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.
Add a Review
-
utgard1426 August 2014
-
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 stillness (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!"
-
bkoganbing18 October 2014Armand Du Plessis, the Duke Of Richelieu and also a Cardinal of the Church of Rome remains to this day a fascinating historical figure. He was in addition to being a Prince of the Church was the first minister to King Louis XIII of France. He was legendary for his cunning and his power grabbing. Richelieu has come down to us as a villain as a result of Alexandre Dumas's classic novel The Three Musketeers. In point of fact anyone who was looking to rise in France at the time buddied up with Richelieu. He said himself he had no enemies, but the enemies of France.
Cardinal Richelieu the film is adapted from an old 19th century play by British author Edward Bulwer-Lytton and in America the great actor and first real American stage matinée idol Edwin Forrest originated the role. A man like George Arliss whose style of acting stemmed from two centuries ago was the perfect choice to play Richelieu as realized by Bulwer- Lytton.
The play covers the period before and during an incident known as the Day Of Dupes when Richelieu managed to bag all his court rivals in a treasonous plot against him and his master Louis XIII played here by Edward Arnold. It may not have happened that way on film, but history records he was unchallenged at court until almost his death.
Leading the plot is Douglass Dumbrille and it involved the Dowager Queen Violet Kemble-Cooper, the current Queen Katharine Alexander and the idiot second son Gaston who is unforgettably played by Francis Lister. Gaston was every bit the idiot that Lister plays him as.
Handling the romantic interest is Richelieu's ward Maureen O'Sullivan and young noble Cesar Romero in one of his earliest roles. Romero is dashing and brave, but a bit of a fat head who gets in turn manipulated by Dumbrille and then Arliss.
The Three Musketeers has done dirt to Cardinal Richelieu's reputation. Though this film comes from a play out of the romantic era that also produced The Three Musketeers it shows Richelieu in a better and more true light. Arliss might be old fashioned for today's taste, but I think his performance is grand. -
theowinthrop8 April 2004There is no denying that George Arliss's position as a leading star of movies has declined precipitously in the last half century. That he appeared in historical films where he was involved with great events, and bringing fictional lovers together, is used as a joke to dismiss him. Only when studying his actual performances does one realize that his restrained acting was a tremendous advance over the thumping scenary tearing of the silent period. If you doubt this, look at his performance in THE IRON DUKE. Although too short to play Wellington, he does the best with the role. In the film he has to confront the French royal court after the judicial murder of Marshal Ney (1815). The actor playing Louis XVIII is overacting incredibly, and Arliss knows it. Look at the fierce disapproval in his face in that scene.
Here, he is playing Armand Du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu, the real ruler of France from 1626 to 1642 (the titular ruler was King Louis XIII - here Edward Arnold, splendid but wasted in a small role). Richelieu took a France, long weakened by religious wars (although it had begun a good recovery under King Henri IV and his minister Sully), and made it the supreme power in Western Europe, at the expense of Charles I of England, the Germans in the Thirty Years War (he paid off the King of Sweden to prolong the war), and Spain. Richelieu is usually considered a villain in movies (like THE THREE MUSKETEERS) but he was the creator of modern France. Arliss does very well in the role, bringing the patriotism and brilliance of the cardinal out - and he also happens (for a change) to look like Richelieu. But what makes this performance most interesting is that the film captures a 19th Century theatrical workhorse - Edward Bulwer-Lytton's play RICHELIEU. It was one of the most popular "modern" plays in English and American theatre in the 19th Century, and had been performed by Edwin Booth among others. The key scene for whoever played the Cardinal was "the Curse of Rome" Scene, where Richelieu warns of the wrath of the Papacy if anything happens to him. Arliss delivers this in the film - the sole example of this 19th Century acting moment in film. -
planktonrules7 December 2020Cardinal Richelieu has been a character in many old movies...as well as in a bizarre appearance on "Monty Python's Flying Circus". However, who is the REAL Richelieu, as some of these portrayals completely contradict each other. For instance in "The Three Musketeers", Richelieu is clearly the villain...a manipulator, liar and overall scum-bag. But here in "Cardinal Richelieu" he is a true patriot...a man who cares less about loyalty to the King and more to France itself!
The plot of "Cardinal Richelieu" consists of a group of French aristocrats who are bent on destroying King Louis XIII and replacing him with his greedy brother. But, to do this, the group must get rid of the cunning Richelieu, as he knows of their goals and is intent on stopping them. As for Louis, he's pretty much a fool who is easily manipulated by the very folks bent on replacing him! Ultimately, it all comes to a climactic showdown with the King, the conspirators and the Cardinal at the end of the picture.
The fact that George Arliss would play this part isn't surprising in the least. After all, he was already famous for playing Benjamin Disraeli in two prior movies as well as a short...and for which Arliss received an Oscar for Best Actor in 1930. And, essentially, Disraelis IS Richelieu in the films....a cunning, amoral man whose only goals are the glorification and strengthening of his beloved country. And, like "Disraeli", it's a film that ends with a climactic showdown.
