1001 Movies ... my own version (1920's)

Notes: I was really impressed by the production value displayed in this movie. Seriously, visually speaking, it was easily one of the most lavish movies I have seen from this time period and it seemed be so far ahead of anything else released back then, at least, in this area. The other thing I enjoyed in this movie was to see Emil Jannings giving another stellar performance. Sure, the guy became later on a real Nazi f*ck but, even if he must have been awful in his private life, he was probably the best silent actor, no less than that, and he was once again quite spellbinding here. To be honest, he was lucky to play seemingly the only interesting character here as his Henry VIII was basically some kind of oversexed womanizer. The fact that they really made an effort to make him actually look like the English monarch was also appreciated (which was something rather frustrating when you watched Jonathan Rhys Meyers playing the same character in ‘The Tudors’). Unfortunately, pretty much else felt pretty flat though. Sure, there was the issue that I have seen by now so many versions of Henry VIII’s convoluted love life (I already mentioned ‘The Tudors’ before which is, in my opinion, the most definite version of this story) and their approach was not really interesting, I’m afraid. For example, they decided to reduce Anna Boleyn to an innocent victim but I think it terribly weakened her character.

Notes: Since I always watch movies with as little information as possible, it took me about 10 mins to figure out what was actually going on but, then, I was completely into the damned thing. First of all, it was a pretty neat time capsule showing how life must have been back then in Sweden and I wonder if it was supposed to be a contemporary picture but I couldn’t figure this out, even after watching this movie. Furthermore, the version I saw on Netflix was restored, it looked really good and it made me realized that the movies from the 20’s I saw on YouTube lately were actually seriously messed up. However, what probably impressed me the most with this movie was how hilarious it actually turned out to be. By now, I have seen my share of silent comedies with Charles Chapin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy or Roscoe Arbuckle but this was something completely different though and, therefore, quite fascinating. Furthermore, in my opinion, the (silent) acting was also pretty good, especially from Einar Röd and Hildur Carlberg. It is also interesting how drastically different this movie was from ‘La passion de Jeanne d'Arc’ which is rightfully considered as Carl Theodor Dreyer’s magnum opus and easily one of the best silent movies ever made.

Notes: By now, I have seen the most famous movies directed by D.W. Griffith but, even though this one did seem to have a decent reputation, to be honest, it didn’t really impress me though. Indeed, it was visually not bad (the chase scene on the ice towards the end was pretty wild) but, as far as I was concerned, it was pretty much a typical vintage melodramatic soap that they used to make back then. Basically, they gave us a pure and innocent girl who gets deceived and defiled by some evil libertine guy, something they really loved back then apparently, this movie was even a big box-office success when it was released but I’m not a huge fan. The fact that they needed 150 mins to tell a rather simple story after all probably didn’t help either. The extensive running time probably had to do with the fact that there were quite a lot of characters involved but, to be honest, they were all rather unremarkable, I’m afraid. The only exception was Lillian Gish. Obviously, it wasn’t the first time I saw Gish in one of D.W. Griffith’s production and, once again, she didn’t disappoint, that’s for sure. Indeed, there were a couple of close-up shots which were just masterful. Another thing that stood out with this movie was some random comical scenes that showed up from time to time. I don’t think I ever saw Griffith indulging with such audacious comic touches in his epic dramas before but, to be honest, it didn’t really work, I’m afraid. For example, this character Professor Sterling felt like some really misguided mix of Charles Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

Notes: It was visually pretty neat, especially for a movie produced more than 100 years ago. To be honest, even though Edward Hyde did look pretty hideous, I wish they did develop more this character though. In my opinion, even though Dr Henry Jekyll is described as a righteous man, deep down, he actually wanted to indulge in this dark ‘stuff’ (I wish they did display more specifically what was so depraved about Hyde's behavior) and I do believe that he was using Hyde as an excuse. By the way, I had heard of John Barrymore before (mostly because he was Drew Barrymore’s grandfather) but I have to admit that the guy really impressed me here. Even if I don’t think it is really a masterpiece, it was still a really solid vintage horror feature though.

Notes: I have to admit that I was rather clueless about Harold Lloyd’s movies for so long and it has been pretty neat to finally discover his work recently. I have seen already a couple of his classic full-length features (‘The Kid Brother’ and ‘Safety Last!) and I thought I might as well watch one of his shorts as well. Well, it was fun, no doubt about it. However, even though it is inherent to the genre, it was just way too random for me. I mean, even though the story was supposed to be about a Boy in love with a Girl, in fact, he was above all busy with his car. There was also a really weird scene during which you get to see a junkie shooting up some drugs in the middle of the street and then the main character decided to steal his ‘drugs’ to shoot it up in his car (!). So, narratively, it wasn’t really strong but Harold Lloyd was such an entertaining and charismatic actor, it was just so much fun to see him doing all kind of crazy stunts and slapstick.

