Film was all right, though a long time since I saw it.But in reference to the comment above from adamshl, British ships may or may not have carried 3.5 million slaves for sale to Americans, yet equally the Portuguese, French and Spanish carried three times that number. The American colonies only took 5% of the total trade.Since the trade was around 1% of British investment it is doubtful if Lloyds benefited from it as a primary source of income. Which is neither to whitewash the trade or Lloyds or the disgusting traders, since no profit, no matter how small, from sin is allowable.Virginia Field was very pretty.

I'm not particularly strong on this film, even though I have always admired Tyrone Power. And, this was Power's first significant film role...and although he is clearly the centerpiece of the film, he gets 4th billing beneath Freddie Bartholomew (child actor), Madeleine Carroll, and Guy Standing. Power is so young here (just 22) that you really might not recognize him. He does a fine job acting here.The most interesting part of the movie (to my surprise) may well be the opening section, where Freddie Bartholomew is the friend of the boy who will become Lord Nelson. Bartholomew will grow to become Tyrone Power's character -- influential in Lloyds Of London.Once Tyrone Power takes center stage, however, the film seems to struggle to decide what it's really about. There's a really dumb segment where Power is in France disguised as a priest (we're not told why), and saves fellow Brit Madeleine Carroll from being arrested by Napoleon's military as a spy by hiding with her in a huge barrel...and somehow that ends them up in a small boat, manned (no pun intended...she changes clothes behind the barrel into men's clothing...and together they pilot the boat across the English Channel through a storm...only for her to disappear. At least we learn why she disappears...she is married to, of all people, a very young and unpleasant George Sanders. That whole segment was rather unbelievable and could have been handled with other logic to make it realistic.We then move on to Powers' stand against Lloyds, who is attempting to use a large part of Lord Nelson's fleet to protect ships, rather than fight the French. Powers prevents that from happening, but Nelson dies...while victorious.I don't know...it's just a bit much to believe.The acting is reasonably good, particularly Guy Standing as Power's mentor. An excellent role.I found this film disappointing, but watchable. It won't find a spot on my DVD shelf!

Our story begins in a fishing village in Norfolk, on the east coast of England in the year 1770. This is when adventurous preteen Freddie Bartholomew (as Jonathan Blake) and his pal Douglas Scott (as Horatio Nelson) learn some sailors are planning to swindle an insurance company. The young lads want to report the skulduggery by taking a one hundred mile walk to London. When Master Scott takes a midshipman's job, Master Bartholomew makes the trip to "Lloyd's Coffee-House" alone. His warning results in a job with the origination, which of course becomes "Lloyd's of London"...The story jumps to 1784 as Bartholomew grows up to be Tyrone Power, who is the real star of the film (top-billed Bartholomew makes an additional, brief flashback appearance). Mr. Power makes advances in the insurance business and meets beautiful blonde Madeleine Carroll (as Elizabeth). They are mutually attracted, but she is married to unscrupulous George Sanders (as Everett Stacy). Odd as it seems, Power and Bartholomew are believable as the same person. The heroic story of an insurance company, with action and romance, is difficult to follow; but it's a nice looking production.****** Lloyd's of London (11/25/36) Henry King ~ Tyrone Power, Madeleine Carroll, Freddie Bartholomew, George Sanders

In response to ADAMSHL's comment on LLoyd's insuring slave ships-In one scene when the insurers were in deep trouble, Blake was asked if he would insure a slave ship and he curtly said no! to emphasize the director's view of that practice.It is a pleasant change to watch a movie that flows through the acting and dialog rather than sound effects and extreme graphics. I could even understand all the actors voices in spite of 60 yr old audio technology. Most present day English movies have horrible sound and many words are lost because of the actors elocution.The main value of this movie is not a history lesson in politics but one in the lives of those who lived in that period and their environment, clothing, etc.