Percy, and witty and cleverwhen he's being the Pimpernel, but here he just looks bored asPercy and mean as the Pimpernel.
Marguerite is supposed to bethe most beautiful woman in Europe, not a tired and frumpy-looking matron (she looks middle-aged, probably due tobad make-up).
Grant has done much better things, andElizabeth McGovern's acting is uninspired and flat.
The wit anddash of the books and the Andrews/Seymour film is here replacedby brawn and flashy editing that just don't make the cut.
I might add that to a person who hasn't seen any previous versionor read the book, it would probably look ok..
This is by far the most repulsive and atrocious version of The Scarlet Pimpernel ever to be devised.
As a Pimpernel fan, I was sincerely offended by what they did to the characters--but this atrocity is not worth watching, even if you aren't familiar with the story.Percy Blakeney, for example, would never stab people in the back just to get down a hallway.
They have completely eradicated any reference to the Pimpernel's disguises, replacing them instead with James Bond-esque gadgets and gizmos.As to the film itself...
Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random.
And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance.
Do not waste your time and brain cells on this  rancid drivel--instead, go watch the 1982 Anthony Andrews/Jane Seymour version, or the 1934 Leslie Howard film, or indeed ANYTHING but this one..
I love the story, but barely recognized it under the laborious plot derivations and bad dialogue.
I was sorely disappointed after my delight at anticipating a new version of this lovely story.
Percy's character was written so poorly - he is supposed to come across as a consistently ridiculous character to everyone, except when he is functioning as the Pimpernel.
Also, the marriage between Percy and Marguerite is so poorly written.
A well-written Pimpernel story will show you the prior evolution of the marriage through dialogue.
These actors had no opportunity to tell you about their relationship - you are left thinking they hated each other from "I Do." Frankly, "The Matrix" had a better love story!" Don't waste a minute on this - watch any other version..
How they could call the series 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' after they deviated from the novels so much, I wouldn't have a clue.
The character names are the only things they kept, and even then they changed a few of those, and mixed them up, and changed Percy's relationships with them.
Admittedly, I only watched about two hours at the most of it, but that was enough for me to realize that the series was nothing like Baroness Orzcy had portrayed her characters, and probably would have been rolling around in her grave when it was filming and airing.
I hope that when the next person wants to make a movie/series of the book they don't ruin it as completely as this series did..
I love these stories and I remember watching more on TV then what I have been able to fine.
Then we have the 2nd one where Percy and his wife go to Paris to rescue the french girl who is in hiding.
Thoroughly enjoyed this trio (saw other versions).
(Egad, I'm rhyming like the Pimpernel!:) A long-time BBC/PBS aficionado, I've seen other Pimpernel versions but liked this trio the best.
(One with Brit Leslie Howard was also good, but more formal/stylized & lacking modern film technology.) I looked up Richard E.
Grant & Elizabeth McGovern's other films, too, after enjoying these so well.
The Pimpernel is the original James Bond, from 1792.There's also a movie about the ahead-of-her-time female authoress, Baroness Emmuska Orczy, with a similar theme to Madame Marguerite/Lady Blakeny's traumatic childhood in those turbulent times of revolution in both America & Europe...so apparently her historical romantic action dramas had a touch of autobiography..
As someone who has read all of Baroness Orczy's books and seen most of the movies based on them, I must say that the 1980's version, with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour, was better than this.
Although there is some good acting,  the actors did not have much to work with.
The 1982 version starring Antony Andrews and Jane Seymour was far more superior to this one.
In the book Sir Percy is 31 or 32, Maguerite is 25 and Chauvelin is close to 40.
But in the movie each of these characters appear to have aged by two decades.
In the novel Sir Percy is a good natured fop who speaks lazily, but Richard E Grant plays him with he energy of an adolescent in a basketball game.
And Elizabeth McGovern as Marguerite-the most beautiful and cleverest woman in Europe?
You really want to watch a great adaptation, go for the 1982 one of the same name..
Robespierre.The Incorruptible is class in a glass.Ronan Vibert's marvellous portrayal is the main reason I watched all this series.Apart from Robespierre, I also liked Chauvelin and Monsieur Foumier.I tend to agree that Margeurite was somewhat miscast, and that many of the female characters were often badly dressed, made up and coiffed.Talking of which, Robespierre really DID own a cauliflower wig a la Salieri in Peter Shaffer's 'Amadeus'!
Altogether an excellent mini series that left you hoping for more.
The actors were well cast, Martin Shaw making an excellent but likeable villain, Elizabeth McGovern a very serene Lady Blakeny and Richard E Grant as Sir Percy was just magic.
