WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Brainsbell The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

MartinHafer I think it's a very ironic thing that the most overtly positive and obvious portrayal of Jews comes from Twentieth Century Fox--the only major American studio that was NOT controlled by an ethnic Jewish man at the time! So, as folks like Louis B. Mayer and Jack Warner chose to de-emphasize their Jewish roots and make films which almost never even mentioned Judaism, Daryl Zanuck dove head first into the topic and brought us this very unusual biopic.The story is about the Rothschild family and only concerns a snippet in the history of the family--from the 18th century through the fall of Napoleon. When it begins, the family patriarch (George Arliss) instructs his sons to divide up the banking business among five major European capitals. Then, following his death, the story jumps decades later and the new head of the banking family is ALSO played by Arliss--albeit without the wig and makeup he donned at the beginning of the film. The theme is how honorable the family was and how they stood behind freedom and right...and that mistreatment of them and other Jews is just morally repugnant. Interestingly, the biggest anti-Semite of this portion of the film is a German guy (Boris Karloff)...and was perhaps the studio's way to address the rising tide of Naziism at the time.Regardless of its intent, the film is a well acted and interesting costume drama. How close this all actually is to the real life Rothschilds, I have no idea but it was entertaining. Plus, I'd watch Arliss in just about anything!

TheLittleSongbird The House of Rothschild had a great cast, which was what made me watch it in the first place. And I'm glad I did. Maybe there are lapses in the pacing, and some of the romantic parts felt a little trite. There is much to recommend about The House of Rothschild though. The lavish costumes and sets and the skilled photography makes it a beautiful film to watch. Alfred Newman's score always compliments and even adds to the drama rather than detracting from it, while the script is very intelligently written(Nathan talk on financing and war was really quite powerful) and the story, of which the subject was fascinating to begin with, is thoroughly absorbing with a beautiful ending. The acting is very good. George Arliss is wonderful in his dual role, Loretta Young is the epitome of youthful loveliness and Boris Karloff is commanding in both menacing and subdued mode. C. Aubrey Smith and Reginald Owen are similarly excellent.Overall, beautiful to watch, well-written and acted and fascinating. 8/10 Bethany Cox

bkoganbing Before Paul Muni was doing biographical films at Warner Brothers, George Arliss was doing them before. Arliss a veteran of the British theater was one of the first to recognize the importance of film in preserving the actor's art. He did even more silent films than sound which took advantage of his magnificent speaking voice and perfect English diction. His acting today is considered hammy by many, but for me I like the idea of being able to understand every enunciated word.In The House Of Rothschild Arliss plays the dual role of patriarch Meyer Rothschild and later Nathan, one of the five sons whom he dispatched to various European capitals to establish the family banking business. This was in the 1780s-90s. By 1814 the House is well established throughout Europe and even when countries are at war, The House Of Rothschild acts as a unit. Though the Paris branch has to be a bit discreet with Napoleon Bonaparte making war on all the rest of the places the brothers have set up shop.The money lender is never a popular figure. It's the reason why when Jews were forbidden to own land and frozen out of certain businesses and trades, they were allowed to be bankers. That way it was a double whammy in unpopularity for them.The House Of Rothschild even with Napoleon making entreaties to the Jewish people backs the Allied cause to the hilt. It wins the gratitude of someone no less than the Duke of Wellington played by Sir C. Aubrey Smith. But Prussian banker Ledranz played by Boris Karloff makes no secret of his anti-Semitism. Quite a daring piece for 1934 as Hitler was starting his war on the Jews and few were speaking out.Florence Arliss the real life wife of George Arliss plays his wife Hannah in his Nathan persona. But Helen Westley is mother Rothschild and she gives a lively performance. It is she whom you will remember best from this film after George Arliss.Robert Young and Loretta Young play a Wellington aide and a Rothschild daughter who fall in love and are the secondary romantic plot in this film. But it's Arliss's portrayal of the shrewd and intrepid Nathan Rothschild and the story of the fortune that is the heart of the film. And it is a big heart in every sense of the word.

whpratt1 In the person of Nathan Rothschild, overlord of the international banking house that shaped the destiny of Europe, George Arliss has found his most congenial role since Disraeli. The story provides a fasinating study of internatinal intrigue in the nineteenth century. It is presented straight-forwardly, without apology or sentimentality. Because of its lack of dramatic sequence, the picture lapses into passages that become monotonous. The injection of a romantic episode between Nathan's daughter and a Gentile British office, with its mixed-marriage problem during those years, is tritely handled. This film is rarely shown over the years in America and is controversal at times. On the whole, the picture has been skillfully cast, and there are good performances by George Arliss, Reginald Owen and Boris Karloff who gives an excellent performance as Baron Ledrantz.