Notes: After watching Charles Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd, Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, it was really time to finally watch something with Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle. Back then, Arbuckle was actually the biggest star of them all but he was hit by a scandal at the beginning of the 20’s which crippled his career until his untimely death in the 30’s. Anyway, after 5 mins, I understood why the guy was so popular at the time. Sure, the damned thing was really random, there was no plot whatsoever and, instead, it was pretty much a succession of sketches. However, the end-result was seriously hilarious, in fact, it has been a while since I saw such a funny vintage short silent comedy. Of course, it did help that Roscoe Arbuckle was assisted by Buster Keaton (in fact, Arbuckle was the one who discovered Keaton and pretty much launched his career) and the two masters were quite marvelous together. Hopefully, in the future, I will watch more movies with and directed by Arbuckle (indeed, he also directed most of his movies, something really new at the time).

Notes: To be honest, I don’t think it is really a great movie. Indeed, there was nothing visually really impressive about it, none of the characters involved were really interesting (except for Efrem and Old Ned) and the story was pretty much a random mess. And yet, the historical value of this movie is huge since it is considered as the earliest known surviving film directed by an African-American. As a result, it was quite intriguing to see such an old movie finally from a black perspective, focusing on black characters and directed by a black man, On top of that, the 3rd act turned out to be actually quite mind-blowing. Indeed, instead of developing the story going on so far, they took a left-turn and ended up with a rather long flashback scene showing what happened back then when the main character was younger and the end-result was just so shocking. Indeed, you had a double lynching coupled with a grizzly rape scene and some little boy who got shot at but still managed to escape. Anyway, it was just so nightmarish but, in the contrary to most of your typical horror pictures, it was something that was really taking place back then in the South making the whole thing so much more horrible and frightening. Another unforgettable scene that occurred just before was when Efrem, a wretched weasel, also got lynched, not because he was accused of any wrongdoings but simply because this mob was apparently getting ‘impatient’.

Notes: If I recall it correctly, I saw this movie when I was living in England. There, I took a movie course which was just great. Every week we would watch a movie starting with 'Cabiria' released in 1914 (even though it is considered a classic, it was an awful 3 hours long silent epic, I think only 3 of us stayed until the end). So, we started from the very beginning of motion picture history and moved slowly towards more recent work. Anyway, I think this flick was the 2nd one we watched during this course. Honestly, except for the funny masterpieces by/with Charles Chaplin, I always found it difficult to get really interested in silent movies. But don't misinterpret my words though! I do enjoy other silent movies but they never really blow me away and this movie is a good example. Basically, it is one of the famous movies representing the German expressionism and it was indeed quite gorgeous to look at. However, even though the story was intriguing, I got restless due to the lack of dialogs and I had a hard time investing myself in the story and the characters. Anyway, it is still a beautiful and fascinating movie though.

Notes: During the last months, I have been focusing on movies from the 20’s but, to be honest, many of them were really obscure and, above all, not really good at all. Well, this movie was the very last one in this cycle and, fortunately, it turned out to be really amazing. I have to admit that the first 20 mins were actually rather disjointed and I did struggle to get a good grip on the damned thing at first. However, this seemingly convoluted structure might have enhanced the weird nature of this rather fascinating picture. Anyway, it will be a good excuse to revisit it in a few years. It might be also one of the most virulent anti-alcohol films I have seen but this movie went so much deeper than that though. Indeed, by now I have seen my share of tragic melodramas that they used to make back in those days but there was something really different about this one. Sure, the tone was pretty dark which was pretty neat but it went beyond that. There was something really poetic about this movie as well and the ending was pretty much pitch-perfect. It was visually also striking and, in this area, it was much more satisfying that most of the other movies I have seen from this time period. Concerning the acting, Victor Sjöström, who also directed the damned thing, really stood out playing David Holm, a rather wretched man but the arc of his story in this movie was just so spellbinding to behold.

Notes: Even though it was less obscure than the other movies I have seen from the 20’s and even though it seemed to have a decent reputation, to be honest, I had a rather hard time to get into the damned thing though. It’s the oldest movie I saw from Fritz Lang but, even though there were some interesting ideas, the whole thing was just too disjointed for me. At some point, he completely deviated from the main story to tell 3 different tales taking place in different locations which was obviously an excuse Lang used to indulge himself. The Arabic and Italian tales were not bad at all, the production design was pretty cool, however, with the Chinese tale, it was really cringe-inducing to see the same (Caucasian) actors playing some Asian characters as well (It then reminded me of ‘Cloud Atlas’ which used the same trick of using the same actors to play characters with various ethnicities and it did receive some huge criticism back then). On the other hand, I have to admit that this Asian segment was the wildest one with some magical stuff involved. However, the issue with these 3 separate segments was that they had no impact whatsoever on the main tale after all so it all felt rather pointless to me. At least, visually speaking, it was pretty good for a movie made in the 20’s, I also really liked the way they depicted Death and I’m pretty sure it did inspire many movies that came afterwards.

Notes: Before watching this short, I have to admit that I was actually slightly worried that I had seen actually too many shorts by Keaton at this point to really care anymore. However, I was actually pleasantly surprised by this movie after all, in fact, I would go even further than that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it actually turned out to be the best short feature I have seen starring Buster Keaton that I have seen so far. Sure, the story was maybe nothing really groundbreaking but the damned thing was just so entertaining. Indeed, most of the jokes were actually quite hilarious which I should have been expecting from this master. I was also so impressed by the acrobatic stunts the guy pulled in this movie. Indeed, the cool things with his movies is that, while watching them, you actually know there was no CGI available and barely any special effects either so everything happening was actually physically done by the actors. For example, there was this scene during which 3 actors (including Buster Keaton himself of course) were on top of each other, these guys were basically running back and forth between two buildings, the whole thing looked so insane and I was basically gobsmacked.

