Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Synd (1928)
Ashamed of the sin or ashamed of getting caught
I won't lie, the number "Show Biz Bad" films in the relevant time period annoys me a bit and Synd (1928) fits well within those. At points I'd forget that its not a hollywood talkie/musical.
To be fair, there are some things that differentiate it and it doesn't make the mistake of playing down the "thirst for attention" aspect which made a few of the similar works pointless. Regardless of the context, the film itself is competent in most aspects. I particularly enjoyed the pacing. No scene is too long/short and the film remains engaging throughout the whole duration except for maybe a single scene. I found The ending a bit wanting but other than that, can't say i see much to complain about.
I recommend Synd unless you've seen many other pictures with the exact same structure and plot.
Also, it isn't a big deal for me but i might as well mention that the copy i watched had low qualty.
Aschenputtel (1922)
1001 Cinderellas
Yes, i did watch this because of Adventures of Prince Ahmad. I was taken aback by prince ahmad. There was a continuity and smoothness to some of the sequences that was genuinely unexpected and it served the story exceptionally well like how creepy the introduction of the villain is. Way more creepy in fact than expressionist films of the time with characters that desperately try to look creepy but end up looking like scooby-doo villains.
Unfortunately, that smoothness and continuity isn't here. There are actually too many cuts during the runtime. Everything is segmented and bite sized segments at that which is likely due to the short runtime since the Dr Dolittle shorts are a lot more continuous even if they also don't have the "smoothness". Maybe my expectation isn't fair but to me that's what elevated prince ahmad beyond a bunch of silhouettes.
That's not to say i didn't enjoy watching Cinderella. I'm sure everyone knows the story and the film even starts by summarizing it. Stories are boring when there's no element of surprise to them. This one did have a couple of surprises though and the style is still pretty effective in capturing the imagination.
And you know, its short enough that you might as well just watch it instead of reading this.
The Chechahcos (1923)
Them films certainly add a nice flavor to the shots
Quick setup: a mother and child are separated in a shipwreck during the Alaska gold rush and two guys end up raising the kid.
The story was surprisingly interesting. Pretty atypical of Hollywood pictures of the time. A bit slow paced for my taste but that's nothing to complain about since the duration wasn't long and the editing was more than adequate.
The best aspect of this film is the setting. The Alaska moving pictures corporation (which i can't say I've seen any other films from) really used Alaska to great benefit and chose to tell a story that is greatly enhanced by it. There are many beautiful shots here that justify watching the film alone. Just don't go in expecting The Great White Silence (1924) or Nanook of the North (1922) since this best aspect of the film is dampened a bit by the worst criticism I have with it which is that for 99% of the run time, the camera is moving at speeds reaching as high as approximately 0.00 meters per second.
Depending on who you talk to this static camera should be considered weak and outdated after 1914 or 1919 or 1927. The film was released in 1923, so pick for yourself whether contextually this is a valid criticism or not. I personally fall into the "i watched it now, I'm (dis) recommending it now, i find it (bad) good by my standards, not what i think it'd be like in 1920s" group.
Thanks for reading.
Torrent (1926)
Hypocritical Preachers
Movies are generally praised when the characters are multidimensional with gray blurred morality spaces. That sounds fine, after all it is a better reflection of real life compared to perfect divine heroes and pure innocent girls.
But not every story can function within a gray morality space.(think of fairy tales and simple stories about love, good vs evil and ...) . A common problem with films after the mid to late 1910s is the "grayification" of characters in these simple stories, combine that with how preachy films at the time are, you end up with tons of films that don't actually deliver the seemingly simple message of the story and only come off as hypocrites.
Take this film for example, imagine being rich for god knows how many years, moaning over a boy while your mom is slaving away. Imagine putting yourself in this moral high ground while condescendingly throwing coins for people and constantly showing off your success and riches and overall, acting like a complete b**** and all of that is ok because some boy couldn't leave his home to come with you to paris. WHAT A PIECE OF S***, am i right?! Doesn't he know that's a sin. He's being unfaithful and that's THE worst crime. Unless he's being unfaithful to his fiance in my favor, then it's ok, it's beautiful actually since, didn't you know? I'm the main character, not her. One should fight for love after all, until he gets married, then he should torture himself and his wife and grow children in a house without love until he dies.
Saying the story doesn't make sense and the preaching is hypocritical is really an understatement and to think, this film isn't even close to being the most nonsensical "grayified"
sermon I've seen. DeMille's filmography alone provides more case studies than you'll ever need.
As for the cinematography, it is so standard and typical of the time, it's boring to even think about. The only thing it has going for it is that the duration isn't long enough to make the film itself boring.
