Juarez (1939) User Reviews

Two Films Into One Is A Bad Fit

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 11 June 2007]

Juarez is a film that might possibly have been better served if the concept of a mini-series had been available back in 1939. Certainly his story in its entirety with Maximilian and Carlotta as just one part of it would be a mini-series.

Benito Juarez who rose from being an illiterate Zapotec Indian from Oaxaca province in Mexico has developed into the Mexican statesman with the biggest popular appeal in American culture. Note how in the film, he is juxtaposed with Abraham Lincoln. Both men started from very humble background and rose to lead their respective nations at the same time, in times of great crises for their countries.

Paul Muni makes an impassive and stoic Juarez. It certainly is atypical of the rest of his historical characters be it Louis Pasteur, Pierre Radisson, or Emile Zola where he is quite eloquent. It's so different than what you normally see from Muni.

Juarez's story shares the screen with that of his counterpart the Emperor Maximilian. The real Maximilian was not as naive as Brian Aherne would have us believe. He knew very well his power was there while the French army was there. Yet in his own way with limited options he tried to govern as best he could. Aherne was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but lost to Thomas Mitchell for Stagecoach.

Hollywood usually can't resist a mad act and Bette Davis might have been nominated herself had she not been already nominated for the much better Dark Victory. It really did happen that way, the high strung Carlotta just snapped when she returned to France to get help for her beleaguered husband. She lived in her private mad world for over 60 years, dying in the mid twenties of the next century.

Claude Rains registers well as emperor Louis Napoleon and with this film played both Bonaparte emperors of France. He had played the first Napoleon in Hearts Divided. Marshal Achille Bazaine played well by Donald Crisp was withdrawn with his troops because France was very concerned, rightly so, about a growing threat from a uniting Germany and couldn't waste time with imperialist ventures. I do love the fact that the French seem so concerned about the Monroe Doctrine which was nothing more than an expression of U.S. policy, always has and always will be. It had no force of law behind it, but with the Civil War over and the Union Army at the point of Appomattox being the largest army in the world at that time, that had more to do with Napoleon deciding that the western hemisphere wasn't worth it.

An interesting side note to that retrenchment policy, Louis Napoleon also withdrew French troops from Rome and the Papal States for the same reason at the same time because of threats to the home land. It removed the last block to a uniting Italy as well.

If I have a favorite among the supporting cast it is Joseph Calleia who plays Juarez's slippery Vice President who tries a palace coup d'etat and falls very short.

The one jarring note in the cast is John Garfield who sounds more like he's from the Lower East Side of New York than Mexican as Juarez supporter and future dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz.

Juarez as a film is overly ambitious, it tries to tell too much in the running time allotted. A film about Juarez and a film strictly from the Maximilian/Carlotta point of view would have been far better.

Big actors, small roles

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 22 September 2006]

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.

Flawed Americanization of Mexican History

[nycritic · 8/10 · 18 May 2006]

It's possible and safe to say that Paul Muni was probably the best thing that had happened to movies when it was still in its infancy because of his preference for playing flesh and blood characters instead of matinée idols. Even in average movies such as BORDERTOWN, where he reportedly moved in with his Mexican chauffeur in order to replicate a flawless Mexican accent, his performance can't be said to rely on being handsome. He might not have needed using make up to look Mexican, but the times back were such that to act a certain part one had to look it, according to social conventions.

By the time JUAREZ came into fruition, Muni was already deeply involved with Muni and no one else. It's possible that his very talent made him something of a monster -- he'd developed, according to biographical accounts, an increasing list of character quirks -- and his joining the team producing this movie significantly altered the end result. JUAREZ from there on, instead of being a historical drama focusing on the Hapsbourgs -- Maximilian and Charlotte, later known as Empress Carlotta -- now had a third element to expand on: the life of Benito Juarez.

It's actually not a bad thing. As an epic, the story shifts from the Hapsbourgs to Juarez with little chops here and there in its editing and even that is a product of its time. The main issue I have with the movie is that Paul Muni's characterization is about as interesting as a honey drip or a metronome. A slow, almost slurred speech, long gazes, even slower movements: again, this is the interpretation of one man trying to divorce himself as much as possible from overacting, but by doing so, went so far left he swung all the way back into the right. Again, the misconceptions of not understanding a culture or its people compounding itself with an over-sized ego and the demands to draw attention to oneself while looking the part does not make for a great performance.