Notes: Even though I looked it up, I'm still not sure what to make of this title. Did it mean that David was ‘tolerable’ or ‘acceptable’ maybe? Anyway, it was a typical quaint movie that they used to make back then, at least, the beginning. Concerning the plot, it was basically about a young boy who wanted to prove to himself and his community that he was a man. Well, at some point, it became clear that the way to reach this end-result was to avenge his brother and his father and, indeed, he did end up killing no less than 3 men more or less in cold blood at the end. That this event might be the cause for any kind of celebration was, in my opinion, rather deplorable but I guess it might be expected from a country who has been struggling with gun control ever since their Constitution has been published. Concerning the rest of the movie, it was not bad at all though. Indeed, such vintage features, even some vastly superior movies than this one, have the tendency to be slightly or even really disjointed but this one was actually well put together, at least, for a movie which was made more than 100 years ago. Richard Barthelmess was also praised for his performance and I have to admit that he was pretty good even if, at 26 years old, he was maybe 10 years older than his character was.

Notes: The first nice surprise was that it was actually starring Gloria Swanson. Indeed, I’m a huge fan of ‘Sunset Boulevard’ so it was really cool to finally see this legend in a silent feature, even if it was a rather obscure one like this movie. She was actually really good here and it was quite impressive how much she managed to do with a part which was rather thankless after all as she was basically waiting for her husband to get his act together. Concerning the movie itself, it was actually fairly entertaining, even if it did feel rather silly though and you might wonder how they managed to get 2 hrs of running time from this material. Basically, it was all rather disjointed and you get in fact 3 stories involving the main character supposedly helping 3 women in distress. The really fun part was that the guy was actually married with Gloria Swanson’s character from the start and the fact they were married only for a couple of months probably didn’t help their situation either. Except for Gloria Swanson, the other thing I did enjoy with this movie was the tone. Indeed, I thought it was pretty cynical but it was a nice approach and it made the whole thing more enjoyable this way. Indeed, basically, none of the women, except for his own wife actually, was really trustworthy but the main male character was not much better though, he even called himself a ‘boob’ which was actually pretty accurate.

Notes: It must one of the most obscure movies I have seen so far (only around 100 people have seen it on IMDb) and, to be honest, I thought it was rather difficult to judge the damned thing. Indeed, for starters, the version I saw on YouTube was pretty bad, especially during the night scenes which were barely watchable. On top of that, the only version available, as far as I know, is missing at least 20 mins, probably even more. However, even if it would have been complete, I’m not sure if the whole thing would then completely make sense though. I mean, you had the main character whose mother was (apparently?) a prostitute but she wasn’t actually his mother and, at some point, he got married but his wife never met or even knew who is mother was all this time? Basically, it turned out to be a rather cheesy old fashioned melodrama and you have to really dig the genre. At least, there was a very spectacular train crash occurring half way through which was something terribly ambitious for a movie made more than 100 years ago. The funny thing is that, even though this scene was definitely really cool, in my opinion, it didn’t really have much added value narratively speaking and I think it could have been removed without impacting the story at all.

Notes: I think it is the oldest movie I have seen starring Buster Keaton and, at first, I was wondering why it was called ‘The Goat’ but I think it was probably some kind of abbreviation of ‘scapegoat’. Anyway, this short apparently does have a solid reputation but, even though I have to admit that it was pretty good, I don’t think it was one of his best shorts though. I don’t know, it felt really random but I have to admit that it is inherent to the genre. The concept was also rather preposterous, the fact that nobody checked who was actually on this picture before printing it out all over the place. Still, Keaton was just a great comedian and, obviously, one of the greatest stuntmen that ever lived so, in spite of its flaws, the damned thing was still seriously entertaining.

Notes: Even though Charles Chaplin had been directing many movies as far back as 1914, I actually consider this movie his official directing debut since it was his first full length feature. Anyway, back then, when it was released it was obviously a tremendous critical and commercial success. Back in those days, Chaplin was already a big player thanks to the success of his marvelous short movies but with this new long format, he was clearly displaying his ambition to reach some new creative heights. In my opinion, he was still experimenting how far he could go with the Tramp so I don't think it was as good as his later work such as 'Modern Times' or 'The Great Dictator' but it doesn't change the fact that it was yet another enchanting movie with some hilarious bits but with some social consciousness as well. Jackie Coogan who played the title character was also pretty impressive and became in fact the first major child star in the movie business. Eventually, even though it might not be one of Chaplin's best movies, it is still a great classic.

Notes: A couple of days ago, I saw ‘Rhythmus 23’ but I didn’t know it was actually a follow-up to this movie so I thought I might as well check it out as well. I have to admit that I had never heard of Hans Richter before but, apparently, he was a major German artist who was one of the first who dabbed into abstract film making. Even though this movie might not seem to be much (you have to keep in mind that it was made already more than 100 years ago), it is actually considered as one of the very first abstract film and had therefore a huge impact. With ‘Rhythmus 23’, the guy who uploaded the video on YouTube did also add his own music but, while it was a decent effort, to be honest, it wasn’t really a great combination. In this case, I watched it without sound as it was intended and, even though I usually don’t care much about movies which are completely silent, it actually worked fine here. Eventually, even though the whole thing looked rather rudimentary, it was still pretty neat and I wonder how it was done.

