Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Dan-13 I came into this movie mainly to see Bette Davis chew the scenery in her mad scene as the Empress Carlotta, but the film totally belongs to Brian Aherne, who was rightly nominated for an Oscar as Emperor Maximilian. Aherne gives a nuanced and sympathetic portrait of a man thrust into a political situation that he never should have been involved with in the first place. It's a masterful performance, particularly in his final scenes when he's imprisoned. He's absolutely heartbreaking.While physically Davis may not have been ideal as Carlotta, her descent into madness doesn't disappoint and she also excellent in her more tender moments with Aherne.Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard also contribute wonderfully nasty portrayals of Louis Napoleon and Empress Eugenie.On the minus side, there's Paul Muni, whose stoic expression doesn't change a whit over the course of more than two hours. John Garfield, normally a dynamic actor, is woefully miscast as a Mexican rebel.The movie is well-made, but the title is a misnomer. Maximilian's story is far more interesting than that of Juarez.

Karl Ericsson If blood is to be spilled then the reason for it must be extraordinary and not just to replace one rotten system of power with another of the same.If changes are made for the individual freedom of the people, it doesn't matter by whom or how, especially if no blood has to be spilled.Juarez is given the possibility of such changes by Maximilian but refuses them for his extremely blurred opinion of democracy, which he believes can come about by a representative democracy (I don't believe he did even know about the direct democracy). Had he accepted, Mexico may have become like Sweden but more prosperous, since Maximilian, from all that we know, was certainly better than the Swedish kings of the same time. This only goes to show that when somebody talks blurry, it's important to ask the practical and impertinent questions.

John T. Ryan Once again our cinematic travels take us to a film and an outstanding one, at that, which is located in the Time-Space continuum that we know as A.D. 1939. Whatever else happened in Our World that year; the situation in Hollywood was certainly favourable to spawning the very highest order of film. To this very day the phenomenon remains inexplicable.Just take a look at the list of outstanding titles which came out that great year to see what we are talking about. We have a roster, not by any ranking or preference that includes; but, is not necessarily limited to: GONE WITH THE WIND (Selznick/MGM), John Ford's DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK (20th Century-Fox), THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (RKO Radio Pictures), THE CITIDEL (MGM), ZENOBIA (Hall Roach/United Artists) SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (Universal), THE WIZARD OF OZ (MGM) and Frank Capra's MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (Columbia).Even those films outside of the Feature Film category seemed to prosper. We saw shorts like The 3 Stooges' 2 reeler WE WANT OUR MUMMY (Columbia) and Chapter-Plays or Cliff-Hanger Serials like BUCK ROGERS (Universal) and the best of the genre, ZORRO'S FIGHTING LEGION (Republic); all adding in, even their own small measure, to the lush buffet of movies from which the public feasted and continues to do so even today.As for today's Guest Star, JUAREZ (Warner Brothers, 1939), we see what was no doubt, intended to be Warner Brother's shot at the Best Picture Oscar. Its epic story, its extra huge cast, its length at 137 minutes original release length, the top talent in both starring and supporting & character parts and its being a well written and close to reality historical drama, all are factors which added to the picture's stature.The story is that of that 5 year period of time between 1862 and 1867 during which Emperor Louis Napoleon (aka Napoleon III) of France invaded the United States of Mexico (Yeah Schultz, that's the full name of the Republic) and in attempt to re-establish French Colonial presence in the New World; he brought in Arch Duke Maximalian von Hapsburg of the ruling family of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to be Mexico's Emperor. The French had used a phony plebiscite (having the country's populous casting their votes, when the vast majority was illiterate). That trick served the purpose of convincing the super-honest Maximillian to take on the job. Max was top guy from April 10, 1864 to May 15, 1867.The rest of the story in the film concerns the struggle of the Mexican people to restore the Republic under duly elected Presidente, Senor Benito Juarez. Mentions are made of the Civil War in the United States of America, north of the border. Juarez is depicted as having a portrait of Abraham Lincoln in his mobile office and Mr. Juarez receives correspondence from Abe, who offers encouraging words.With the United States' being caught up in the Civil War and unable to put some teeth in the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, Senor Juarez knows he will have to continue on solo.Later, Juarez is shown as being personally and deeply upset when news of the Lincoln Assassination is received in the battlefield.There is a reference to the Battle of Puebla, May, 5, 1862 and its importance to the War's successful conclusion. (That is the origin of the Mexican Holiday of "Cinco de Mayo"; which is celebrated in an even grander scale than their Independence Day of September 16, 1810.) AS much as the film is action/event driven, the use of the properly intense performances by the fine Leads and supporting players. Paul Muni as Benito Juarez is quietly intense. He is obviously a Leader of Men who ponders all of the possible consequences. He displays the Wisdom that would only come with extensive experience in Public Office; which the Historic Juarez did posses.My own personal favourite scene is the one in which President Juarez walks head on into a cordon of Soldiers who were ordered to shoot him; but with all the seriousness he can muster on his stoic countenance, he stares them down; thus winning them over to his side.Betty Davis gives a fine, virtuoso performance; being the sort that she had been giving to audiences for nearly a decade by this time. As Princess Carlotta, then Empress Carlotta, she presents a complex, multi-faceted loving, yet disturbed young lady. Among her sorrows is the reality of being infertile and thus unable to provide an heir.The problem is solved when she and Maximilian agree to adopt a local Mexican boy; who was descended from a prior attempt at establishing an Empire in the Land South of the Border.Although the Film is entitled JUAREZ, it is s much of a story about the Hapsburg Archduke. Brian Ahern as Max provides us with the picture of an extremely Royal Looking man, who is well educated, well spoken, decent and kind, reverently God-fearing and reverent in his practice of his Roman Catholic faith. Maximilian is honest to a fault. When he discovers that he was duped into this Mexican Intrigue, he refuses to flee Mexico; standing by his loyal native supporters, even to the point of facing the Firing Squad with them.AS with most top tier productions, JUAREZ has a truly fine cast of supporting players. We are honored with the appearances by Claude Raines, Donald Crisp, Joseph Calleia, Gale Sondergaard, Gilbert Roland, Henry O'Neill, Noble Johnson Montagu Love and even good old Frank Lackteen.The film is not only exciting, entertaining and informant; but also bold in fearlessly meeting head on with issues like Racism and how being of a 100% Indian pedigree was a problem for the Great Mexican Statesman.

