Wordiezett So much average

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

utgard14 Enjoyable Warner Bros. biopic about Paul Julius Reuter, the man who built the famous Reuters news service. Edward G. Robinson players Reuter. The movie covers his story from when he was using carrier pigeons up through the use of the telegraph. As is often the case with these biopics, he faces hardships and doubt from critics but perseveres. It's all pretty formulaic, I admit, but also undeniably entertaining. I was never bored. Eddie G's backed up by a fine stable of character actors, including Gene Lockhart, Otto Kruger, Nigel Bruce, and Albert Bassermann. Edna Best is the love interest and Eddie Albert plays Robinson's assistant. A solid cast. The subject matter may not lend itself to the most exciting story but they do a surprisingly good job keeping it interesting.

blanche-2 Edward G. Robinson was a most interesting movie star in classic film history. Like Bogart, James Cagney, and Spencer Tracy, he was a character actor who became a leading man. That didn't and doesn't happen to many actors or actresses. Robinson could do anything - he could be mean, pathetic, a blowhard, a loser, hilarious, whatever the role called for. Along with his Warners colleague, Paul Muni, he did his share of biopics. "A Dispatch from Reuters" from 1940 is one.Robinson plays Julius Reuter. Since this film is really about the news agency he founded, much of Reuter's life is left out. Of interest, he was a German Jew who moved to London and ultimately converted to Christianity (before marrying Ida, who was a Christian), taking the first name of Paul. He also became a naturalized British citizen and was named a Baron by Queen Victoria. He had three sons, and the last member of the Reuter family, the widow of one of his grandsons, died in 2009.Anyway, to get back to the film - there was some dramatic license taken, but the basic story is accurate. Reuter did start out with carrier pigeons, and the film does follow the evolution of the agency accurately as far as his news beating the ships, etc.Edward G. Robinson is excellent as Julius, and though it's unclear how much of a struggle the real Reuter had in getting clients, Robinson shows determination and ambition throughout the film. I have to agree with one of the reviewers on this site who thought the Eddie Albert character was too lazy to have continued to be employed. Albert is good, though, as is the rest of the cast -- Albert Basserman, Edna Best, Gene Lockhart, Nigel Bruce, Otto Kruger, and Montagu Love.Entertaining film.

dbdumonteil 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".

Sleepy-17 Just like the other reviewer stated, this one has it all, great acting, great script, great music and direction. It has all the elements of the Warner Brothers films that I grew familiar with when I was a grammar school student, watching the Early Show on TV. I learned about literature, biography, acting, photography styles, music (Korngold, Steiner,Waxman), directing (Curtiz, Dieterle), and a warped view of history (They Died With Their Boots On), all at the same time. This one rests on the great humanity of Edward G. Robinson's acting ability. ****Possible Spoiler***** Watch for the pigeons bearing proposals of marriage! Sheer hokum, but very watchable, and yes, moving. I had never seen this one before; when I was young I would skip movies like this to watch ones promising more violence. But it brought back all those Warner Brothers emotions of warmth and idealism.