You won't be disappointed!

Expected more

Best movie ever!

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

With a major studio behind it, an all-star cast, a strong team of writers (including John Huston), a glorious score, beautiful costumes, and a fact-based story, this should have been a great film. It is not. The twin handicaps of a dull, dull script and some odd casting make this tedious viewing indeed.A history book of film guide will offer up the synopsis: Louis Napoleon of France seeks to keep control of Mexico's resources by making Archduke Maximillian of Austria and his wife Carlotta puppet rulers, despite the fact that Mexico, led by Benito Juarez, is struggling to establish itself as a republic. Bad things happen. Brian Aherne does the best job among the cast, dealing with subjects he doesn't understand, power he enjoys a little too much, and an increasingly unstable wife. He wins the viewer's sympathy, even though one is made to feel a little guilty liking a dictator, especially when scenes cut to Paul Muni as Juarez gazing with admiration at a portrait of Lincoln and intoning the word "democracy" with spooky reverence. (By the way, check your civics book; a republic is not the same as a democracy.)Muni is a puzzle. Whether he assayed portrayals of historical figures such as Pasteur or Zola or tackled a very exotic role such as the patriarch in "The Good Earth," he did so with dignity, intensity, and a clear understanding of the character. Not so here. In what seemed to be an attempt to portray the endurance and stoicism of Juarez who rose from being an illiterate Indian to a visionary leader, Muni instead delivered a robotic, almost monotone, performance and his make-up man went overboard: he looks like a cross between George Lopez and Raymond Massey in "Arsenic and Old Lace" and sounds like Stephen Hawking.In the scenery-chewing histrionics category, the nominees are Claude Rains as Louis Napoleon and Bette Davis as Carlotta. Claude Rains excels in roles that call for him to be vainglorious, slimy, and double-dealing, but I'll give Davis the edge. No one ever looked less like a dark, smoldering exotic type than she and no one could do nervous-accelerating-to-nuts better. Orson Welles once said there were two things actors could not do convincingly: pray and copulate, and Carlotta in the chapel imploring the Virgin Mary for a child confirms the hypothesis about the first. Since Maximillian and Carlotta never have a child and must resort to adopting a small boy to be their heir, we'll assume the second didn't work out, either.It's bizarre that the cast represents many nationalities and cultures, but with the exception of the always great Gilbert Roland (who was born in Juarez, Mexico), no one is Austrian, French, or Mexican. John Garfield as Diaz tries mightily to master a Meh-hee-can accent but his Lower East Side roots are showing.The film generally is overlong and preachy. The viewer almost feels like grabbing notebook and pen and taking notes, because there's a sense that a pop quiz will follow when the lights come up. History can be the basis for some exciting and exceptional film-making, but this isn't it. Don't see if if you can.(One fun fact: Two of the minor actors, Harry Davenport, as a member of Maximillian's cabinet, and Mickey Kuhn, as the child adopted by the Emperor, also had small roles, as Dr. Meade and Beau Wilkes respectively, in another film of 1939, "Gone with the Wind." It did a little better.)

What drew me into seeing Juarez in the first place were the cast and that Korngold wrote the music. And while it is far from perfect, there are definitely a lot of good things. It does look exquisite, not just in the lavishly rendered costumes and sets but also in the sweeping cinematography. Korngold's score is splendid also, full of the rich and rousing melodies he is famous for, if not quite on the same level as the scores he did for Prince and the Pauper, Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk and especially The Adventures of Robin Hood. The Mexican history is interesting and I did find it informative, and most of the acting is fine. In particular Bette Davis who is very compelling in her role, Brian Aherne's dignified Maximillian and Claude Rains who plays urbane better than anyone(except perhaps Cary Grant). Donald Crisp, Montagu Love and Joseph Calleia are excellent also. However there are debits, while the script is mostly literate it also suffers from being too talky and trying to tell us too much. The film is perhaps overlong, and is rather tedious in the pace at times. And two actors unfortunately didn't work for me. Paul Muni, wonderful in Scarface, The Good Earth and The Life of Emile Zola, not helped by very heavy make-up is far too stoic and stiff in the lead. And while he tries hard to give the honest intensity the small role of Porfirio Diaz, John Garfield just ended up being out of place. On the whole, a great cast, a splendid score and lavish production values are definite things to like, but Juarez is spoilt sadly by bad pacing, too much talk and two actors who don't convince as much as they should. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Yes. Hollywood gets in the way of history, this is a movie from 1939 after all, but look at the selection of actors who gathered to do this. Muni, Raines, Davis, Aherne, Garfield, Roland, Crisp, Sondergaard!!! Each one as professional as the other, working together as a beautiful ensemble, with this story as a great platform for each of them. I loved the performances of Paul Muni and Brian Aherne. Some have said that these actors were wooden or sluggish, but I disagree! Both of these actors knew step by step of how their characters would act and react to the situations put before them and did it wonderfully. The two gems in this movie are the performances of Gilbert Roland and John Garfield. Their emotional responses, especially to the abdication of, and, subsequent execution of Maximilian are brilliant. Reading the "Trivia" section of this movie convinces me even more of how much thought went into the presentation of this motion picture...even when Hollywood in 1939 would be tempted to cut corners around historical facts. Movies were made with heart and hard work back then. They knew their craft.

The plot of this film devotes more time to the character of Emperor Maximilian than it does the title character of Juarez. There is no development of the character of Juarez—who he was, where he came from, or how he got to the point where the plot begins.It seems as if this film was planned as an all-star vehicle, ensemble cast, somewhat like more modern films such as "Airport", "Towering Inferno" and "Poseidon Adventure". All members of the cast are reputable, capable well-known actors, each of whom has little tidbits of plot throughout the film.Some other reviewers have said that certain actors were miscast in their roles, but since each part is so small, does it really matter? As for other remarks about the omission of Latino actors in this film, that is incorrect as there were several, most notably Gilbert Roland. Check the IMDb complete cast listing and see for yourself. Keep in mind that the story mostly concerns characters of European descent, so you wouldn't be seeing the typical Mexican in the main roles. As for the comments about the lack of battle scenes, the plot is about intrigue, not the war.I think viewing this movie is a worthwhile expenditure of time, just to see so many good actors in one film.