AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Ginger Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Andres Salama This interesting early talkie from 1934 is a biopic of Nathan Rothschild, the British-German-Jewish banker from the times of Napoleon that is considered one of the founders of international finance. Rothschild is famous among many things from making a fortune in the London Stock exchange by speculating successfully on Wellington's victory over Napoleon at Waterloo (this is in this film, though apparently according to recent historians it probably never happened).Rothschild, as portrayed in the film by George Arliss, is not a very likable person: unabashedly ethnocentric (he is adamant that his daughter must not marry a gentile suitor), he is always ready to take offense, views almost every non-Jew as anti-Semitic, is willing to use money to exercise power, etc. Probably because of this, the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was an unlikely fan of this film, releasing an edited version in Germany (that emphasized the most negative aspects of the protagonist) and in 1940 he used an unauthorized clip from this film in the infamous anti-Semitic documentary "The Eternal Jew" and also had his own German remake, "The Rothschild's shares in Waterloo". The German film, by the way, despite its obvious propaganda intentions, is well made and has a literate, intelligent script. In a way, Rothschild is a more sympathetic character in the German film than in the Hollywood version! The Hollywood film is also notable for the last scene (in which Rothschild is knighted by the King) being shot in an early Technicolor process.

edwagreen By 1934 Hitler had been in power for one year in Germany and had already transformed the nation. How appropriate that this movie came out that year. With its theme of anti-Semitism in Germany and other nations from 1780 through the Napoleonic Wars, we have quite a good film here.As they did in Disraeli 5 years before, George and Florence Arliss again appeared as a married couple-this time as the Rothschilds.As the money lenders and banking financiers, there was so much anti-Semitism already in Prussia. (Let's remember that Germany did not become a unified nation until the Franco-Prussian War of 1871.) The film deals with the 5 sons and their banking interests amidst political turmoil, which further gave rise to anti-Semitism. The dilemma of the family was whether to support Napoleon who gave Jews basic rights in occupied countries, but never in France itself; or to go with the allies against Napoleonic tyranny, but again this would mean oppression for the Jewish people. The family was able to gain rights for Jews as a condition for supporting the anti-Napoleon forces.This is a very interesting film, way ahead of its time. Loretta Young co-stars as the daughter of the eldest Rothschild son. She loves a British Gentile played by a very young Robert Young. When he sees anti-Semitism around him, Arliss is vehemently opposed to the union.The film was nominated for best picture of 1934 but lost out to "It Happened One Night." I guess that Hollywood wasn't ready yet to honor pictures of discrimination.

blanche-2 Darryl F. Zanuck covered Napoleon's sweep across Europe in two early films: "Lloyds of London," in which Tyrone Power plays a fictional character who continues insuring the British fleet so that his childhood friend, Horatio Nelson, can win the war; and "The House of Rothschild" in which Nathan Rothschild and his banker brothers provide the financing to beat Napoleon. Both are excellent films.There are a few historical liberties in "The House of Rothschild," but the film is based on fact. George Arliss has a dual role as Mayer Rothschild and his son, Nathan. When the film begins, the family is living in a Prussian Jewish ghetto where Mayer is doing well but doesn't want the tax collectors to know. On his deathbed, he instructs his sons to establish banking houses throughout Europe as so much money is stolen when it is being carried by messengers. The plot then focuses on Nathan and goes into the rampant anti-Semitism which forces Nathan out of an important loan. It also shows his brilliance for business as he fights Count Ledrantz (Boris Karloff) who spreads propaganda and incites pogroms. The climax of the film takes place when it appears Napoleon is winning and Nathan starts buying up everything on the stock market, which is bottoming out, in order to keep the deal he made for the war effort. Though not much is made of it, the Rothschilds had informants everywhere, which enabled them to get information before anyone else. He is able to announce before it is made public that Napoleon has been defeated at Waterloo."House of Rothschild" stars one of the great actors, George Arliss. Other actors from the stage entering films often used tremulous voices and melodramatic gestures but Arliss had a tremendous speaking voice and a grand acting style that made a powerful impression on the screen and infused the characters he played with a believability as well. A blond, beautiful Loretta Young is on hand as his daughter, who is in love with a Gentile named Fitzroy (Robert Young) - and though one would expect the love story to be fiction, it isn't.This film has an interesting history of its own: Excerpts from it, taken out of context, were used in the anti-semitic Nazi films Der ewige Jude and Die Rothschilds. Despite persecution, the Rothschilds remain an extremely powerful family in the present - the original name of the family was Bauer; Rothschild is actually German for "red shield," which is in the center of the family coat of arms. Today, they're in a variety of occupations besides banking - actress Helena Bonham Carter is a Rothschild due to a marriage on her mother's side.