JUAREZ also suffers from the addition of John Garfield into the mix. A major blunder, and more proof that the misunderstanding of ethnicities does not only extend itself to Blacks or Asians but Hispanics as well as shown here. Garfield, as Hispanic as a Martian is human, speaks his lines like Speedy Gonzalez would and sucks the life out of Porfirio Diaz, a major player in Mexican history, here reduced to something laughable. Unless you truly know Latino culture you cannot say you've made a "great movie" with dead-on performances and believable locations. There are scenes which make Mexicans look little more than idiots who couldn't know better and robs the movie from the accuracy of its story. Hollywood needed to do its homework and did not then, but then again... this is not a surprise.

If anything, Brian Aherne and Bette Davis come off better in their story lines, but again, seen from a Mexican point of view, their actual involvement there only extends itself from 1864 - 1867, the period JUAREZ chooses to frame its story. Aherne for the most seems to be caught in a position he had little control over, but is shown as a man with good intentions. Davis, in her few scenes, makes the most striking transition, from dressed in white to grey to black as her character goes progressively insane, and the moment this happens -- when Carlotta begs for Louis Napoleon's intervention in the matter involving Mexico and later goes insane there is striking. When she recovers from a fainting spell she begins having visions and runs into the black, screaming. Excellent.

I would recommend viewing the Mexican miniseries "El Vuelo del Aguila" which roughly translates as "The Flight of the Eagle". Much more detailed in its exposition, it shows a more accurate and epic depiction of Mexican history, seen from Porfirio Diaz's perspective, from 1830 to 1915. JUAREZ will never hold a candle to this miniseries.

A Truncated Masterwork

[theowinthrop · 9 April 2004]

Mexican History has not done too well in American cinema. One film (that I am aware of) about Cortez (THE CAPTAIN FROM CASTILE), one Yul Brynner movie about the Aztecs, several films about Santa Anna and the Alamo (including a new one coming out this week), a few films about Pancho Villa (the two most notable ones being VIVA VILLA with Wallace Beery and a film with Telly Savalas as the bandit patriot), one film directed by Elia Kazan, starring Brando and Quinn (who was half Mexican) about Emilianno Zapata, and John Ford's indictment (via Graham Greene's novel) of the anti-Catholicism of the Mexican Revolution. It's not much, and other films set in Mexico tend to promote the image of corruption and incompetence or bloody mindedness. Witness films like THE OLD GRINGO (an account of the end of Ambrose Bierce in the Mexican Revolution), or THE TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRES.

JUAREZ was a possible exception, in that it was to chronicle the odd events of 1862 - 1867 when (in the shadow of the American Civil War, and the temporary inability of the U.S. Government to exercise the Monroe Doctrine)Emperor Napoleon III decided to set up a puppet Hapsburg Emperor, Archduke Maximillian to rule Mexico. The film is supposed to be centered on Benito Juarez, Mexico's greatest liberal and President (his closest 20th Century counterpart is Lazaro Cardenas, who tried to get real land reform into the country). The film shows how Napoleon's scheme unravelled due to Juarez's refusal to accept the French occupation (an early version of the Vietnam War drained French troop strength for five years), as well as the returning threat of American intervention after Lee's defeat in 1865. But worst of all was the choice of the puppet. Maximillian was one of history's dreamers - he believed in the responsibility of royalty to govern for their people, and he was (for a Hapsburg) a liberal. The result was that the scheme was doomed from the start.

The real heart of the film is the competition between Juarez and Maximillian for the hearts of Mexico - both presenting conflicting views of government (but, ironically enough, good government). Because he was a foreigner, tainted by the French army supporting him, Max lost, and he ended up shot by a firing squad (he refused an opportunity to flee). His beloved wife Carlotta (Bette Davis in the film) went insane - dying in 1927 in Belgium, some sixty years after he died). Played by Brian Ahearn, Maximillian is a sympathetic man who pursues a tragic view of duty to it's sad conclusion. Davis shows the intense love of the doomed wife of this doomed man.

The problem is Muni. His performance is stiff, but good - especially when he explains democracy to his leading "Hotspur" military supporter -a young Porfirio Diaz (John Garfield). Garfield, having gotten to know Ahearn is a good guy, tries to convince Muni to join forces (becoming the first minister to the Constitutionally minded Ahearn). Muni rejects it - why have a monarchy at all. But Muni is overlooking the finer shadings of his rival's personality - he isn't Napoleon III but Maximillian. This should have been the center of the film - but it ended on the cutting room floor. The film was too long, and so Muni is shown struggling alone, leading his guerrilla war against the invader, and fighting an unscrupulous attempt by his Vice President to overthrow him (a properly corrupt Joseph Calliea). The conflict between constitutional monarch and democratic leader is skirted. Garfield, by the way, is not so bad as Diaz - he actually was to play a stronger part had the film not been cut - he would have been confronting the aging Juarez at the end (as historically he did) as the dictator of the future who ruled Mexico for 30 years, and gave it more stability and economic growth than any other leader in it's history (while selling the country off to American and European investors). The film was supposed to end on a more sour note. If it had, it would have been a great film.

