I could understand how one might feel that this film isn't an explosive epic and why should it have made Power a star. It's a great story though clocking in at just under two hours. I think Zanuck and Henry King, did they know what they were doing? Yes, they did. Tyrone Power's presence carries the film and it's incredible because he had such little experience. They were going to insert Don Ameche into this role and would it have made a difference? Any viewer can decide that for themselves. The battle sequence near the very end when Horatio Nelson is cut down, that was nicely done. Less is more and it brought the whole film together to a perfect, yet bittersweet, ending. I've seen so many of Power's films, he was great and a very capable actor. It seems as though he was better and had his whole heart into what he did in the films he made before the war. Compared to after WWII. "Lloyd's of London" is expertly made and it helped to have Freddie Bartholomew chipping in to start the narrative. I'm more impressed by the picture and like it more with each subsequent viewing. I have a nice print on a fully licensed DVD to watch it on. I don't know why a full restoration has not been done on this title at this late date. It looks great but I know it has not been fully restored as have so many have from Hollywood's Golden Age. It fired the unknown Power to the top of his profession, why don't they restore this?
Review of Lloyd's of London
