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. The first episode aired in Australia in 2000 and I remember being glued to the television, something which was quite unusual for me at that time. Richard E. Grant is amazing in the Role of the dashing Scarlet Pimpernel and of course as the arrogant upper class Sir Percy Blakeney. His charm is very endearing indeed. He is exactly the right actor for the role!Give this mini-series a chance to charm the pants off you! I have been unhappy with the other comments on this page!GREAT MINI-SERIES!!!

I love the story, but barely recognized it under the laborious plot derivations and bad dialogue. What were they thinking? These poor actors did a fine job with the terrible material that they had. A nine year old would do a better writing job. I was saddled with this horrid thing when I purchased a DVD collection of period pieces. Why on earth did Percy never get into disguise? That was a significant part of setting up the story. They put him in some stupid kind of Zorro face mask. WHAT?!?! I was sorely disappointed after my delight at anticipating a new version of this lovely story. The characters engaged in behaviors that were, frankly, beneath them. 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. This is an essential element of his disguise! They completely missed the mark here. Also, the marriage between Percy and Marguerite is so poorly written. You don't have a clue about their animosity for each other. You just see that they seem to despise each other from the get go and there is no HINT whatsoever as to what brought them together in marriage in the first place. 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.

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. In the previous versions, wit was the tool for escape, not technology. 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. Had the director's interpretation coincided with mine, perhaps I might not have been irritated by what seemed to me bad character portrayals. I much preferred the version from 1982. Anthony Andrews was quite efficient as the imperturbable, calm fop. So were Jane Seymour and Ian McKellen. In my opinion, the style of this period piece seems to have been lost with this latest adaption. I recommend sticking with the previous versions, either the one from 1934 or the one from 1982.

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. Chauvelin would never have a string of women in his bed. Marguerite never had an affair with Chauvelin, nor Armand with Minette, whoever the heck she is. Chauvelin would not randomly shoot Tony in the head. Chauvelin's name is not, nor has it ever been, Paul. 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... The makeup is horrifying. The women look like clowns. Elizabeth McGovern's beauty mark wanders around her face at random. The poor, pitiable actors have no script to work with, so it's not really their fault that their characters are as thin as wet tissue paper. The dialogue... oh, the dialogue. The dialogue is unbearable. And whoever is responsible for all those little captions at the bottom of the screen should be forced to watch this movie as penance. (I counted 13 location captions in the first half-hour before I gave up. As if we can't figure out that the body of water between England and France is the English Channel.)The film--if I can bring myself to call it that, since it's really just videotape with a filter--is absolutely without redeeming value. 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.