I also don't understand the praisals of Greta Garbo's "subtle" performance. She lashes out and laughs manically like a teenager roleplaying as a pirate. I personally don't see any subtlety here and the other characters are all too hollow for me to expect anything from the actors.
Another praisal of the film is for the torrent sequence. I tend not to discuss these scenes since whenever i complain "that's obvious cardboard/plastic/clay!" i'm greeted with "it was amazing for it's time" or "people back then couldn't tell its just cardboard". I personally am not 100 years old and can't tell what people back then would think. There are many silent films that don't suffer from these and by juxtaposition alone people should've been able to tell but i don't know. As for this scene in particular, the scales are obviously wrong and the boat is transparent. I leave the "what people in 1920s would think?" to you.
Thanks for reading.
The Iron Horse (1924)
Hard to dislike
I've been going back and forth between The Iron Horse and The Thief of bagdad comparing them not because they have much in common but because they're both epic's i really like and admit aren't nearly as good as their reputation would suggest.
What's interesting to me in this comparison is that they suffer from mutually exclusive problems typical for the films of the period (both came out in 1924) and they could've learned a lot from one another.
The sets in thief of bagdad, like many films of the time (even those praised for their set design) have this fake "cardboard box" look.you know, the flat walls and pillars, the plastic steels and swords, the curtain ocean, not to mention motionless monsters held up by easily observable wires. Realism doesn't matter but you should maintain some level of believability and having walls so flat and smooth you'd think they're cleaned by razors, next to normal actors doesn't work like it'd If everything was flat like in an animation.
Why The Iron Horse is such an achievement is exactly because it maintains an extremely high level of believability and realism for the whole duration (other than the first 15 minutes). It's hard to doubt anything in the film when just watching people make railroads is so enjoyable and believable even when you should be doubting what's happening.
What it suffers from is the structure and pacing of the story, once you stop feeling immersed and think about the story, you realize it's filled with irrelevant stuff (the Lincoln scenes would be an easy example) and when the film ends, you might have some appreciation for the history and the labor of workers that connected east and west but you'll have none for the characters, the romance, the revenge subplot and ... that just take you out of the experience.
On the hand in The thief of bagdad, watching fairbanks' character alone is a joy. The film is filled with interesting cultures and curios with a story so tight i couldn't believe it was around 160 minutes when i first watched it. The film simply provides a descent story with effective storytelling while still providing enough for the viewer to appreciate the history of Baghdad as well.
I've also noticed that it seems like the older the picture, the more knowledgeable it is about other cultures, there are many things in this film, even in the title cards, that show the creators actually researched/knew about the setting and that they at least looked up some arabic/persian books. This might sound counterintuitive in the age of "diversity" and "inclusion" but what i've seen is that the diverse characters of modern films are only diverse cosmetically, they don't actually possess diverse identities (cultures,beliefs,ideologies,religions) that older films include.
In conclusion, I'd recommend both of these for those interested in history, even hollywood history but i don't see how others would enjoy them.
L'argent (1928)
self-indulgent and self-destructive
The first 100 minutes of this roughly 160 min film is a complete bore. I'll be the first to admit i don't know much about the stock market and how it works but i don't think i need to be an expert in econometrics to enjoy a film yet that's how i felt during the first 100 mins. Its unusual for a story to care so much about such details and i would commend it if it was used to showcase how finances can go wrong in a brutally realistic way even if i don't understand it but the film throws all of that away to focus on simple lies and mischiefs, effectively making the first half of the film pointless. And is it me or a bank's financial state should be reliable enough and hedged correctly not to be completely dependant on whether a plane crashes?
Thankfully, the film picks up after the 100 min mark and is a good enough watch until the end.
The characters are more multidimensional than i expected for a film called "L'Argent". During the opening, saccard is shown to have lost his fortune. 15 mins later he goes to a restaurant where his peers visit and he doesn't seem to actually care about the money. After interacting with people that prefer to ignore his existence and seeing Line Hamelin (played by Marie Glory) he decides to lie his way back to success. Maybe he wanted respect? Maybe love, maybe money to buy love? Hard to say.
The same goes for line, she condemns saccard for "having only one creed ... money" yet she has no problem enjoying all the gifts and spending couple hundred thousand francs without hesitation. She tells her husband she "wants money for him" but none of her actions reflect that. She's far from the innocent girl she acts like.
Unfortunately, this depth and "greyness" of characters hurt the overall story. If the story was supposed to be about greed and money corrupts/enslaves, it actually never sent that message and how everything was blamed on saccard was moronic since everyone else used that money as well and "the heroic flight of hamelin was made possible by a single force". The ending was as idiotic as saccard blaming everything on gunderman.
