Dan-13 I came into this movie mainly to see Bette Davis chew the scenery in her mad scene as the Empress Carlotta, but the film totally belongs to Brian Aherne, who was rightly nominated for an Oscar as Emperor Maximilian. Aherne gives a nuanced and sympathetic portrait of a man thrust into a political situation that he never should have been involved with in the first place. It's a masterful performance, particularly in his final scenes when he's imprisoned. He's absolutely heartbreaking.While physically Davis may not have been ideal as Carlotta, her descent into madness doesn't disappoint and she also excellent in her more tender moments with Aherne.Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard also contribute wonderfully nasty portrayals of Louis Napoleon and Empress Eugenie.On the minus side, there's Paul Muni, whose stoic expression doesn't change a whit over the course of more than two hours. John Garfield, normally a dynamic actor, is woefully miscast as a Mexican rebel.The movie is well-made, but the title is a misnomer. Maximilian's story is far more interesting than that of Juarez.

surangaf Hollywood movies about Mexico, new ones as well as old ones, tend to include lots of largely inaccurate clichés. And are mostly acted by people who have no connection to Mexico. This movie is a rare exception with regard to clichés, though it is still acted mostly by non Mexicans.Movie is also mis-titled. It is about the French imposed emperor of Mexico, Maximilian (excellently played by Brian Aherne, as a well meaning dupe, in well over his head, and his wife played by Bette Davis in a role suited to her talents), rather than his opponent republican president Juarez(played by Paul Muni, with laconic and stoic, and thus rather stiff, dignity). As far as I can judge, movie is fairly accurate with regard to external historical facts. However characters are too black and white to be real. For instance, Maximilian was indeed well meaning in real life, but hardly a complete dupe of others, and was knowingly responsible for creating lot of suffering. Juarez, in his turn, was no spotless democrat. Movie almost completely ignores the important political role of Catholic church, and bloody anti clericalism of republicans. It also whitewash USA's role and selfish motivations, while smearing the French and their emperor more than they deserve.As is to be expected,from a major studio movie of that era, this one has excellent production values.All in all, movie is worth watching.

warek-2 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.)

blanche-2 An amazing conflagration of actors populates the cast of 1939's "Juarez" -- Brian Aherne, Paul Muni, Bette Davis, Claude Rains, John Garfield, Gale Sondergaard, Donald Crisp, Gilbert Roland, and Louis Calhern. More amazing is the size of many of their roles - small! It shows that Warner Brothers put everything behind this epic film.The story concerns the short reign of Maximilian von Hapsburg (Aherne) as Emperor of Mexico, seduced into taking the position by Napoleon III (Rains) who convinces him that the Mexican people want a monarchy. They don't. Opposing Maximilian is the man of the people, Benito Juarez (Muni), who has the support of the United States. Both Maximilian and Juarez want many of the same things, but Maximilian's hard work to unite the Mexican people and stop the fighting fails.Though the title is "Juarez," the workhorse role belongs to the underrated Brian Aherne, an excellent actor from the theater who took second place to Errol Flynn at Warner Brothers. Though superstardom eluded him, he was a brilliant actor and a handsome man who turned in many great performances during a 43-year career. His Maximilian is gentle, likable, strong, and sympathetic. He gets third billing to Muni and Davis. Davis plays the Empress Carlota, Maximilian's wife. It's a secondary role but she has a huge, dramatic scene when Carlota returns to France to insist that Napoleon III keep his troops in Mexico. One of the best moments in the film is Carlota, going mad and believing the French court is trying to poison her, running out into the night, her white dress slowly disappearing. Davis wears magnificent gowns and has dark hair that seems to emphasize her huge eyes even more. She looks quite beautiful and gives a solid performance as a fragile woman devoted to her husband.Paul Muni's Juarez is stiff, and he looks and acts as if he's embalmed. Muni was a great actor who delved deeply into his roles, and it's not clear what he was thinking when he gave this performance. Undoubtedly he had researched Benito Juarez to the ground and was giving an exact representation of him. But as Bette Davis once said, "True acting is larger than life." Muni needed something more for this role but doesn't supply it. John Garfield's Porfirio Diaz is odd casting. He makes a little attempt at an accent; underneath that dark makeup is still John Garfield. Supposedly his role was cut down. Back in 1939, audiences were just getting to know him, so his performance probably held up well back then. Nowadays one only thinks, "Why is John Garfield playing a Mexican?" "Juarez" is rich in detail - it occasionally is plodding and runs a bit long in an effort to supply the historic happenings. But it is well worth seeing for the performances, the story, and those Orry-Kelly gowns.