Notes: From the few movies I have seen directed by D.W. Griffith, it might be the best one so far. Indeed, I was quite impressed by this lavish production, especially for a movie made more than 100 years ago. However, I have to admit that I was at first slightly worried when they kept hammering the fact that the government following the French Revolution was ‘Bolshevik’. Fortunately, the damned thing still turned out to be fairly accurate, at least, according to what I learned back then in school growing up in France. Seriously, I was actually quite impressed by how the Aristocrats were described as decadent, seriously rotten and even quite repulsive. The contrast with the filthy leaving conditions of the commoners was so huge, it also felt quite accurate and the end-result was such a polarized society which was ready to explode at any moment. All this was actually seriously well done and quite fascinating but, to be honest, I’m not so sure if I really cared about the gloomy tale of these 2 orphan sisters. It was also rather intriguing that these 2 sisters who were not actual sisters were played by 2 women who were actually sisters in real life (Lillian Gish and Dorothy Gish). Anyway, it was basically another typical dark and gloomy drama, a genre really loved by Griffith. Still, even if it was all quite theatrical and melodramatic, it was so well put together and it was seriously entertainaing, even after 150 mins.

Notes: This movie is almost a 100 years old... How awesome is that! It is black and white, it is silent and yet it is totally spellbinding. I wonder how many so-called horror fans still have to watch this masterpiece? Basically, it is simply the first and ultimate vampire flick, no more no less. In my opinion and a view shared by the gross majority of the film community, it is still an amazing feature and all the vampire flicks made after that became its legacy. On top of that, not only is it a great horror classic but it is also a fine example of German expressionism. Furthermore, who was this guy Max Schreck anyway?!? He gave here one of the weirdest performances you'll ever see but it totally worked. He was so convincing that there was even this legend is that Schreck's otherworldly performance as Nosferatu was due to the fact that he was in reality a vampire. Willem Dafoe portrayed him as such, playing the vampire Count Orlok in 'Shadow of the Vampire', another movie that you should absolutely watch.

Notes: Well, I was seriously impressed by this movie, that's for sure. First of all, I have always been interested in documentaries so it was just really neat to see this movie which is usually considered as the very first movie in this genre. Indeed, Robert Flaherty, probably not consciously, set many of the ground rules of the genre and most of the documentaries made nowadays still use these rules. Obviously, many criticised this movie because many (maybe all) of the scenes were actually staged but this criticism is rather ridiculous in my opinion. Indeed, can you imagine shooting with such 100 years old cameras in such terrible conditions without setting up first the scenes? Even nowadays, they still make up some stuff. Anyway, the bottom line is, was it faithful or not? You bet it was. Indeed, with this movie, you get a fascinating look on the life of Eskimos and even though this movie is nowadays almost 100 years old, it never felt condescending. Anyway, this movie was a huge milestone in motion picture history.

Notes: Honestly, I think it's rather difficult to review this flick. Indeed, even though it was rather long (more than 130 minutes), especially for a silent feature, it was actually supposed to be 6 hours! After watching the whole thing, you wonder how Eric von Stroheim managed to get 6 hours from this story but, I guess, we’ll never know. So, how can you review a movie when you have seen only a fraction of it? Many of us (include myself) blame Peter Jackson for indulging himself with overlong movies but, with von Stroheim, it goes to a whole different level and he must have been one of the most decadent directors that ever lived. As a matter of fact, at the time, this movie was the most expensive ever made and it figures. Indeed, even though the action takes place in Monte Carlo, and it seems as if they went there to make the movie, they actually recreated the whole thing at Universal Studios with some impressive accuracy in the details. Personally, I enjoyed above all von Stroheim who, of course, played the lead and he gave one of the best silent performances I have seen. To be honest, even though I have a weak spot for con-artists, nothing much happened during the whole thing but it was still pretty good though.

Notes: It is only afterwards that I discovered that this movie was considered as possibly the worst one Cecil B. DeMille had delivered in his career and I have to agree that it wasn’t really good. Basically, the whole thing was just too disjointed. Seriously, who was actually the main character in this tale and you might wonder if this movie really required some full-blown fantasy showing some decadent bacchanal in the Roman era but my guess is that it was maybe DeMille’s favorite part. And, yet, some ideas were not bad though. Indeed, it was interesting how reckless, selfish and even rather unlikeable Lydia Thorne was and it was actually quite satisfying to see her ending up in jail, in spite of all the wealth she had. Back then, many movies were focusing on the rich and fortunate and it was refreshing to see a movie showing how actually vapid this lifestyle was. Unfortunately, it didn’t last for long though and the way she found redemption after spending a few years in jail was rather preposterous. Indeed, if you thought that the fantasy scenes in Rome were unrealistic, these scenes taking place in prison were even worse as if this woman went to some nice friendly summer camp and came back as a complete new person. Another issue was the really convoluted love story between Lydia Thorne and Daniel O'Bannon. I mean, wasn’t it a major conflict of interest that this District Attorney would be prosecuting her case when they were actually acquainted?

