Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Mandeep Tyson
The acting in this movie is really good.
Marva
It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,
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.
kevin olzak
1935's "Cardinal Richelieu" turned out to be the Hollywood finale for acclaimed British star George Arliss, so adept at portraying larger than life historical figures. Here, it's the notorious Cardinal, often depicted as a villain yet acting on behalf of King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold) to ward off treachery within his inner circle, chiefly from top aide Baradas (Douglass Dumbrille), who takes every opportunity to convince the King that Richelieu is the real enemy. While Arliss chose to film stories or plays that were old fashioned, one cannot condemn his acting as barnstorming; he remains calm and rational, coolly weighing his options before deciding on a plan of action, letting others act up a storm, unable to wrest the screen away from his commanding presence (indeed a larger than life performer, sadly underrated nowadays). The unobtrusive love interest is supplied by Maureen O'Sullivan and Cesar Romero, while among the agitators attempting to get Parisians to revolt against Richelieu is a 29 year old John Carradine, appearing at the 41 minute mark, billed 31st out of a cast numbering 36: "Down with Richelieu! He's not in favor with the King, why should we listen to him? Down with him!"
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.