theowinthrop HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD concentrates on anti-Semitism, and the struggle of the Jews to get equality and recognition from their Gentile neighbors. It's presentation of the problem is simplistic, but given the time that this film was produced it was amazing that any attempt was made to attack anti-Semitism at all. In 1934 Adolph Hitler was Chancellor of Germany one year already. Strong anti-Semitic strains were felt all over Europe and the U.S. - in fact in most of the world. It took some courage to make any jab at it, and producer Darryl Zanuck (a non-Jewish Hollywood film studio head - a rarity) had plenty of that. He would repeat this in fourteen years producing GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.George Arliss first plays the head of the famous banking family, Mayer Amschel Rothschild. A stereotypical Jewish money lender, he dies of a stroke after confronting the bullying, greedy tax men. Before he dies he tells his five sons two things: 1) The gentiles have prevented the Jews from competing in the regular professions leaving them in the role of money lenders. But the gentiles have thus put money into the hands of the Jews as an only weapon. So it should be used to force the gentiles to emancipate the Jews from their awful ghettos.2) The boys should establish an international bank in London, Paris, Vienna, Frankfort, and Naples. They would be in a good position to build a mighty economic weapon to use against the Jews' foes, so that (as Mayer says) the Jews can live with dignity.For most of the picture Arliss plays Nathan Rothschild, who is lucky enough to be set up in London. The five branch bank soon is one of the great financial institutions of the world. Nathan has managed to support the British Government and it's allies in the wars against Napoleon. But after Napoleon is sent to Elba the British and their allies (led by the German, Count Ledranz) are freezing the Rothschilds out of a major bond issue. Nathan realizes that this is due to the anti-Semitic Ledranz, and uses his position at the stock exchange to bear down on the bond issue, threatening to ruin the men who are pushing the issue. Hastily calling a meeting, Lord Baring (Arthur Byron) prevails on the aristocrats to let Rothschild in for a share of the bond issue. Ledranz does it with ill-feeling, warning Nathan that this is not the end of the matter.Shortly afterward there are pogroms all over central Europe. As Ledranz (Boris Karloff, in a splendidly evil performance without) puts it,"The House of Rothschild - The House with the Red Shield: I'll make it RED!" There is little Nathan can do about this. But shortly afterward Napoleon escapes from Elba, throwing the alliance (especially Ledranz) off balance. They need Nathan to stabilize the stock exchange, or the Little Corsican will win an easy victory against them. And (although they don't know this) Napoleon has already reached out to Nathan with a counter-proposition: help him and Jewish Emancipation is assured.That Nathan throws his support to the alliance is no real surprise. He feels that if he supports Napoleon the image of the Jews suffers with the bulk of the Gentiles - they traffic in human lives and blood. But he does save the stock exchange, and he ends having proved that the Jews can be as good citizens as their Gentile counterparts.How true is the story? Well I recommend Frederic Morton's classic book THE ROTHSCHILDS to get the accurate story. Mayer Rothschild was the financial agent of the Prince of Hesse-Cassel. The money made from the renting of Hessian troops was shepherded by Mayer into a vast fortune, and he got a commission. It staked out (and trained) his five sons, who did make their private bank the biggest in the world.The French Revolution had announced that the Jews were equals of the Gentiles (the bill ending French legal discrimination against the Jews was presented by Maximillian Robespierre!). Napoleon reestablished it, and (in 1807) called the first meeting of the Jewish Sanhedrin since 70 A.D. Whether he did this for publicity or he meant it is still debated. The spread of the reform by the Revolutionary and Napoleonic armies achieved was hurt by the reaction in Europe after Napoleon's final defeat in 1815.Ledranz is a splendid villain (and a German one, for all that). But he appears to be based on Prince Claus Von Metternich, the Chancellor of the Austrian Empire. In fact, although he probably had some social anti-Semitism, Von Metternich was quite friendly to the Rothschilds, and he figured out a way of allowing them to be ennobled in Austria and in the German states. The film does seem a little simplistic. There is no reference to the blood libel as such, or to the blame Christianity placed on the Jews for the death of Jesus. And to make a case that economic muscle alone would change people's minds was silly and short sighted. It could equally awaken jealousy and hatred for a successful people. But that it was advanced at all in 1934, and that the film was an attempt to confront a hideous, growing problem, was deserving of praise. Ironically it was too little, too late. Goebbels would produce an anti-Semitic film called THE ROTHSCHILDS during World War II, and his pet director Veidt Hartmann would direct THE ETERNAL JEW (where Jews were compared to rats, and scenes from HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD appear to have been cut in). Hartmann would also direct JUD SUSS, regarding another Jewish financier of an earlier period, who was hung for "crimes" - of course, Hartmann insisted he Jud Suss Oppenheimer was guilty of those crimes. So, for all the good intentions of Zanuck and Arliss and the others, history had a dreadful commentary awaiting in the wings.