JohnHowardReid A fine historical drama, splendidly acted, especially by Arliss and Dumbrille. When the Queen Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) says of Gaston (Francis Lister), "He is mad with rage!", there is a close-up of Dumbrille. Although he actually says nothing, you can read his thought in his eyes: "He's mad all right!" Arliss is given a terrific entrance. Perhaps I should say that Arliss gives himself a terrific entrance? More restrained than usual, his jaunty walk cloaked by his sweeping cardinals' robes, he delivers his lines with incisive eloquence, making the most of Lipscomb's witty dialogue. Edward Arnold also takes advantage of his role as the king, creating some wonderful moments. On the other hand, O'Sullivan and Romero provide some expendable romantic interest. Director Rowland V. Lee is generally content to take a back seat to his cast, though he does contrive some effective long shots. Of course, so far as the players were concerned, the movie was actually directed by George Arliss. Day's art direction and Kiam's costumes are especially impressive.

utgard14 Enjoyable historical drama about efforts of Cardinal Richelieu (George Arliss) to unite France against its enemies, as well as protect his ward (Maureen O'Sullivan) from lustful King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold). Cardinal Richelieu is a complex historical figure, usually portrayed in movies as a villain. Here, he's the hero. George Arliss may be largely forgotten today but he was one of the finest actors of the '20s & '30s. Arliss gives an effortless performance in this film. Even some of the quality actors backing him up here pale by comparison. Edward Arnold is great as Louis XIII, although from what I've read of the real monarch, this performance is more Arnold than Louis. It is entertaining though. Maureen O'Sullivan and Caesar Romero supply the romantic subplot. Both do well in unchallenging roles. Douglas Dumbrille, Halliwell Hobbes, and Frances Lister are among the other nice actors in the cast. It's a fine old costumer with drama, romance, and intrigue. A little slow-going at times but always interesting.

dbdumonteil It is always interesting,nay funny,to see how Hollywood broaches FRench history.To make Louis XIII a bon vivant fond of young maidens whereas he was misogynous and is known for only having had two (platonic)affairs with women is the contrary of what we learn in history books.On the other hand,the king's homosexuality was never proved :he had favorites but they could possibly have been only good friends.On the other hand,George Arliss is Richelieu as a French person can imagine it.He is a shrewd adamant man,with a great fondness for cats .He was hated by the queen and the queen mother Marie De Medicis whose regency was a disaster .The movie shows how disinterested he was:he used to work for the king's throne,preparing the absolute monarchy which would come into bloom with the Sun King in 1661.He fought against the nobles -who ,after his death would rebel in the days of "La Fronde" - and against the protestants (the siege of La Rochelle is depicted in "Les Trois Mousquetaires").The story is a bit far-fetched -the Cardinal goes as far as to pretend he is dead;the nobles who see his "dead body" take naiveté to new limits-but rather entertaining.

Alonzo Church For background on this movie, see the other comment.As for how this movie plays? Quite well. If I hadn't seen many of of Arliss' other pictures, I would have said remarkably well. Because the reason this picture works is that Arliss is a grand old-fashioned (but not hammy) actor in a role where only that sort of playing would work. Richlieu, as portrayed in this picture, is an actor himself, running several complicated bluffs to confound and eventually defeat his enemies. The "big scene" in the picture -- where Richlieu warns of the wrath of the Pope if he is harmed -- is a fine moment (and staged quite well in the picture).(Possible spoiler ahead) But, if you paid close attention to the movie's early scenes, you realize that this, too, is just another thundering lie told in a good cause.Arliss, as in a number of his other "great men" roles, is playing a very tricky character, who is rendered palatable only because he is fighting for a very great cause (and, in the meantime, striving mightily to bring the movies romantic leads together). The tension between the trickery, the inherent shadiness of Arliss' character, and the noble ends for which Arliss fights, makes for always interesting and somewhat surprising drama. Since predictability is the usual failing of movies of this era, Arliss movies are well worth seeking out.