Not terrible but hampered by a leaden pace

[jjnxn-1 · 6/10 · 11 September 2013]

Well appointed but lumbering, miscast drama. Bette is fine, all spit and fire but John Garfield, who was embarrassed by his forced casting, is completely out of place as Porfirio Diaz with his New York accent still firmly in place. Paul Muni, a very fine actor in modern dress roles, does what he always does when heavily made up; he lets the makeup do the acting for him. The best performance is delivered by Brian Aherne but he is hampered by a bizarre beard which distracts the viewer whenever he's on screen. The lack of fluid direction makes this feel more like a history lesson than a dramatized story of an actual series of events. A good try but stodgy.

Fake News Tricks Archduke!

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 20 April 2017]

The story of Archduke Maximilian, the Austrian nobleman who was induced by Napoleon III to assume the role of monarch of Mexico in 1863, displacing Benito Juárez, Mexico's liberal president, played by Paul Muni. His enthronement was endorsed by the wealthy land-holding aristocrats of Mexico -- eighty-five families. The US was too busy fighting its own Civil War to bother with violations of the Monroe Doctrine. Juárez and his armies put up a stiff fight, and eventually Napoleon withdrew his French forces from Mexico. Maximilian and two of his loyal Mexican were captured and executed. Maximilian's wife, "the mad Carlota", was hospitalized in Europe and finally sent to a sanitarium.

The film sticks pretty closely to historical fact, as far as a non-historian can tell. It's gripping. The hero is not Juárez at all but Maximilian. And, as presented here, it's an unalloyed epic tragedy. Shakespeare could have done wonders with it. Brian Aherne is Maximilian -- "Max", as his wife, Bette Davis calls him -- is a dignified man full of good intentions, whose policies (with one notable exception) followed those of Benito Juárez. Both were determined to promote equality and justice in Mexico. Again and again, Max defies the eight-five tycoons in favor of the ordinary people, most of whom can't read or write.

The way Aherne plays Max, he's so gentle and dignified that he's almost effeminate, an impression supported by his hair style, which appears to be braided and coiled atop his head, and by this spectacularly unwholesome looking set of muttonchop whiskers. He believes that the Mexican people have invited him to become their emperor by means of a referendum, not realizing until too late that the referendum was rigged. He's a man of principle tempered by good sense. The ongoing war is nettlesome to him and he sends a messenger to Juárez with an offer to become Prime Minister of Mexico. All that separates them, as Juárez observes, is the word "democracy." Muni plays the character as a pompous humanitarian, full of folksy liberal pieties. Hs movements are slow and deliberate. He overacts underacting. Unlike Max, he's never in doubt about anything, which makes him rather dull. And, in a mistaken attempt to have him resemble the historical Max, make up has turned Muni into a clayish lump. And Muni delivers lines that seem made of lead. "In a monarchy, the government changes the people. In a democracy, the people change the government." Clunk.

Actually, Juárez does seem like a law-abiding populist but he's about as yielding as reenforced concrete. He spurns Max's offer of Prime Minister, preferring war to compromise. Max, on the other hand gives a reasonably good argument in favor of kingship. A king, belonging to no party, owes no one anything and therefore can be impartial, while a president is beholden to the particular forces that elected him.

I called the argument "reasonably good" because Mexico in the 1860s, with most of its population illiterate farmers, may not have been entirely ready for a republic. What followed Juárez was a series of dictators, factional disputes and revolutions, including a raid across the border into the USA by Pancho Villa in 1917. Interesting parallel: When Max's French troops try to fight Juárez's army, that army dissolves into the general population in its own neighborhood. If you can't find them, you can't fight them. Ditto after Villa's raid into Columbus, New Mexico. The US Army sent a large expeditionary force into Mexico to find and punish Pancho Villa and his army. But there was nothing to fight. The soldiers had turned into farmers.

This was released in 1939 and lest we miss the point of dictatorship vs. democracy, the appearance of Archduke Maximilian is accompanied by the strains of "Deutschland Über Alles." Some other notes: Back in the USA, the South wanted to invade Mexico and turn it into a slave-holding nation, while slavery had been outlawed two generations earlier. And some of Lincoln's advisers wanted him to declare war on Mexico to deflect attention from the Confederate victories during the early years of the Civil War. (Mexico as low-hanging fruit.) In the end, the populist movement prevailed in Mexico; the vast haciendas were broken up and the land redistributed to farming families, each of which got enough land to support itself. The irony was that the birth rate became so high that the family farm could no longer feed so many people, so many of the farmers migrated to the cities in search of work, found little, and established the squatter settlements in shacks of corrugated tin and cardboard that now surround Mexico City. That's kind of off topic, an obiter dictum. Let's just say that in this movie, Juárez comes out on top but it's a tragic victory.