As for the cinematography, regardless of whether you find the different unique shots brilliant or gimmicky, it suffers from inconsistency. Its obvious more care and attention was given to the first and last 20 mins of the film. As a result , you go from a shaking displaced rotation around an overwhelmed character in a large room with a map as paint to 2 hours of normal generic close-ups during conversations and amateurish fast cutting when saccard tries to force himself on line.
Thanks for reading.
Timothy's Quest (1922)
somebody, nobody -- anybody -- from nobody knows where.
Nice little 80min film about timothy trying to find a 'kind lady' that's willing to adopt him and gay or gay alone.
I watched the blackhawk films version and something felt off. It's hard to explain and might not even be worth complaining about but regardless, the image looked somewhat flat. Maybe it was due to some compression issues or the original film's tint was applied too aggressively. I can't tell what's wrong and i just accepted it but my friend found it highly off putting.
The film itself is competently crafted and simple. There's nothing to complain about regarding the camera work which is more than i can say about tons of high budget films released in the same period. Again, it is simple but competent and that applies to the story as well, plot threads aren't long or complex, neither are the characters and many details are left to the viewer's imagination. The acting is also pretty decent.
I guess the interesting question to ask is whether you personally prefer a well made simple film or one that tries to reach for the sky and falls flat. How "negative" being simple is to you? You won't be wowed watching this film but I personally find simple stories somewhat heart warming even if it's unlikely i'll be taken aback by one.
Pan Tadeusz (1928)
Hard to follow
I watch films alone without eating, drinking or doing anything else to be completely focused on the film. Some films, especially silent ones really require the viewer's undivided attention.
Still, i wasn't able to understand what's going on here. After finishing the film, i couldn't tell you what it was about. Many characters and names are thrown and introduced together. There's some parallel storytelling here but the film jumps between them erratically. The intertitles are written in a poetic fashion that only makes it harder to follow.
The sad part is that the cinematography is pretty decent and most of the scenery looks beautiful. And the film doesn't suffer from any major silent film traps (like drawing out conversations, over/under usage of title cards, overacting, title card first-film second storytelling and ...).
Its hard for me to believe, seeing how competent the film making and camera work is, that it would fail so hard when it comes to pace and structure of the film. So, i'm going to assume some of that is due to the missing footage.
Still, as it is right now, i wouldn't recommend it to anyone that expects a descent story and isn't satisfied by beautiful polish jungles.
Btw, the bear and napoleon looked stupid. Thanks for reading.
Les vampires (1915)
random
The concept and the first episode were interesting and engaging(more than Judex or fantomas at least). There's really not much of interest after that. The camera work is static and boring. You'll be watching a lot of people talking and interacting within this static frame which is just pointless for the viewer and outdated even for 1916.
The story while interesting at first turned into a bunch of random unrelated events. Episodes 3-9 could be cut with the serial losing nothing. The purpose and goals of the vampires are never clear (other than wanting to kill philippe) and 90% of the conflicts are resolved because mazamette conveniently appeared somewhere to see something. Luck is the actual hero of the serial. Philippe, mazamette, the cops & ... are too stupid to achieve anything on their own.
The Whispering Chorus (1918)
DeMille : defining commercial hollywood
It's interesting how demille studied the market and constantly sabotaged his own films for better sales when that wasn't really a thing back then between directors/producers. Im sure all the erotic,promiscuous, submission, branding and sacrifice scenes sold well back then and they would today. I'm not saying you cant have them but in demille's films they make no sense and are there simply to sell more tickets. I don't know why i liked his 1910s films cause having watched them again, they're incredibly stupid. Carmen would be better without carmen. So is male and female without the male female aspect. The squaw man and the virginian are boring and amateurish and it's a miracle they were received that well but its clear why they were.
Which brings us to the whispering chorus which is actually pretty good until the last 20-30min. Other than the characters that have no progression or change (john is the dumbass, and others are the kind good people all throughout), The story has some focus unlike his other films during the teens that jump between many different unrelated subjects (usually bold and controversial ones like miscegenation, heredity, sexual submission, racism, ... ) and the disjointed parts come together naturally. But like the rest, it goes downhill on a pathetic attempt to end on a high note and have the audience leave satisfied.
I knew the film would end with a "sacrifice" without even watching it. Why? Because all his 1910s films have a heroic sacrifice that's incredibly insanely stupid. His first film, the squaw man 1914, ends both parts of the story with a sacrifice. Male and female, old wives for new and .... have one too. The cheat 1915 ends with a double back to back sacrifice as if the asian guy was the villain here.
