Love with the first look Finally got to the most popular at the beginning of the XX century "franchise" about the Primorrhos. He can rightly be considered the older brother of all the “masked heroes”, starting with Zorro (Scarlet Primary was born in 1903, Zorro in 1919) from which the notorious Batman, Superman and other superheroes originated. I started reading the book before watching the film, finished it after, and I can only say on this occasion a completely uncharacteristic phrase for me: “The film is better!” or at least on a par with the book (but still at least a little better). Why is that?
The answer is simple: plot. The film combines the plots of the books “Scarlet Primorflower” and “Eldorado”, and in more detail reveals the background of the events of “Scarlet Primorflower” (the story of the acquaintance of Sir Percy, Margarita and Chauvin). This is only good for the film - we get to know the characters better (while, without any OOS), and the adventure line becomes much richer and causes much more sympathy. Added also a romantic line between Schowlen and Marguerite – and this is much better explains the motivation of his actions than the simple statement of the fact that he is a villain.
If we talk about the characters, the actors in this film were on top, but I will focus only on the image of the main character. There are several adaptations of the books about the Red Primary, but as I know most fans of the books consider Anthony Andrews the best performer of the role of Sir Percy - and I completely agree with them. Not only does he look perfectly match the book description of the hero, he managed to convey both of his sides - intelligent, brave, sensitive, noble, inventive, elusive Scarlet Primary and the "idiot" of Sir Percival Blakeney, a baronet whose interests do not extend beyond his own wardrobe. The second side of Sir Percy is usually softened (you can compare, for example, with the film of 1934), here we see dandy in all its glory - especially beautiful is his "exquisite rudeness", one of the main features of dandy, which is often forgotten. And it immediately becomes clear why in the book even high society was surprised by the behavior of Sir Percy and his marriage to the clever and beautiful Margaret. The film is worth watching without the Russian voice, at least for the sake of the voice that Anthony Andrews awarded Sir Percy in those moments when he pretends to be a secular whip - it is very funny to hear, and under the voice is almost lost. Sir Percy of 1982 is much less likely to show his "real face" than Sir Percy of 1934 - and rightly so, otherwise he may be suspected of something. However, since I’m here to compare the two films, I suggest you watch the Leslie Howard movie too, especially if you liked the story at all – it’s always interesting to see a good interpretation of a good character.
I can't help but note that Sir Percy and his friends ("The League of Scarlet Primary" - and in ordinary life the same "golden youth") caused me a lively association with Bertie (even the name rhymes!) Worcester and the Trutney Club. In the original, even some of the words of Sir Percy completely coincide with Bertie's favorite words - for example, "I say" or "chap" (and Sir Percy has a favorite curse, completely evaporated in translation - "Sink me!"). And I was very happy to know that I wasn't the only one who noticed it, and moreover, in the story Right Ho, Jeeves! Bertie was just thinking about the book "Scarlet Primary" and even tried to portray Sir Percy a little! It was a pleasure to find out.
The film, of course, like the book, does not pretend to be something serious - the plot is quite naive (although the seemingly stupid situation with Margarita, the library and the coat of arms can be explained by the fact that the ladies were not supposed to go to the library at all, even home - who watched the film, he will understand, and the book was somewhat different), but is it necessary for a good adventure and touching romantic story much?
10 out of 10