So is this any good? Yes, but in a somewhat slow 1930s way that MIGHT not appeal to some viewers. I enjoyed it...Arliss was just fine...but the film was much more talky and stagey than most biopics...most likely because this film is based on a play about the great statesman. Worth seeing but a tiny bit stilted at times.
By the way, if you do watch this or any of Arliss' other biopics (such as "Disraeli", "House of Rothschild" or "Voltaire" understand that you are NOT seeing the actor at his best. These stagey biopics, though good, are not even close to being as timeless and wonderful as many of his fictional portrayals, such as in classics like "The Working Man", "The King's Vacation" and "Mister Hobo". These are films you really should see. -
mark.waltz29 December 2023Another historical biography for George Arliss after playing Disraeli, Alexander Hamilton, Voltaire and others, a Catholic leader in France during the reign of King Louis XIII (Edward Arnold) and issues that erupt when he gains too much power. You see his involvement in the young love affairs of others (a staple in pretty much every George Arliss film I've seen), his turn from favor to enemy of the monarchy to the impact of his power on the country and the church, declaring his power over the pope's.
It's very grand in scale, coming off a series of opulent epics on the various European dynasties from Spain and England all the way east to Poland and Russia. Arliss is very theatrical, some might call it hammy, and no one can dare to stand up to him, not even the bombastic Arnold, Violet Kemble Cooper as the queen mother, Katharine Alexander as the queen, Francis Lister as an insane prince (banished in real life), Douglas Dumbrille as the king's adviser who's actually a traitor, and as the young lovers, Cesar Romero and Maureen O'Sullivan.
No matter how fictionalized, it's deliciously campy, nearly as garish in look and audacity as "The Scarlet Empress". As one of the last 20th Century films before they merged with Fox, it's one of the biggest films of 1935 which was filled with classics more well known, and as a historical document of pre-French revolutionary Europe obviously hogwash. Still a lot of fun that could have been expanded on, top notch with sets, costumes, music (Alfred Newman) and direction (Rowland V. Lee) that Richileu comes off as a delightful tall tale that makes you wish that history was as fascinating as fiction. -
HotToastyRag26 April 2021When most of us hear the name Cardinal Richelieu, we think of the evil bad guy from The Three Musketeers. Vincent Price, Tim Curry, and Christoph Waltz have portrayed him - and they always play bad guys! However, in this 1935 biopic, he's supposed to be a good guy. George Arliss plays the cardinal, and he spends the whole movie making master plans for the greater good: protecting King Louis XIII from assassination and betrayal. George Arliss was very famous in the early silver screen, but if you don't like his style, you probably won't like this movie.
I watched it for Cesar Romero, who plays the young, handsome romantic lead. In full "musketeer gear", armed with a wig and a sword, he falls madly in love with the equally beautiful Maureen O'Sullivan in one evening. It's a whirlwind courtship, and they vow to marry - but they haven't even learned each others' names! When George Arliss orders Cesar to marry a woman of his choice, even threatening him with an execution order if he refuses, Cesar does refuse. He loves Maureen and won't marry anyone else. It turns out Maureen is George's daughter, and he was playing a little joke on the couple. It's a very cute scene, but the rest of the movie is a little boring by comparison. And Edward Arnold's thick New York accent feels out of place as the French king, especially when everyone else is trying to hard to be in a period piece. -
alonzoiii-113 February 2006For 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. -
JohnHowardReid27 January 2017A 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. -
dbdumonteil19 January 2009It is always interesting,nay funny,to see how Hollywood broaches FRench history.To make Louis XIII a bon vivant fond of young maidens whereas he was misogynous and is known for only having had two (platonic)affairs with women is the contrary of what we learn in history books.On the other hand,the king's homosexuality was never proved :he had favorites but they could possibly have been only good friends.
On the other hand,George Arliss is Richelieu as a French person can imagine it.He is a shrewd adamant man,with a great fondness for cats .He was hated by the queen and the queen mother Marie De Medicis whose regency was a disaster .The movie shows how disinterested he was:he used to work for the king's throne,preparing the absolute monarchy which would come into bloom with the Sun King in 1661.He fought against the nobles -who ,after his death would rebel in the days of "La Fronde" - and against the protestants (the siege of La Rochelle is depicted in "Les Trois Mousquetaires").
The story is a bit far-fetched -the Cardinal goes as far as to pretend he is dead;the nobles who see his "dead body" take naiveté to new limits-but rather entertaining. -
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. -
treeroland15 November 2021This is really a terrific movie, surprisingly underrated. To begin with, George Arliss is flawless and dazzling in the role of l'Eminence Rouge. I wish someone would someday make a serious Fu Manchu movie, faithfully bringing Sax Rohmer's creation to the screen, and I can only imagine George Arliss in the role of Fu Manchu. Cardinal Richelieu and Fu Manchu have a lot in common.
Even though Alexandre Dumas isn't credited for the story, all of the action comes straight out of Dumas.