Government of the people or mob rule?

[brogmiller · 8/10 · 1 January 2020]

This is one of five biopics that William Dieterle made for producer Hal B. Wallis at Warner Bros in as many years and the third to star Paul Muni in the title role. Excellent production values suffice it to say. Tony Gaudio is behind the camera and there is a symphonic score by Korngold arranged and orchestrated by Hugo Freidhofer with an effective use of 'La Paloma'. Film historian David Thompson has dismissed these biopics as being Germanic and stagey. He is fully entitled to his opinion of course but I think his verdict to be harsh especially when one considers the first class actors, both leading and supporting, who appeared in these films. The characters that linger longest in the memory from this are those of Brian Aherne as Maximilian and Bette Davis as his wife Carlotta. Aherne has never been better quite frankly while Davis is absolutely stupendous in the role. Their scenes together are beautifully understated and the scene where she confronts the ignominious Louis Napoleon, played with relish by Claude Rains, is magnificent. Her descent into madness is subtly handled. Interesting also to see as future president Diaz that human dynamo John Garfield whose greatest roles were still to come. Paul Muni I must confess has never really been my cup of tea but that is only my opinion. The 'execution' of monarchs understandably has always caused more emotional outrage and controversy than that of dictators. In this film at any rate Juarez feels remorse but his refusal to grant Maximilian a pardon is certainly a blot on his historical reputation. Excellent film by a European director who adapted to and thrived under the Hollywood system. As an historical document it is certainly off-centre in many respects but as a piece of entertainment it certainly hits the mark.

Romanticized, over-the-top, a little superficial, but what fun!

[richmx2 · 7/10 · 4 August 2006]

From "Pancho Villa Starring Himself" to "The Mexican" and the execrable "Man on Fire" (produced by an Englishman, from an Italian script loosely based on an incident in Columbia... reset in Mexico), Hollywood has never made a film about Mexico that doesn't fall back on clichés and cartoonish "gringo-centric" stereotypes. Despite some problems, Juarez is an honorable exception.

The problem with the screenplay is that Bettina Harding bought the romantic, Euro-centric notion of Max and Carlotta as figures in a "tragic romance". They were patsies for Napoleon III's global ambitions (something the film does very well), but everyone in Mexico knows the two were complete fools who destroyed the economy, and hardly the loving couple depicted in the movie. Max was a syphilitic, pretentious twit. He neglected Carlotta (the "Casa Obvio", his summer house in Cuernavaca that he built, "forgetting" to include rooms for Carlotta is a popular tourist attraction now, and a botanical museum), had a son by his mistress, "la Bonita India" and -- infected his wife.

The other reviewer is unintentionally misleading when he writes that Carlotta lived in seclusion for 60 years. She was bed-ridden most of the time, suffering tertiary syphilis, requiring round-the-clock medical care. She did indeed, like in the film, go bonkers -- but in the Vatican, not in a French palace. The Papacy was a major player in the geo-politics surrounding the Mexican adventure, but the film (perhaps wisely) simplifies the politics.

But, what the hey -- it's Hollywood! It has the perfect cast for this kind of epic: who better to play stoic, long-suffering historical figures than Paul Muni? Who does devious Europeans better than Claude Raines and Donald Crisp? I really enjoy seeing Porfirio Diaz (who later seized the Mexican presidency in a coup, and maintained control for close to 35 years -- and is now a mixed figure in Mexican history, sort of like Lenin with the Russians, or Ataturk among the Turks) played by John Garfield. And who better to go completely bonkers and chew up the scenery than Bette Davis? By all means, watch the movie, but then read your Mexican history.

Warner Brothers clearly pulled out all the stops on this one!

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 28 February 2021]

When you watch "Juarez", you can't help but be impressed by the care Warner Brothers spent on this film. Apart from a few actors who would have been inappropriate for the picture (imagine Jimmy Cagney in this film!), nearly all their prestige actors are in the film as well as their best supporting actors. In addition, the film looks gorgeous for a costume drama. The only gripe I have is that although Paul Muni looks very much like Benito Juarez facially, he is way too tall to play the 4'6" leader! But I suppose that there wasn't a lot the studio could do about that. However, on the plus side, Brian Aherne is the spitting image of Maximillian!

The story is about the period of Benito Juarez' presidency where he was replaced as leader by Emperor Maximillian (Brian Aherne)....placed on the throne illegally as Mexico's first (and only) emperor. And, it continues until the eventual deposing of Maximillian by Juarez' army in exile.

