Rathbone's performance really a standout?
I've read numerous reviews of this film that point to Basil Rathbone's performance as the only one worth watching. I saw it for the first time (as an adult) this weekend, and did not find that to be my experience. The acting was typical of the period (1935), with Rathbone's performance the most classically theatrical, and the others more unschooled/naturalistic. The overall effect was that he was schooled in an entirely different fashion than the other characters, which - for the most part -- made sense.
I found myself crying during the last quarter of the film. It's schmaltzy, but it works for what it is. And the special effects were great for the era. Not a film I will watch over and over, but one I will keep for when I'm in the mood for toga epics without lots of gore.
"There are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the truth." ~ Robert Evans