Notes: I saw ‘Anna Boleyn’ also directed by Ernst Lubitsch and I was really neat how lavish this movie was for a movie produced in the 20’s. Well, this time, he brought us back to Ancient Egypt and the production value was once again really impressive. Unfortunately, even though the movie was quite strong visually speaking, I still struggled to care about the rest of it though. Above all, the story was rather disjointed, especially during the first 30 mins. It seems that they were also missing some reels so many scenes were replaced with some stills and intertitle cards which certainly didn’t help. Furthermore, back then, they apparently really loved such convoluted melodramas (the fact that it did take place in Egypt didn’t really matter) but, to be honest, it has never been really my cup of tea. When the movie started, I was pleased to see that the great Emil Jannings would be playing the Pharao. However, even though there was nothing really wrong with his performance, to be honest, he didn’t really dazzle me this time around but I can guess you can’t expect an actor to deliver the performance of a lifetime each time around. Concerning Harry Liedtke, it was even worse though as the guy was, in my opinion, just not charismatic enough to play the lead. At least, on the other hand, Dagny Servaes was really lovely.

Notes: With only 130 viewers on IMDb, it is probably is one of the most obscure movies I have seen so far. In fact, by now, I have seen 6 movies directed by Vidor and it was probably the least impressive one I have seen so far. However, on the other hand, his output in the 20’s was not really stellar. First of all, even though it was supposed to be dealing with the conflict between English and Irish, both groups were hardly fleshed out at all and I think it was pretty obvious that it was a US production. Concerning the story itself, it was also pretty flimsy, even for a movie made more than 100 years ago. Eventually, as far as I’m concerned, the only thing which was really noteworthy was Laurette Taylor. Indeed, she was actually pretty good, even if she was probably the only interesting actor from this otherwise rather dull cast. Eventually, I was even more impressed when I found out afterwards that she was almost 40 years old when she played this character. Apparently, she would only play in a few movies after this one but she was considered as one of the greatest stage actresses of all time, no less than that.

Notes: This short apparently does have a solid reputation and it turned out be pretty good indeed. Sure, as usual, it was all rather random and chaotic but that’s inherent with the genre, I’m afraid. At least, the title made sense since Keaton’s character kept getting into trouble with various cops and was even chased by 100’s of them towards the end. Eventually, the only thing that didn't really work for me and prevented this short from becoming really awesome was the horse. Sure, it was fun for a while but they got stuck too long on this running joke. When he brought it to some ‘goat gland specialist’, a really obscure reference to a quack doctor from back then, the whole joke was also completely lost on me. A part from that, it worked so well though with some non-stop jokes and slapstick and most of the damned thing was actually quite hilarious.

Notes: To be honest, I was at first rather annoyed that the only available version available on YouTube was colorized. However, I have to admit that, as soon as they got to Antarctica, the damned thing looked amazing with these vast white landscapes against this bright blue sky. I also expected these explorers to go straight to the South Pole but it was interesting that they first settled for a while in Antarctica when they arrived. Seriously, I forgot how long they stayed there but they definitely spent many months out there before finally starting their final journey to the South Pole. This way, it allowed Herbert Ponting to shoot so many interesting scenes displaying some incredible landscapes and some of the fauna that you can find in this remote region. While watching the damned thing, I actually forgot that it was the very first time that anyone shot this kind of images in this particular place which makes this movie historically incredibly valuable. Anyway, at last, during the final act, they did really go up to the South Pole and the whole team who went there, well, they all died actually. Not only it was surprising because it was definitely a tragic outcome for an otherwise rather cheerful expedition but it was a shot in a way that you (at least, I did) believed that Ponting also came along but it wasn’t in the case so how did they come up with this footage? Eventually, it seems that a lot of it was staged, just like with ‘Nanook of the North, another documentary dealing with the Artic also released in the 20’s.

Notes: Eventually, I believe it’s the craziest and wildest movie I have seen so far directed by Fritz Lang. That’s really the cool thing about movies which were made back then. Sure, they didn’t have the technological tools and gadgets that we have today but, instead, they had much more freedom and the creativity displayed in this movie was just impressive. As a result, it did seem that Lang thought he could do whatever he wanted which did result with this massive running time and, of course, you might wonder if this movie really required around 270 mins. Sure, I have to admit that it was quite a marathon to watch and, yet, the damned thing worked actually pretty well. Indeed, the fact that you spend so much time with this story and these characters made it much more intense than if it would have been 90 mins. As a result, Lang had also the possibility to indulge in some visually weird scenes. It was also pretty neat that the main character was actually the bad guy and, as usual, the bad guy is always more interesting than the good guys. Indeed, in this case, Mabuse was called a gambler but he was actually so much more than that and the guy was actually quite fascinating. Rudolf Klein-Rogge should also be praised as he played in this movie so many different versions of the infamous Dr. Mabuse. It was so cool that, even though the audience could always spot him, it always made sense that the other characters wouldn’t recognize him which was so clever and so well done.