It begins with the leader and jerk-face of France, Napoleon III (Claude Rains), deciding to take over Mexico and installing a puppet ruler, a Habsburg, Maximillian. He and his wife (Bette Davis) are tricked into believing that the Mexican people actually want them to rule over them. But soon after arriving, Maximillian discovers that he is presiding over a divided nation--some of which is still ruled by Juarez, the rightful president of the republic. And, he also learns that the Mexican people are NOT solidly behind him despite what his advisors had been telling him! While Maximillian tries, in some ways, to be a good leader, he foolishly stays in power....long after all his support has vanished.

The biggest complaint about this film is a modern one. Back in the day, white actors often played all sorts of ethnicities....and here nearly every Mexican is a white person. Such is the way they made films...like it or not today. Otherwise, it's a lovely film...very well made and reasonably historically accurate.

By the way, this is NOT a complaint but more a comment about the cast and script. There are so many wonderful actors in this one that you'd barely notice Bette Davis in the film. She's fine as Empress Carlotta....but the story overwhelms her and doesn't allow for her to show her great acting ability until the final portion. Up until then, she was barely noticeable. As a result, it's not among her best films.

Flawed but lavish and interesting

[TheLittleSongbird · 6/10 · 19 July 2012]

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

Studio movie about emperor Maximilian with mixed results

[surangaf · 5/10 · 23 July 2015]

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.

rousing historical epic

[mukava991 · 8/10 · 11 October 2009]

JUAREZ, despite playing fast and loose with certain historical facts, is nevertheless rousing and sumptuous epic film-making about the struggle for justice - on the one hand by the Mexican people and on the other by their hapless monarch.

The people are represented by Paul Muni impersonating Mexican president Benito Juarez; his expressionless face and slow, monotonous line readings are almost laughable; he comes across as a sort of Unconquerable Zombie of the People. He almost always appears in the same frame as a portrait of his hero and contemporary, Abraham Lincoln. As others have pointed out, his most powerful moment comes when he walks purposefully toward a line of armed soldiers in one of those moments of truth at the core of all successful revolutions: the refusal of the armed forces to defend the established regime.

The hounded monarch, Archduke Maximilian, is played by Brian Aherne in what may well be the best casting he was ever assigned on film. His performance is letter perfect as the idealistic puppet of Napoleon III who stuck to his outmoded principles despite overwhelming odds in much the same way as Nicholas II did in Russia decades later. In another parallel to the later Russian events, his domineering wife Carlotta (played by a beautifully photographed, no-holds-barred, black-bewigged Bette Davis) takes matters into her own hands to support his flimsy but ardent claim to the leadership of the country; Aherne, like Muni, is also frequently seen in proximity to a framed portrait - of his wife.

This is an expensive production with lavish costumes, stunning set pieces, gorgeous music, literate dialogue, a who's who of excellent supporting players, and breathtaking photography (the latter by veteran cameraman Tonio Gaudio, some of whose visions, especially Carlotta's prayer to the Virgin Mary and her final scene in a sunlit chamber, recall the most ethereal imagery of the silent era). All of these elements work together to get our blood surging in sympathy for the downtrodden Mexican peasantry as they rise up against cold hearted official corruption. And on a smaller level we feel equally moved by the personal plight of Maximilian.

With so much stuffing, not everything works perfectly. John Garfield, one of the best film actors of his time, is unconvincing as a Mexican general. There is a problem with pacing and informational overkill. Muni's sleepwalking performance contributes to a sense of sluggishness. Whenever he appears you brace yourself for a plodding and profound dose of Great Truth. At least these Truths are not banalities, so they are somewhat worth waiting for.

It should have been called "Maximilian" (may contain spoilers)

[Dan-13 · 7/10 · 9 March 2017]

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.

Unimpressive Mess

[tillerman3 · 5/10 · 25 November 2003]

Actually, there are two separate movies hidden behind the title, as suggested by the two sources for the screenplay. The filmmakers obviously were unable to merge the storylines in a satisfactory way, the resulting mess is unimpressive and boring. Production values, especially set design and music score, are quite high (as was the standard for Warner Bros.' quality pictures of that time). The most memorable of the many fine actors and actresses buried in the movie is Brian Aherne as Maximilian.

The last emperor

[dbdumonteil · 10 February 2007]

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.

Interesting glimpse of Mexican history with its phantom emperor...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 11 October 2009]

Warner Bros. obviously spared no expense to do justice to a story of JUAREZ (PAUL MUNI) but spent so much time on the ill-fated reign of Emperor Maximilian (BRIAN AHERNE and his wife Carlotta, BETTE DAVIS), that the film might just as well have been called MAXIMILIAN. An even better title comes from a play on which this is based, called THE PHANTOM EMPEROR.