And in the whispering chorus, you guessed it, another super stupid sacrifice where john dies to save jane. Save jane from what?!!! Her hardships (if there'd be any) are nothing compared to his death. The dramatization of her supposed problems is idiotic. Each scene here is idiotic in context because they were made independent of one another without thinking about the overall film. And how are you gonna have a film called "the whispering chorus" that starts with a poem about it and not consider that maybe killing an innocent man would hunt her for the rest of her life!
I don't think a film is good/bad because i agree/disagree with its message or even not having any message. But when the morals are the focus of your films and you're incapable of conveying them because you had to add these scenes to sell more tickets, then the film is bad based on what it wanted to achieve.
Stella Maris (1918)
one of ms.pickford's best
Stella maris is a paraplegic girl living carefree and
Unity is an orphan that has never known any kindness. While not complete opposites, they do represent many polarities.
John is a broken man keeping it together for the sake of stella maris and people around him even if it means lying and faking it.
It might be this fake strength that stella maris falls for. Regardless, all characters and the overall story are well written and acted with ms.pickford showcasing one of her best performances with way less exaggeration than i expected.
If i had to nitpick, it would be with louisa (john's wife). Shes just an evil alcoholic for no apparent reason. Maybe the reason shes like this is because johns a failure as a husband or because the sick world has turned her sick or any other reason. True, theyd be excuses but having such a one dimensional character stands out .
As stella maris learns the truth about life. Her beautiful surroundings slowly turn dark. Her shinning room with a lovely view of the garden is replaced by a dark room when she reads about the crimes reported in the newspaper after which she leaves the room, entering her beautiful garden to see the trees and bushes hiding the march of soldiers going to war.
The scenary starts shining again as she falls in love with john with an amazing scene where stella maris and john admit their love cross-cutting with unity looking in the mirror.
Since this is stella maris story, this visual reflection of the story only exists when she's on the screen and not all the of scenes have this amount of attention but overall, its pretty great and the constranst certainly helps the highlights of the film.
The ending can easily be interpreted as sending the wrong messages and i personally didnt care for it. But the quality of the film is so high that the ending doesnt matter as much and as stella maris learned, the world isnt perfect and people arent angels.
Straight Shooting (1917)
base to build upon
Dividing the film in two acts. The first introduces the characters, establishes the quarrel and builds up tension for the second act which comprises of preparation, showdown and aftermath. Simple and basic but good enough as a blueprint. Whats not good enough is the execution.
The first act drags on for too long losing the tension it couldve built up. It has many scenes and characters that add nothing to the plot and arent visually pleasing with still boring shots of actors staring and talking. Some characters seemed like they were going to be important but just faded out as if they ran off ( fremont, the sheriff, ... ##apparently the movie was censored, so some things may be the result of that). Fortunately, the first act ends with the best scene in the film with harry "going straight" after the boy's death. The camera doesnt linger too long on the close-ups and carey and malone save the film giving the audience everything they actually need going into the second act.
The second act starts out strong but goes downhill during the shootout. Influence of griffith is pretty obvious here. Not considering how fair, the comparisons with the birth of a nation are inevitable and they arent favorable. In the birth of a nation, the audience are riding to the rescue with the actors. The cross cutting and the fighting is natural and superb. Here, its all nonsensical. With hilarious shooting and a camera thats always detached and in the wrong place (except in the interior shots). How fair is it to compare straight shooting with one the greatest movies ever considering their budget,time of release, director experience and ..... is up to you but the griffith influence certainly encourages it. It also showcases how good scarlet days is compared to other westerns of the time.
Even though i personally wouldnt recommend this to someone looking for a good film that isnt a john ford fan. I do appreciate its historical value as a base for future ford films and westerns in general (even if it is the minimum and poorly executed) and what they were able to achieve with a two reel film budget.
Male and Female (1919)
effective storytelling and poor story
The camera work, lighting and cinemtography is excellent as is expected from DeMille. Each scene is top notch, visually clear and easy to follow. The overral storytelling is effective and engaging.
Its the story itself that i take issue with. It seems like alot of attention has been put in every aspect of the film except its story leading a bloated and shallow one
The intertiles are written as if the audience are supposed to gain a new and better perspective on the subject at hand. ( "theres none to salute him now , unless we do " ). I personally didnt understand the moral it was trying to present. All major characters either are or turn spoiled and selfish. The only person that could be considered "innocent" within the moral space defined by the film is treated like second hand trash. The ending atrociously juggles many different subjects and themes from love and heredity to "playing the game" and a sacrifice element that makes no sense.
The story's faulure isnt because i (dis)agree with the films message(s). The failure is in conveying the message.