Notes: Eventually, it is quite a weird flick, some very old documentary (almost 100 years old now) dealing with some even older superstitions mainly involving witchcraft in the Middle-Ages. It is rather funny that it is considered a horror flick when it is supposed to be a documentary. I mean, there were some rather eerie stuff, I’ll give you that but it doesn’t really qualify as ‘horror’, at least, that’s my opinion. Honestly, the whole thing feels pretty dated nowadays and you might wonder if it was really scientifically accurate. Still, even though the educational aspect might be questionable, it was still an interesting watch and it has definitely some historically value. It is also striking that the makers were rather dismissive towards the Middle-Ages beliefs but the way they put ‘hysteria’ on some vastly varied mental diseases was quite priceless (of course, in the 20’s, psychology was a rather new science). Anyway, I’m not really sure if it is really a great flick but it is still a very intriguing movie.

Notes: It was actually a really obscure directorial effort from Cecil DeMille and, to be honest, it wasn’t really good, I’m afraid. I was rather amazed how convoluted the damned thing was. I mean, I have seen my share of romantic tales but it was probably one of the weirdest love triangles I have seen so far. Indeed, Marian Ramsay was more or less cheating with a deposed king instead of some average guy. The weird thing was how she was actually flirting with this guy so publicly. At some point, I thought this Jaromir was some kind of con artist who was trying to trick her husband into some fake wheat deal but it would be giving this movie too much credit. Instead, to get rid off the guy, Michael Ramsay actually broke a (real) wheat deal with the government of the country of this deposed king with the condition that they would give him back his throne. So, like I said, it was all pretty convoluted… To make the whole thing even more random, they had a daughter who was also involved in her own love story. In her case, it was at first weird and even cringe-inducing to see a 17 year-old girl chasing a guy who was probably in his 40’s but I’m afraid it’s inherent to the time period. Another completely random scene was when this girl tried to explain something to her lover and they switched the scenery to the prehistoric age as if it would make her argument more potent this way.

Notes: Instead of one film, you actually get 3 movies but the gimmick was not bad though. The main issue was that they kept repeating the same jokes and setups in 3 different time periods. Still, the prehistoric period was pure gold though and it was probably the oldest movie I have seen dealing with this time period. Only for this, it is actually worth checking the damned thing. Sure, it wasn’t accurate at all but it was obviously not the point here and the end-result felt like a live-action version of the Flintstones but 100 times more satisfying than the dreadful version they delivered in the 90’s (the sequel was actually even worse). There was even some awesome stop-motion animation to show a living dinosaur. To be honest, I think they could have made the whole movie only about this segment. Still, the Roman period was not bad though (the way these black slaves stopped their work to play some craps was however really discriminating and pretty awful to behold). Concerning the modern period, even though it did make sense to add it to the mix, it did feel rather useless since it was basically your basic Buster Keaton’s romantic slapstick comedy. Another mistake they made was to constantly switch between the 3 different time periods and I think they should have completely played each segment the one after the other.

Notes: With almost 50 mins of running time, I'm not sure if it should be really considered as a short. Anyway, probably because of the slightly longer running time, they had to come up with a plot which was refreshing. Sure, it was basically still a succession of sketches, sight-gags and other stunts but the end-result was less random and chaotic than usual. It was also interesting that Charles Chaplin played his tramp differently than usual here. Indeed, he was this time a convict, obviously a thief, who was drinking and smoking. Sure, he was still not a full-blown villain or a real thug but I think there was still a big difference with his classic naïve tramp with a heart of gold. So, it was some solid material and Chaplin was really strong as usual and, yet, somehow the damned thing didn't really grab me though. Maybe I watched too many of these short silent comedies recently. Anyway, even if it might not be one of his best movies, it was still pretty good.

Notes: Even though I did hear before about Man Ray, I have to admit that I’m not really familiar with his work but he was apparently mostly famous for his modern photography even if he considered himself a painter. Concerning the movie itself, I’m getting rather acquainted with the genre and I think these short experimental movies could be divided into 2 categories. On one hand, you have some films constantly repeating endlessly the same pattern(s) and, on the other hand, you have some films which are completely random with a succession of seemingly unrelated surrealist bits. Well, this movie definitely belonged to the 2nd category, that’s for sure. Seriously, it was actually quite impressive how much random stuff Man Ray has managed to cram in just 2 mins. Eventually, I have always a rather hard time to get a good grip with such movies because it all seems so incoherent. Still, there is no denying that the end-result was quite intriguing, especially towards the end, with a really gorgeous topless lady who was apparently the famous Kiki de Montparnasse, Man Ray’s lover and muse for many years.

Notes: I was really surprised to discover that this movie was not included in some major movie lists such as ‘1001 Movies You Must Before You Die’ or ‘They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?’ (Roger Ebert did include it in his ‘Great Movies’ list though). Indeed, it is rather weird since this movie does include arguably the most iconic scene displayed in a silent comedy which was obviously when Harold Lloyd was dangling from a clock on a top of a building. This scene was and still is the stuff of legends, even if it was debunked years later by a stuntman. Indeed, there were actually some security measures, for example, they used a fake building front filmed in a way to capture the street below. Even so, Lloyd was still probably risking his life anyway and that’s the kind of stuff you don’t see anytime nowadays (even though you could say that Tom Cruise does indulge in some really hazardous stunts with his ‘Mission: Impossible’ franchise). Instead, nowadays, everything is done with some really fake CGI but should performers actually risk their life to entertain us? The weird thing is that I was never scared when Lloyd was doing his stunt which is a tribute to his mighty skills. Eventually, this scene was obviously amazing and quite unforgettable but, even though it tends to overshadow the rest of the movie, the whole thing was actually quite fun. Sure, the concept was pretty basic but Lloyd definitely made the most of it and most of the jokes were actually quite hilarious to behold.