Brian Aherne has the most screen time in what appears to be the central role.Ironically, he was nominated for an Oscar in the "Best Supporting Role" category. If billing in Hollywood was fair, instead of governed by studio politics, he should have shared star billing with Paul Muni and Bette Davis in the opening credits.

Having said all that, the details of the story have been given in expert fashion by many of the other commentators who are better acquainted with Mexican history than I am, so I can't talk about the accuracy or inaccuracies of the plot. But from a standpoint of entertainment, JUAREZ attempts to do too much in dealing with a complex plot. The talky script full of historical references becomes tedious and the film occasionally drags and loses momentum until an action scene relieves it of monotony. However, the ability of the writers to cover so much ground in the course of little more than two hours is an achievement in itself.

The acting is splendid for the most part--but unfortunately Muni has chosen to play Benito Juarez in almost mute fashion, his stoic expression hardly ever changing and relying on heavy make-up to do the job for him. It doesn't work.

But all those around him can only be congratulated for doing well in roles large and small. Davis is especially compelling in Empress Carlotta's scene of incipient madness; Aherne gives dignity and sympathy to Maximilian; and Claude Rains, Gale Sondergaard, Donald Crisp, Gilbert Roland, Joseph Calleia and Montagu Love are excellent in support.

The only casting misfire is JOHN GARFIELD in swarthy Mexican make-up as Gen. Diaz. He looks out of place even though he attempts to give an earnest performance and his lower New York accent is just below his Mexican one.

Except for a majestic main theme that is used once in awhile, Erich Wolfgang Korngold's overall score did not make a strong impression on me this time.

not bad

[kyle_furr · 7/10 · 8 February 2004]

This movie started out pretty bad, but it got better as it went along. The thing i liked about it most was the fact that you hardly got to know Paul Muni's character and spent more time Brian Aherne's character. Claude Rains and John Garfield are hardly even seen expect for a couple of scenes. Paul Muni wasn't very good, just like in The Life of Emile Zola, Bette Davis is good.

This Movie Is Great!

[Keetoo · 9/10 · 22 September 2006]

Yes. Hollywood gets in the way of history, this is a movie from 1939 after all, but look at the selection of actors who gathered to do this. Muni, Raines, Davis, Aherne, Garfield, Roland, Crisp, Sondergaard!!! Each one as professional as the other, working together as a beautiful ensemble, with this story as a great platform for each of them. I loved the performances of Paul Muni and Brian Aherne. Some have said that these actors were wooden or sluggish, but I disagree! Both of these actors knew step by step of how their characters would act and react to the situations put before them and did it wonderfully. The two gems in this movie are the performances of Gilbert Roland and John Garfield. Their emotional responses, especially to the abdication of, and, subsequent execution of Maximilian are brilliant. Reading the "Trivia" section of this movie convinces me even more of how much thought went into the presentation of this motion picture...even when Hollywood in 1939 would be tempted to cut corners around historical facts. Movies were made with heart and hard work back then. They knew their craft.

history lesson

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 8 February 2020]

It's 1863 Mexico. French emperor Louis Napoleon III (Claude Rains) is battling democratic leader President Benito Juárez (Paul Muni) for control of Mexico while the American Civil War rages. When news of Lee's defeat at Gettysburg arrive, Napoleon with the support of the landowning conservatives has Maximilian von Habsburg (Brian Aherne), younger brother of the Habsburg Emperor, installed as King of Mexico to avoid America's Monroe Doctrine and mitigate his southerner allies' defeat. Maximilian arrives with his wife Carlota (Bette Davis) only to learn later that a vote was rigged to bring him over. In the end, one word separates Maximilian and Juárez; democracy. Meanwhile, Juárez is being undermined by his ambitious vice president Alejandro Uradi.

This historical drama is more history lesson than a character drama. Maximilian is portrayed with soft gloves as a nice guy. Juárez is portrayed as a stoic Lincoln disciple. Being completely clueless, I have no idea about the accuracy. All I know is that this movie needs a protagonist to center itself. It does lay out the main combatants in the story but non of them are good protagonist material. Juárez is too stoic and Maximilian is too light weight. Maybe Maximilian's cluelessness could be a nice character study. That's almost this movie. It would be interesting to have a dark comedy about the would-be emperor.

An underappreciated film from 1939

[jeroboam-26661 · 8/10 · 13 April 2020]

Juarez has so much going for it in pretty much every category, the cast, the cinematography the music the writing, the acting. I learned something about history I wasn't familiar with. Brian Aherne gave a stellar performance as a noble king. I had no problems with the pacing here, the pacing of a movie like The Good Earth for example was far more tedious and struggled to maintain as much interest. This film holds its own when compared to many of the classics of the 1930s and it should be considered a classic in its own write.

