Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Hitchcoc I really like this film. Paul Muni plays the consummate hero in this as he does everything within his power to overturn the conviction of Alfred Dreyfus, whose only crime was being Jewish. The man who actually committed the crime was out enjoying himself with his freedom intact. Despite every effort of the French military getting in the way of his efforts, he never gives in, even though his status as the most popular author in France is at stake. What started out as an effort to simply approach the law becomes his life's work. This case became one of the most high profile in European history. The reason the movie pulled punches, however, was because Dreyfus was a Jew but most didn't want to recognize the oppression. Of course, Hitler was plying his trade.

wes-connors In 1862 Paris, struggling writer Paul Muni (as Emile Zola) is happy working with a book publisher. Because he writes about corrupt officials, Mr. Muni is called a "muckraker" and loses his job. However, fame and fortune are around the corner. Muni meets sad prostitute Erin O'Brien-Moore (as Nana) and writes her story. The book "Nana" is the first of many best-sellers. Years later, Muni sacrifices everything to defend Joseph Schildkraut (as Alfred Dreyfus), a Jewish man made a scapegoat by French authorities...Led by Muni's carefully constructed lead performance, "The Life of Emile Zola" was a huge success with audiences and critics. Muni won a "Best Actor" award from the "New York Film Critics" and Mr. Schildkraut received an "Academy Award" as "Best Supporting Actor". Those organizations named "Zola" best film of the year; adding its #1 placement on the annual "New York Times" and "Film Daily" lists, it was clearly the consensus winner for 1937. Disney's "Snow White" was the only real challenger...The Dreyfus affair is almost the whole film, making the title seem inappropriate. Also, the film seems shy about naming Schildkraut's character as Jewish. If you blink, you'll miss the piece of paper listing "Religion - Jew". Considering the looming World War, filmmakers likely wished the point was made more clearly. Despite its flaws, the production is excellent, with great roles from the cast and crew at Warner Bros. Sometimes overlooked among the more well-known names are outstanding art director Anton Grot and supporting actor Vladimir Sokoloff as Muni's drafty attic apartment roommate (acclaimed painter Paul Cezanne).******* The Life of Emile Zola (8/11/37) William Dieterle ~ Paul Muni, Joseph Schildkraut, Vladimir Sokoloff, Gale Sondergaard

MartinHafer The first quarter of the film is a brief biography of most of the adult life of Zola. That's because the final portion centers on the last years of Zola's life and his attempt to gain Dreyfus his release from prison. Dreyfus had been sent to Devil's Island--convicted of sending French military secrets to foreign powers. Amazingly, when the true perpetrator was learned, the highest officers in the military decided NOT to punish the man responsible and keep Dreyfus in prison so they wouldn't lose face for convicting the wrong man!! I really enjoyed "The Life of Emile Zola" though could see that a very important part of the story is missing. I am NOT talking about the film taking a few artistic liberties--I certainly expected that. Instead, I am talking about a deliberate effort by the studio to misrepresent a major part of the story to make it more palatable to the general public. You see, about 3/4 of the movie concerns Zola and the Dreyfus Affair--yet it really makes no real effort to talk about the heart of why Dreyfus was convicted for a crime he clearly did not commit--because he was a convenient scapegoat because he was Jewish. The film BRIEFLY mentions he was Jewish but completely downplays this angle--mostly because I assume they were afraid antisemites in the US and abroad might find this unacceptable. Sadly, it makes this exceptional film just a bit less exceptional.What I liked about the film was the overall quality of the picture. It was well written, acted and just screams quality. Plus, compared to many other biopics of the era, this one is a little more accurate--as the facts of the story are essentially true (though rearranged and interpreted for dramatic effect). Still, I find it hard to believe it won the Oscar for Best Picture--though I must concede that Paul Muni was exceptional. If I could have picked, I would have given the nod to either "Lost Horizon" or "A Star is Born".

kenjha The first third of this biography, devoted to Zola's rise from poverty to fame, is rather dull. It picks up steam with the introduction of the Dreyfus affair, wherein a Jewish Army captain is falsely accused of treason, although the anti-semitism angle is ignored by the film. Muni is terribly hammy in the title role, playing Zola as a pompous blow-hard. As he showed in "The Good Earth" the same year, the actor was never able to adapt his theatrical acting to the screen. Schildkraut is OK as Dreyfus, a performance that won him an Oscar, but Sondergaard overacts as his wife. This overcooked drama beat out the likes of "Stage Door" and "The Awful Truth" to win the Best Picture Oscar.