brendangcarroll I saw this again the other night after many years and was impressed at how entertaining it was. It moves at a cracking pace (so typical of Warner Bros style) and has a great cast of fine character actors (especially Albert Bassermann, Nigel Bruce and Otto Kruger) supporting Edward G Robinson in the title role, who gives a nicely understated performance.The telescoping of events and the dramatic license with facts are to be expected in a film from this period, and in the main, the film presents a stirring account of how the transmission of news grew in the 19th century. Some reviewers here criticise Warners for not mentioning Reuter's conversion from Judaism to Christianity but anyone thinking a Hollywood studio would tackle such a complex subject in 1940 is expecting far too much. The direction by Dieterle is first rate and the pace is brisk, with the hand of Hal Wallis very obvious in the snappy editing and excision of any superfluous material.Much was made on the historical accuracy of the sets such as the London Stock exchange) and certainly, the recreation of the House of Commons in London while smaller than the real thing, looked very convincing.There is much else to enjoy here if you are a movie buff of Warner films from this period. When Reuter & Max are walking through the city near the beginning, we see many of the famous standing sets on the Warner back-lot at the time, including :- the Casa di Bonnyfeather and canal at Leghorn (built for Anthony Adverse): the large church structure built circa 1930, with the pillars & big flight of steps that featured in so many films including The Roaring 20s (Cagney dies on those steps at the end) and Deception (Bette Davis runs up those steps at the beginning) and we even see the large Nottingham Castle Gate with portcullis built for The Adventures of Robin Hood in 1937. Some of these sets were still standing as late as 1975! Above all, there is Max Steiner's terrific score. This tale clearly resonated in him and he produces one of his most arresting and dramatic works, with a superbly heraldic Main Title which reappears throughout at key points of the story, and also Steiner's most gorgeous waltz (for Reuter's wife played by the lovely and underrated Edna Best) that betrays his Viennese background. Steiner's score for REUTER cries out for a modern recording, yet few ever mention it when discussing his work for films.I think it is one of his finest, the equal to Now Voyager, All This & Heaven Too and Big Sleep. If the film were shown more, maybe it would be noticed by the CD companies.So, while this may not be the greatest of the Warner bio-pics, it is certainly unjustly overlooked. Let us hope it reaches DVD soon.

blanche-2 Edward G. Robinson was a most interesting movie star in classic film history. Like Bogart, James Cagney, and Spencer Tracy, he was a character actor who became a leading man. That didn't and doesn't happen to many actors or actresses. Robinson could do anything - he could be mean, pathetic, a blowhard, a loser, hilarious, whatever the role called for. Along with his Warners colleague, Paul Muni, he did his share of biopics. "A Dispatch from Reuters" from 1940 is one.Robinson plays Julius Reuter. Since this film is really about the news agency he founded, much of Reuter's life is left out. Of interest, he was a German Jew who moved to London and ultimately converted to Christianity (before marrying Ida, who was a Christian), taking the first name of Paul. He also became a naturalized British citizen and was named a Baron by Queen Victoria. He had three sons, and the last member of the Reuter family, the widow of one of his grandsons, died in 2009.Anyway, to get back to the film - there was some dramatic license taken, but the basic story is accurate. Reuter did start out with carrier pigeons, and the film does follow the evolution of the agency accurately as far as his news beating the ships, etc.Edward G. Robinson is excellent as Julius, and though it's unclear how much of a struggle the real Reuter had in getting clients, Robinson shows determination and ambition throughout the film. I have to agree with one of the reviewers on this site who thought the Eddie Albert character was too lazy to have continued to be employed. Albert is good, though, as is the rest of the cast -- Albert Basserman, Edna Best, Gene Lockhart, Nigel Bruce, Otto Kruger, and Montagu Love.Entertaining film.

stevenfallonnyc "A Dispatch From Reuter's" pretty much has one great thing going for it, and that is Edward G. Robinson of course as Julius Reuter. Otherwise, this is semi-standard old-movie fare that can be quite dull most of the time.Reuter of course was a news pioneer, but not every successful story always makes for a good movie. Seeing guys in the 1930s and 1940s play people in the 1800s is always kind of funny. (Especially when they do the "harumph" thing when they get angry.) There's a lot of talk concerning pigeons that the viewer will get tired of pretty quickly. The characters aren't engaging and the plot is, well, boring and thin. It's a ten-minute movie stretched out to 90 minutes.Unless you are a fan of Edward G. Robinson really, which I am, this is definitely one you can certainly live without seeing.

dbdumonteil At the time ,Robinson used to play illustrious men (what Greer Garson did for illustrious women):Reuters and Ehrlich.Both movies were released the same year ."Reuters" is certainly less interesting than "Ehrlich" although the endings are similar (both heroes stand accused and get final vindication)."Reuters" marks the beginning of what we call today the global village .It's a long way from Reuters' pigeons.That said,neither "Ehrlich" nor " Reuters" are among Dieterle's great works.They are certainly interesting ,but impersonal :if you want to discover a great director,you'd better choose "portrait of Jennie" or "the hunchback of Notre Dame".