Cardinal Richelieu

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.

Year 1935 was definitely the year for Rowland V Lee to speak of history of France, and more precisely Cardinal Richelieu character; because this very year, the director gave us THE THREE MUSKETEERS, also speaking of Richelieu, but in a supporting role, whilst in this movie - CARDINAL RICHELIEU - the latest is the lead character. I have always been astonished by the interest that the Hollywood film industry took for history of France. More than England.... This movie is maybe accurate and faithful is not bad at all but very talkative and destined to history goers. I don't crave for it but don't mind my opinion, that's just an opinion. Good acting and directing.

It 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.

Cardinal 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.

This 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.