Notes: It was another tricky short movie to analyse. Indeed, at first, it seemed to be about a rather lonely and depressed woman pretty much stuck at home and dealing with a rather weirdo husband. In fact, she never really smiled and looked grumpy through the whole duration. It’s only afterwards that I discovered that this movie had been directed by a woman which made the whole thing even more intriguing. In fact, it is usually considered as one of the first feminist movies ever made. It mostly due to the fact that the main character was a fairly regular woman while her husband was rather grotesque which was a really unusual approach back in the 1920’s. Anyway, I was above all intrigued by its visual aspect. Indeed, that’s the cool thing with such old movies, back then, all filmmakers had to experiment because the actual rules of filmmaking didn’t exist yet. In this case, they came up with something so striking, mixing some hyper realism with some surreal imagery. The end-result was therefore at once very pure and simple and yet quite complex as well. Of course, you could argue that the plot was really simplistic but that’s not where lies the power of this movie. Indeed, above all, it had a strong visual aspect and I wonder if this movie could have been an inspiration for David Lynch, the master mindf*cker.

Notes: Well, it was definitely quite entertaining. First of all, even though it was shot almost 100 years ago (by the way, the version I saw on YouTube was of a pristine quality, it’s too bad there was some interruptions every 5 minutes for some damned commercials), the action was taking place almost a 100 years before so Keaton had obviously a lot of fun recreating this time period. Indeed, New York was pretty much unrecognizable and there was a long sequence involving the strangest little train I have ever seen. In fact, this train was actually accurate to the time period. There was also a hilarious vintage bicycle at the beginning. Concerning the story itself, it might sound like a drama but, in the hands of Keaton, it became quite a farce with many incredible stunts and even more visual gags. To be honest, at the end of the day, I have to admit that it was still slightly too random for my taste. Furthermore, you might wonder if the material was enough for a feature length movie as every joke was stretched for quite some time so a shorter version might have been more effective. Anyway, it was still definitely a solid silent comedy.

Notes: Well, there is no doubt that the production was value was really impressive for a movie made 100 years ago and I was expecting to watch a pretty cool vintage biblical epic. Well, while I was watching the damned thing, I was surprised that the whole thing started already after the 9th plague and I was even more surprised that, within less than 45 mins, Moses already had his hands on the famous tablet with the ten commandments. Indeed, it turned out that the whole epic thing was actually only some kind of very fancy elaborate and slightly overblown intro to a typical romantic drama from the 20’s. The difference of scale between these two parts (the biblical part and the modern part) was so huge, it was actually rather jarring. It seemed as if they ran out of money early on and decided to focus instead on a rather cheap love triangle very loosely linked with the ten commandments. No wonder DeMille would be eager to give it another shot 30 years later. Anyway, it was still not bad though.

Notes: I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick and, to be honest, I actually wonder how I actually ended up watching the damned thing. On top of that, I have to admit that I had never heard of Hans Richter before but, apparently, he was a major German artist who was one of the first who dabbed into abstract film making. Apparently, this movie was a follow-up to ‘Rhythmus 21’ which is considered as one of the very first abstract film and had therefore a huge impact. For some reason, I saw this one first but I will probably check ‘Rhythmus 21’ also at some point. Anyway, how was the movie itself? Well, even though it looked rather rudimentary (you have to keep in mind that it was made already 100 years ago though), it was still pretty neat and I wonder how it was done. The guy who uploaded the video on YouTube did also add his own music apparently but, while it was a decent effort, to be honest, it wasn’t really great though. Anyway, I thought it was a intriguing watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in more experimental movies.

Notes: It turned out to be such a weird but also quite fascinating movie. Indeed, narratively speaking, it took such wild turns, most of it was actually quite unpredictable. For example, if you would look at the poster, you wouldn’t expect it to start with an inventor who was double-crossed by his benefactor. When people get a sh*tty deal, they start to drink heavily or take drugs but this guy, for some reason, decided to become a clown which seemed and was just so random and, yet, the end-result was quite spellbinding to behold. Indeed, they gave us some rather surreal circus scenes and, in my opinion, it was the saddest clown act I have ever seen. On the other hand, without the context, how would I have reacted if I saw this clown getting slapped and slapped again? Maybe I would have thought that it was actually hilarious? It still did feel like some crude and mean sense of humor though. One of the main reasons why the damned thing actually worked was obviously Lon Cheaney. Indeed, Cheaney was arguably one of the best actors that ever lived and, even though it might not be one of his most famous movies, his performance here was quite incredible. It must have been one of the most complex characters I have ever seen and I don’t think I understood some of his actions. I mean, come on, what a strange way to handle a traumatic experience and, yet, with Lon Cheaney playing the guy, it actually all made sense somehow.

