A Dispatch from Reuters (1940)

So much average

Admirable film.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Dispatch from Reuter's, A (1940) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Minor bio-pic from Warner features Edward G. Robinson as Paul Julius Reuter, the man who started off with pigeons and then building Europe's fastest news wire service. The late 30's and early 40's were full of biography movies and this one here is somewhat entertaining but there's just not enough here to make it really worth seeing. I know a few things about Reuter's life that wasn't included in this film and I can only guess that the subject wouldn't have interested folks in 1940. With that said, I'm really not sure what Jack Warner himself would have found so interesting about the story actually filmed. The main story has Reuter trying to stay ahead of other people and a big finale about his report on the Lincoln assassination and whether or not it's true. There really never is any drama that builds from any of the situations, although I will admit the stuff with the pigeons was pretty good. The film covers a wide range of years but the time itself never seems to move in the film. Not for a second did I believe I was watching something taking place in the 1820's and this really takes away from the atmosphere that should have been created. Robinson turns in a fairly good performance but I did expect more from him. He fits the role quite well but not once did I feel too much passion coming from him. Edna Best serves as the wife but doesn't really add too much. Eddie Albert does the best work of the cast with Gene Lockhart, Otto Kruger, James Stephenson and Nigel Bruce rounding out the supporting players. Child star Dickie Moore has a brief part in the film. I'm sure a good movie might be made with this story but sadly it's not this one.

A Dispatch From Reuter's was the second of two biographical films that Edward G. Robinson did while at Warner Brothers. Previously those prestige roles were reserved for Paul Muni and Robinson acquits himself well both as Dr. Paul Ehrlich in Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet and now as Julius Reuter. The former film however is far better.Julius Reuter had a fascinating story to tell, but a lot was left out of this movie. For one thing, Reuter was born Jewish and converted to Christianity. I'm not sure how well that stood with Jack Warner as a Jew, but Jack Warner the film maker who did items like Confessions Of A Nazi Spy was not about to send that kind of message out in 1940 to his audience. One does wonder just what did attract him to the Reuter story.Reuter, first with the use of carrier pigeons and then with the telegraph, developed wire service reporting as we know it. Technology be it animal or human did fascinate him. He understood that news was power, fortunately if he was anything he was honest. A more unscrupulous individual might have caused great harm. One also wonders how Reuter would have viewed the internet in these days. The story begins when Reuter was a juvenile in the 1820s and ends in 1865 with Reuter a successful individual in the news business. Reuter lived another 34 years and in that time was involved in some imperial schemes, certainly in keeping with the times, but would not be viewed well today and again not a message Jack Warner wanted to convey in 1940.Edward G. Robinson is fine as the dedicated Reuter with Eddie Albert in the sidekick role and Edna Best not having to do much, but be loyal and supportive as Mrs. Reuter. It's not quite up to the level of the Muni biographical films, nor as good as Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet, but entertaining enough though it barely touches on the real Reuter.

"A Dispatch From Reuter's" pretty much has one great thing going for it, and that is Edward G. Robinson of course as Julius Reuter. Otherwise, this is semi-standard old-movie fare that can be quite dull most of the time.Reuter of course was a news pioneer, but not every successful story always makes for a good movie. Seeing guys in the 1930s and 1940s play people in the 1800s is always kind of funny. (Especially when they do the "harumph" thing when they get angry.) There's a lot of talk concerning pigeons that the viewer will get tired of pretty quickly. The characters aren't engaging and the plot is, well, boring and thin. It's a ten-minute movie stretched out to 90 minutes.Unless you are a fan of Edward G. Robinson really, which I am, this is definitely one you can certainly live without seeing.

At the time ,Robinson used to play illustrious men (what Greer Garson did for illustrious women):Reuters and Ehrlich.Both movies were released the same year ."Reuters" is certainly less interesting than "Ehrlich" although the endings are similar (both heroes stand accused and get final vindication)."Reuters" marks the beginning of what we call today the global village .It's a long way from Reuters' pigeons.That said,neither "Ehrlich" nor " Reuters" are among Dieterle's great works.They are certainly interesting ,but impersonal :if you want to discover a great director,you'd better choose "portrait of Jennie" or "the hunchback of Notre Dame".