My congratulations to the script writers who wrote the dialogue, the words I will remember - Sir Percy to Sir Andrew in Episode 2 "Ain't life exciting" and Lady Blakeny to Sir Andrew also in the same episode "the hypocrisy of the English tongue".
Please let us hope there is more to come after all the Baroness wrote 12 books..
-- but who cares, movies rarely are anyway, and I was expecting it to be unfaithful to the book.
It's just a fun movie, so I suggest that you shouldn't take it seriously and condemn it as sacrilege just because it's a different take on the legendary Scarlet Pimpernel.
Grant is just hilarious as Percy -- he plays him as a foppish dandy, and it is the funniest thing.
I didn't see what was so bad about Elizabeth McGovern.
I loved the great one-liners between Percy and his wife.
Fun, though perhaps you should read the book after seeing the movie....
Just so you're not put out as so many who _have_ read the book seem to be.
Sir Percy was wonderfully cast (Richard E.
Can you believe he was Bob Cratchit in TNT's "A Christmas Carol"?)  I started giggling helplessly every time he gave that I'm-no-fop grin, and he really was a lot of fun to watch.
(Emilia Fox looks quite different from her bit part as Georgiana Darcy in A&E's Pride and Prejudice.)  It had its moments, for sure, but-- where are all those disguises that the Pimpernel does so well?
Grant played the title character in this series based on the classic novel.
The episodes are predictable where Sir Percy and his wife played by Elizabeth McGovern are in peril in saving and rescuing others like the king's son; an aristocrat's daughter and others.
Great Grisly Fun. Just finished watching the first 2 episodes of this miniseries on a dvd bought from a discount bin in a local mall bookstore.
Grant was fun and compelling to watch, quite adequate in the role of the aristocrat-saving faux fop.
Eventually I came to like her in the role but not the best casting.
I've never read the book, but I think this series is well-done, giving the subject matter the old college-try--and succeeding nicely!.
The only thing the writers kept from the original books was the name.
I strongly suggest watching another version of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
If it wasn't for Percy and Chauvelin....
Whoever cast Elizabeth McGovern as Lady Blakeney in this film needs to have their eyes, ears, and brain checked by a competent physician.
McGovern is not the only problem here, but she is a major one as her bad performance detracts from the overall film.
It doesn't help that the the script is boring and slow in some places and some of the extras look like they have no clue.
Only really good supporting player in this film is Emilia Fox.The only thing that makes this thing watchable at all is the performances of Richard E.
Grant and Martin Shaw (ALTHOUGH the British HAVE to start using REAL French people to play French people!).
Especially Grant who gives new depth to the Pimpernel character.
I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books.
Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies.
I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script.
As a movie it's great, but as an adaption .
I've seen both versions (they DO seem to like sword fights between Percy and Chauvelin, don't they?) and the first was the better as an adaption, but I liked the actors in the latest one better.
Sir Percy/the Scarlet Pimpernel was absolutely dashing but where the hell did Minette come from?
The movie was wonderful.
Percy's character was captured perfectly, witty and without that awful voice in the movie version.
I have only one disparaging thing to say:  I don't think the writer ever read the book except for perhaps the first 10 pages..
Okay, first off: I have read several of the books by Baroness Orczy.That, if you catch my meaning, is not THIS.THIS being the three episode set with Richard Grant.
Grant himself I thought excellent as the Pimpernel.
Grant rarely lets the drama of the situation weigh him down, consistently has fun with his role.
At some points, you think she is perfect for the role; at others, you wonder how they chose her to play the part.
She is an attractive actress, yes, but not the knockout Marguerite was supposed to be - The Most Beautiful Woman in France?
Her acting is on the whole good, however, as is her stage presence, so much can and is overlooked.My biggest surprise was Martin Shaw as Chauvelin.
By contrast, McKellen's Chauvelin cannot get his mind off Marguerite, and Massey's (excellent) portrayal seems one dimensional (not his fault).
Martin Shaw was one of the strongest points of this production.The supporting cast was equally good.
EPisode II features another excellent bad girl who meets a surprising end.
Sets and costuming are what befit a BBC production, and the camera work is excellent: frequent use of distance and panorama make it seem something other than a TV movie.
Storyline and plot - it makes sense taken by itself, and provides a good, exciting romp through the world of Revolutionary France.
If, like me, you're looking for good period drama with a flair for action and comedy, this is excellent.
I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages.
I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read.
There are movies which I have not watched!
Thus, I must watch them immediately.The first five minutes of these series were...
It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite...
Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger.
Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy.
Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable.
Richard Grant, with his irreverent poetry and in-your-face attitude toward the villains, is absolutely, 100% perfect as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL.
At no time did we ever really get the impression that Percy was in any real danger; the lack of suspense therefore works against the idea of a man who must remain masked lest he risk his head...