Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Brenda 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

TheLittleSongbird 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

moonspinner55 In 1863, with the Civil War in America nearly won by the North and the Monroe Doctrine about to be imposed, French Emperor Napoleon III realizes he can't overtake Mexico by force and decides to establish a Monarch in the country--much to the dismay of the Mexican people and their president, Benito Juarez, who realize it's a puppet dictatorship. Although the film (based in part on a play from Franz Werfel and also the novel "The Phantom Crown" by Bertita Harding) is satisfactory on an artistic level, it is emotionally hollow. Paul Muni's top-billed performance as Juarez, a man of few words, is nearly swallowed up by the work of his co-stars, all performing at scenery-chewing level. Indeed, much of the dramatic focus is on Brian Aherne and Bette Davis as the Emperor and Empress Hapsburg, who are the pawns in the political game, one that ultimately drives Bette's Empress mad (in scenes verging on self-parody). The picture isn't involving as dramatic entertainment, yet as a cinematic history lesson it has some merit, and Aherne was nominated for a Supporting Actor Oscar. ** from ****

dbdumonteil Although there are some mistakes historically speaking,this is an absorbing screenplay,with superlative performances by Paul Muni,Bette Davis and Brian Aherne,who should have been at the top of the bill too,for he has more scenes than his two co-stars.Muni is almost frightening with his impassive face and his slow delivery.If looks could kill,his certainly would...Davis ,although she does not look like Charlotte physically ,gives a captivating portrayal of the empress.The scene when she prays Virgin Mary is impressive ,but not true: she was not sterile,but she and the emperor used to sleep apart!Their relationship was much more complex than the one depicted by Dieterlé: actually,the emperor was often away,it seemed that their strange love worked from a distance.Little by little,Maximilian lost all interest in power and Charlotte was ruling while he was gone (which often happened)or was staying in his Cuernavaca "paradise" .Aherne is Maximilian in the flesh.It's interesting to notice that his brother Francis-Joseph had deprived him of all his rights and his titles in Austria.Historians generally agree that he would not have accepted the Mexican throne,if Charlotte had not been his wife. the problem is that the film doesn't show us the couple BEFORE they get to Mexico:one thing to bear in mind is that Max did not accept the throne overnight;and many people in Europa (notably Queen Victoria and Empress Elizabeth aka "Sissi" ) had warned them it was more a curse than a blessing.Charlotte (Carlotta) ,someone reportedly said ,wanted to reign over any people anywhere.Sissi called her Max's black angel. Maximilian is depicted as a chivalrous noble sovereign which he was in a way.But of course ,he had lots of (Mexican)lovers since he didn't sleep with his wife Dieterlé does not pass over in silence the obnoxious role played by Napoleon the Third (and wife Eugénie de Montijo).Charlotte does show her contempt:"He is an impostor,his family is not an old one like ours ".The famous scene of the orangeade is included .Today,no serious historian would put forward that the drink was poisoned.But it might be possible that she was poisoned before leaving Mexico.Davis shines when she plays these scenes of madness.The scenes in Paris are not thoroughly accurate though:Eugenie (an incredibly beautiful Sondergaard) met first Carlotta alone in the Grand Hotel -they did not invite her to the Tuileries,which meant a lot about what they felt-Metternich was not the person who helped Carlotta :she first took refuge in the Vatican where the pope had trouble to get rid of her,then her sister-in-law Marie -Henriette ,queen of Belgium,came to her rescue when she was treated almost like a prisoner in Miramar.All that concerns Maximilian's death is accurate ,his last words were "poor Charlotte!"Poor Charlotte indeed.She was to outlive almost everyone,even Empress Eugenie! She died in 1927,after years and years of insanity with occasional moments of lucidity ,notably during WW1.Dieterlé's movie is by no means uninteresting,but it would be exciting to film a remake in the light of the recent works about the Mexican adventure.

GlLee I thought Paul Muni's acting was excellent in Juarez. The sincerity he brought to this role was breath-taking. Those of us who have followed Muni's acting career know that he had a passion for portraying progressives throughout history: statesmen like Juarez, scientists like Pasteur, and writers like Emile Zola. I have shown the film to my college Humanities classes. These old Muni films, such as Zola, Pasteur, and Juarez educate while entertaining. The times we live in show how rare a grasp of history is and I applaud Muni for his selection of roles and great skill in portraying figures such as Benito Juarez.Many students today do not realize that Louis Napoleon's France had a Realpolitik role in our Civil War by way of its "bet" on the course and how that would play out when France attempted to install a monarch in neighboring Mexico. As a teacher AND a classic film buff, I find little to criticize in this film and much to praise.Viva Muni, viva Juarez! GlLee