richmx2 From "Pancho Villa Starring Himself" to "The Mexican" and the execrable "Man on Fire" (produced by an Englishman, from an Italian script loosely based on an incident in Columbia... reset in Mexico), Hollywood has never made a film about Mexico that doesn't fall back on clichés and cartoonish "gringo-centric" stereotypes. Despite some problems, Juarez is an honorable exception.The problem with the screenplay is that Bettina Harding bought the romantic, Euro-centric notion of Max and Carlotta as figures in a "tragic romance". They were patsies for Napoleon III's global ambitions (something the film does very well), but everyone in Mexico knows the two were complete fools who destroyed the economy, and hardly the loving couple depicted in the movie. Max was a syphilitic, pretentious twit. He neglected Carlotta (the "Casa Obvio", his summer house in Cuernavaca that he built, "forgetting" to include rooms for Carlotta is a popular tourist attraction now, and a botanical museum), had a son by his mistress, "la Bonita India" and -- infected his wife.The other reviewer is unintentionally misleading when he writes that Carlotta lived in seclusion for 60 years. She was bed-ridden most of the time, suffering tertiary syphilis, requiring round-the-clock medical care. She did indeed, like in the film, go bonkers -- but in the Vatican, not in a French palace. The Papacy was a major player in the geo-politics surrounding the Mexican adventure, but the film (perhaps wisely) simplifies the politics. But, what the hey -- it's Hollywood! It has the perfect cast for this kind of epic: who better to play stoic, long-suffering historical figures than Paul Muni? Who does devious Europeans better than Claude Raines and Donald Crisp? I really enjoy seeing Porfirio Diaz (who later seized the Mexican presidency in a coup, and maintained control for close to 35 years -- and is now a mixed figure in Mexican history, sort of like Lenin with the Russians, or Ataturk among the Turks) played by John Garfield. And who better to go completely bonkers and chew up the scenery than Bette Davis? By all means, watch the movie, but then read your Mexican history.