Costume Drama OK - Juarez

[arthur_tafero · 6/10 · 1 April 2022]

The only believable Hispanic in this film is Gilbert Roland, who possesses the natural macho personality to pull that off. The rest of the substantial cast, which is extremely talented in all other respects, are about as Hispanic as Humphrey Bogart. Lupe Velez and Delores Del Rio would have been much better female role choices. Ramon Navarro should have been in a male role. But to the film. The production values are first-rate, as Warner put their entire weight behind this film. The problem was that American audiences could care less about a Mexican struggle against Germany. And that makes us care less about the main characters as well. OK to pass an hour or so.

Overlong and a little tedious.

[bbhlthph · 5/10 · 4 June 2006]

This film is a historical drama in which commendable care has been taken to ensure that the historical record is reasonably accurate. In the mid nineteenth century France had troops stationed in Mexico supporting the French settlers and Mexican conservatives who had jointly forced the indigenous President Juarez out of Mexico City after he carried out land reforms that they opposed bitterly. These troops infringed the Monroe doctrine and Napoleon III knew that once the American Civil War was over they would be forced to leave. He attempted to retain French influence by persuading the Mexican conservatives to call upon a member of the Hapsburg Royal family, the liberal minded Ferdinand Maximilian, brother of Emperor Franz Josef of Austria, to accept the throne of Mexico. The story has all the marks of high tragedy. After his marriage to Princess Charlotte the daughter of King Leopold of Belgium, Maximilian had been appointed as Viceroy of the Lombardo Venetian kingdom in Italy, but he was quickly dismissed from this position by Franz Josef who regarded his policies as too liberal. When offered the throne by Mexican monarchists he would not accept at first, but was eventually persuaded to do so by Napoleon, who promised French support if necessary. He reached Mexico in 1864 to find the massive popular support for a Hapsburg monarch, of which he had been assured, did not exist; and the regime relied upon French troops to remain in power. Although Juarez refused him allegiance, Maximilian decided to back the land reforms and other liberal policies Juarez had introduced, thereby seriously antagonising most of his monarchist Mexican supporters and leaving himself very isolated. Around 1865, when the American civil war ended, the U.S.A. started to supply arms to the Mexican revolutionaries and to exert pressure on Napoleon to remove French troops from North America in accordance with the Monroe doctrine. It quickly became clear that Maximilian's position was unsustainable. Napoleon withdrew French troops and urged Maximilian to leave Mexico. He refused to desert his Mexican supporters, and sent Charlotte back to Europe where she made several attempts to obtain assistance for her husband. When these failed she experienced severe emotional disturbances, and publicly accused her family of betraying her husband until they had her declared insane in order to control her. Ultimately Maximilian was captured by the revolutionaries and, after Juarez himself had refused clemency, executed. Charlotte spent the next 60 years in seclusion in various homes eventually dying in Belgium in 1927. A small point of historic interest is that in the Hapsburg family, which was never noted for its progressive views, both Franz-Josef's brother and his son appear to have been natural liberals. (See my review of 'Vizi Privati, Pubbliche Virtu') Could this have been a reaction to close family contact with the ultra-traditional Franz Josef himself?

Whilst this story clearly provides the basis for a very dramatic film, Hollywood should never have considered making it. Great historical films usually require the viewer to experience some degree of involvement with the story and/or the cast. (Imagine "Das Boot" created by a studio outside Germany or "The Battle of Britain" by one outside the U.K.) The situation here was made worse by the selection of Bette Davis to play the part of Charlotte (or in Mexican, Carlota). Bette's career was founded on her part in "Of Human Bondage", and she built it on very strong acting, which often appears as overacting. In this case she plays Charlotte as becoming totally insane at a very early stage, which is widely regarded as incorrect. The acting on the Mexican side is no better. Hollywood chose Paul Muni to play the part of Juarez, and he was so far out of his depth that he acted it largely as a sullen, uncommunicative, and not very intelligent lower class native Mexican; which makes nonsense of the charisma that Juarez displayed to his contemporaries. There is a solid performance by Brian Aherne as Maximilian, and there are some fine sequences showing the court of Napoleon III, but Hollywood quickly becomes out of its depth when depicting nineteenth century Mexico, and viewers of this film never really become involved with its characters in the way that is necessary to create a powerful drama. My recommendation is that if you are interested in this short but dramatic interlude in world history you should read about it in a good encyclopaedia, rather than watch this Hollywood version of the events. I had never seen it until it was shown on the TCN TV channel recently, and as Bette Davis was featured in it I decided to watch. I found it overlong and a little tedious even though I am quite interested in Mexican history. In my view this was no more than a marginally competent film, which was probably not worth bringing back into regular circulation. I would prefer to wait until an equivalent film is created in a Mexican studio by a Mexican cast and crew, and with a Director such as Alfonso Cuaron who has shown proved ability to display fine nuances of character on the screen..

