Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

drjgardner Considering that this film was made in 1931, it sure looks more like a silent film with words rather than a more modern looking film. In 1931 we had films like "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", "Dracula", "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business". All of these films had better acting, camera work and better use of sound, and they all had a more modern script. "The Squaw Man" was the third filming of the play, all of them by Cecil B. DeMille. The play was written in 1905 and starred future famous silent film cowboy William S. Hart. It ran for nearly a year and was revived several times, then spawned a novel. But all 3 versions held steady to the Victorian plot, and even by 1931 it seems dated.

davidjanuzbrown This is the worst film that DeMille ever made ( at least those that I saw). It is boring, and simply does not work as a Western ( the Coca Cola placement came to mind). Perhaps if the scenes in England were cut and more Lupe Velez were shown I would like it better? Speaking of Lupe although she played an Indian (Naturich), she looks more gypsy then anything else, but she was much better then anyone else. Especially Warner Baxter who was better as a Mexican ( In Old Arizona) then an Englishman in this movie ( sort off like William Powell in 'The Key' does not work). Although I am no fan of this movie, it is worth watching because of Lupe Velez and because all three of his ( DeMille) movies at MGM ( Dynamite and Madam Satan are the others) are rarely shown.3 of 10 stars.

MartinHafer I enjoyed this film far more than I expected--especially since I usually hate DeMille films and the film comes off as very patronizing towards American Indians. Let me explain both of my complaints. First, too often Cecil B. DeMille favored huge spectacular films that featured rather cardboard characters and so for that reason I had little interest in seeing the film. Second, while it's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something positive about respecting and giving equality to our Indian brothers, the film often comes off as paternalistic and racist. It's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something profound about American Indians but it just backfires.The film begins in England and oddly Warner Baxter is cast as an upper-class Brit despite his Columbus, Ohio origins. While he was an amazingly underrated actor and did this role well for an American, it seemed odd that everyone in "Old Blighty" sounded like a local but Baxter. Despite this, I really liked this portion of the film. Baxter has fallen in love with his slimy cousin's wife, but being a decent man he's decided to leave the country because if he stays he knows that a romance between them is inevitable. At about the same time, it turns out that the cousin has embezzled some funds and Baxter tells the cousin to blame this on him! After all, he reasoned, he's leaving the country and won't come back and blaming Baxter will get the cousin out of a jam. While it seemed like a very unlikely plot, the writing and execution of it was so good that I managed to suspend disbelief. And, for once, DeMille seemed to do a decent job with characterizations--at least in this part of the film. There were no huge scenes and the film was very character-driven.Later, after Baxter leaves England, he inexplicably relocates to the most desolate and godforsaken part of the United States. The place is all dirt and cacti and the idea of an English lord living there is stretching things a bit!! However, this also worked thanks to great acting. The conflict between the evil and land-crazy Charles Bickford and Baxter was interesting as was Baxter's coming to a young Indian girl's defense when Bickford is abusing her. I though that Baxter's treating the girl like a human being was a very positive statement and having this Indian fall in love with a White man was a great plot element. After all, Americans (and most others throughout the world) probably would have not approved of this "miscegenation". DeMille allowing them to slowly fall in love and marry was a great stand against racism--too bad the final portion of the film undid a lot of the positive strides such a plot might have made. By the way, the lady was played by Lupe Valez--who doesn't exactly look Indian although all the other Indians in the film are authentic. Plus, her talking and acting like a child through the film made the whole thing seem paternalistic after a while.Out of the blue, the cousin is killed and he admits that it was he and NOT Baxter who embezzled the money. This allowed the cousin's wife to seek out Baxter and renew their love. However, when she realizes that in the seven years that have passed that Baxter has married, this plan cannot be. From this moment on, the film starts to slide downhill...and fast! First, since the cousin is dead, apparently Baxter is the lord of the family estates and they want him to return to England. However, he loves Lupe too much to leave Arizona so he proposes to instead send their cute little son (Dickie Moore) instead!! This made no sense, as you wonder how a man can love his wife yet send away their three year-old son! Why not try moving the family to the UK or perhaps spend part of the time in America and part of the time at the family estate?! Second, and this is a bad example of script writing, although it's been seven years since Lupe murdered Bickford (and it was VERY justified), at the exact same moment the folks from England visit, the sheriff has just obtained new evidence to implicate Valez for murder!! Talk about a convenient coincidence!!! Now, at her death, Baxter would be available to move back to England with his kid and his old flame!! This is just too much coincidence to seem like anything other than sloppy writing. Plus, it seemed to say that Baxter's marrying an Indian was more of an inconvenience than anything else. You would have thought that since the original SQUAW MAN came out in 1914 that DeMille could have done something to fix this plot element.Overall, it's an entertaining film that should have been a very positive statement about interracial love and understanding. Instead, the Indians seemed rather stereotypical and Valez's character seemed amazingly one-dimensional. Oddly, after seven years of marriage, she still talked a bit like Charlie Chan and an American Indian rolled into one! A nice try and this is a film that would be great to remake today--after making the characters more believable.

Cineanalyst Lupe Vélez proves that a Mexican playing a Native American in the United States isn't necessarily any less insulting than a white person taking the part. Here, Vélez doesn't even dress the part--wearing traditional Mexican-looking clothes. I would overlook the racism inherit in "The Squaw Man" melodrama--cloaked in the selling point of miscegenation--if there were anything more to the picture. Cecil B. DeMille was shot at while making the 1914 version of the hackneyed stage soap opera, and this time he lost his job. If anyone finds the 1918 version, I'll pass. Why did DeMille bother? In 1914, he was learning the craft; by 1931, he was a competent filmmaker, who had since surrendered his ambitions for artistic innovation in favor of lowbrow commercialism. I suppose, then, that it made sense for DeMille to try a talkie remake of his first box-office success. The plot is slightly more coherent this outing, but remains very contrived. The acting and dialogue are atrocious.(There's also a scene where Vélez undresses.)