Cardinal Richelieu (1935)

Such a frustrating disappointment

best movie i've ever seen.

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

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.

A superb political screenplay, as boasts all those films surrounding Arliss' creations of great men from the past. One of his greatest performances. Here he acts mainly with his eyes – one can almost see the wheels turning, see him thinking, plotting his next move. The great voice is there of course, but the crafty eyes carry his interpretation of the character.The time is 1630. Arliss first appears from a distance, it could be a double, at 7 minutes into the film, but his entrance as an actor occurs at 14 minutes into the plot. Good production values. Edward Arnold believable as King Louis XIII. The plotting for power is clear and understandable as it twists and turns. Interesting that Gaston, the King's brother and lusting for power, echoes England's Henry II's proclamation re Becket, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? Or words to that effect.Interesting in that Arliss worked for both studios, Fox and 20th Century, before the merger that same year. One of the few Arliss films available commercially and recently released.

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.

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.