Good 1860's detail

[mugdub · 10/10 · 22 September 2006]

The rating is for historical costuming, as the costuming and hairstyle details are excellent. The odd looking period hair styles that are seen in 1860's tintypes are faithfully rendered and lend a very authentic feel. If you are a stickler for such things, you will get a kick out of this one. Noteworthy is the look of Paul Muni's character, (the chameleon like Muni is alway fun to watch) with a dour looking do, as well as the split beard hair comb of the Hapsburg character, with a center comb part that runs right down the back of his head to the neck. Strange to the modern eye, but typical to the period, it takes guts to trot out your talent with such coiffures. Also, I have the hots for Gale Sondergaard, who plays the sultry Empress.

Assembly Line Historical Drama

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 21 June 2021]

"Juarez" is one of those countless historical dramas that came flying off the studio assembly line in the 1930s and 40s. Solidly crafted but unmemorable, safe and anonymous in style, but respectable enough not to insult your movie lover intelligence. Who knows if this is at all true to historical events? I could figure it out but I'd have to look it up on Wikipedia. As is, the film is a hagiographic love letter to Benito Juarez, played by Paul Muni made up to look like a grumpy frog, while at the same time manages to be an apologia to Maximilian von Hapsburg (Brian Aherne), who in this version of events is depicted as a well meaning dupe who was installed as Mexico's president by Napolean for nefarious reasons. I have trouble believing that a member of a royal family could be this much of a dim bulb, but then I look around at our own recent leaders (and some current ones) and think...."well, ok, maybe."

The film's biggest asset is von Hapsburg's wife, played by Bette Davis, who gets to do MAD scenes. Giving Bette Davis mad scenes to play is like giving a pyromaniac permission to have at it with your backyard grill, and I'm surprised anyone was still alive by the time she was done. I think she literally just got bored standing around on set listening to a bunch of old white dudes in starched collars and unacceptable haircuts delivering lines that were a 1930s screen writer's best guess at how white dudes at the time would have sounded, and she's like...."hold my beer."

Aherne received a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for his performance in this, and the film was also sort of nominated for Best B&W Cinematography. I say "sort of," because it was included in a short list of nominees that was then winnowed down to the two that Academy members actually got to vote on, those two being "Stagecoach" and "Wuthering Heights."

Grade: B.

A fair biography...of Emperor Maximilian

[Rob-120 · 3/10 · 21 September 2009]

This movie is an unusual biopic. It is supposed to be about the great Mexican president Benito Juárez, but it ends up focusing more on the story of Emperor Maximilien.

The story: In the 1860's, the French Emperor Napoleon III (Claude Rains) sends French forces to occupy Mexico, on the pretext of establishing a North American regime of the French empire. Napoleon sends the Austrian Maximilian of Hapsburg (Brian Aherne) and his wife, Charlotte of Belgium (Bette Davis), to be his puppet Emperor and Empress of Mexico. But Benito Juárez (Paul Muni) organizes the Mexican peasantry to fight back against the French.

As usual with biopics, this is the American Hollywood version of Mexican history. As the ill-fated Maximilian, Brian Aherne actually has more screen time than the title character. He gives a good performance of a well-meaning but naive emperor who wants to rule the Mexican people justly, but can't understand the concepts of democracy. The American filmmakers obviously decided that it was better to focus on the romantic European characters than on the Mexicans.

Paul Muni, meanwhile, has little to do in his role as Juárez. Oh sure, he occasionally makes grim-faced, wise-and-meaningful speeches about democracy (with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln strategically placed on the wall behind Muni, just to make sure we get the point.) But most of the time, he just stands around dressed in black, looking stern and Lincoln-like. Muni has one great scene, where he walks fearlessly toward a firing squad of Mexican soldiers who have been ordered to shoot him. John Wayne should have had such a walk!

Bette Davis lends a fairly good (but not great) supporting performance as the troubled Empress Charlotte, who goes mad after Napoleon withdraws from Mexico and abandons her husband to his fate. John Garfield appears as Porfirio Diaz, and Claude Rains and Gale Sondergaard have brief but well-done scenes as Napoleon and his smarmy French Empress. (This was their second film together, after "Anthony Adverse," where they played the villainous couple. They had it down pat by this time.) But the movie really belongs to Aherne, who dominates the screen with his portrait of a "lost emperor"...who is lost in more ways than one.