Notes: One thing I did like was the fact that there was actually more or less a real plot this time so it did feel less disjointed than most of his other movies I have seen so far, at least, until the 3rd act. Furthermore, even though I apparently already saw a few silent features starring Jobyna Ralston, I thought she was super charismatic and charming here. One thing that didn’t really work in my opinion was the running joke of the main character constantly stuttering when he was nervous though. Indeed, a stutter is something more sonic than visual so I don’t think it worked well in a silent movie like this one. I mentioned that this movie did feel less chaotic than his other movies but it actually did change with the 3rd act though. Indeed, basically, the last 30 mins (and we are talking about a movie barely lasting 90 mins), it became some really wild non-stop chase during which the main characters kept stealing vehicles to prevent the love of his life to marry someone else. To be honest, I’m not so sure how I felt about this madcap sequence. I mean, sure, it was quite spectacular and fairly entertaining but, in my opinion, it was also a huge departure from the rest of the movie.

Notes: I have to admit that, because of some personal stuff, I had actually a rather hard time to focus on this movie. However, the fact that it was really random probably didn’t help either. Seriously, they would keep jumping from one thing to another without much cohesion and, to be honest, the end-result was rather jarring. For some reason, they also thought it would be clever to play some scenes in reverse but I have to admit that the effect was not bad though. Anyway, eventually, it was probably the most abstract Soviet documentary I have seen so far. The fact it was made 100 years ago and that the quality of the copy I have seen was pretty poor made the whole thing even more abstract than it already was. Of course, since it was a Soviet production, it was obviously some propaganda but, in spite of all the horrors that happened there at the time, I have to admit that, at least to me, there was something quite appealing about this ideology so it didn’t bother me. This movie actually stood out from the genre as it was much less grim than what you usually get. Indeed, the tone was much lighter and even quite joyful (the Chinese magician was definitely an highlight for me). I think it also had to do with the fact that it was shot in the mid-20’s, the Russian revolution only took place less than a decade before and, at the time, they were all motivated and still quite positive about what they were trying to achieve.

Notes: Of course, I heard the legends, that it was supposed to be actually at least 4 hours long (there are even rumors of a whopping 8 hours version) so I was expecting to watch a mutilated masterpiece. Well, to be honest, I was really surprised that the movie worked so well in this shorter version and I have my doubts that this longer version would have been such a huge improvement. After all, it is this shorter version which has been hailed as one of the best movies ever made, not any other possible version. Anyway, how was the damned thing after all? I have to admit that, with this title and with the starting scenes, I thought it would be dealing with a greedy gold miner, a little bit like in ‘The Treasure of the Sierra Madre’. However, it was after all about an average guy who became a dentist, got married but it was his wife who really got greedy after winning big at the lottery. It was basically an interesting cautionary tale showing how becoming rich can eventually make you completely miserable. The interesting thing was that their situation became really dramatic after he lost his job as a dentist but I wonder why he didn't just simply close shop temporarily, go to a dentist school, get a degree and reopen his practice. Anyway, it was a rather dark tale and, in fact, none of the characters had really some redeeming features. My favorite one was probably McTeague himself, not exactly a hero and even a rather simple man and, yet, Gibson Gowland was still super charismatic playing this part.

Notes: To be honest, even though I had heard of Fernand Léger before, I have to admit that I didn’t know much about his work though. Anyway, he was mostly famous as an abstract painter, mostly cubism, but, at some point, he also delivered such experimental surrealist movies. I also watched recently ‘Anémic Cinéma’, another experimental short from the same time period made this time by Marcel Duchamp, and while I greatly admired Duchamp’s short, the only issue I had was that it was too repetitive. Well, with Léger’s short, it was actually exactly the opposite. Indeed, even though there was some repetition, most of it was just really random and chaotic and, combined with the rather hysterical score, the end-result felt like some feverish dream or nightmare, depending on your mood. As far as I was concerned, I thought the end-result was certainly original and intriguing but also stressful but I guess that’s the cool thing with such experimental features. Indeed, since there is no narrative to hang on to, the only thing left is to actually ‘feel’ the succession of images coming at you at a rather frenetic pace, even if this experience might be rather distressing.

Notes: To be honest, so far, after watching around 5 of his movies, I can’t say I have become a huge fan of Buster Keaton's work. However, since this movie had a rather stellar reputation, I was quite eager to check it out. Well, I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure. Indeed, the damned thing was a total blast and easily one of the best silent comedies I have seen so far. Indeed, as usual with Keaton, the whole thing was quite random but, in the contrary to his other movies, it worked fine here. Basically, most of the duration was just a dream but it didn't stop here as they also gave us a 'movie within a movie'. In fact, it was probably the first time this gimmick was ever used but it was visually quite clever and actually very well done. Anyway, from the moment Keaton went through this screen, pretty much everything became possible and it became one of the most freewheeling movie experiences I ever had. Indeed, it was so wild and I don't how many times I was gasping at the insane scenes that Keaton gave us combining some magic tricks, some marvellous daredevil stunts and even some awesome pool trick shots. There were a couple of times I even had no clue how they actually pulled this off. Anyway, the damned thing definitely deserves his awesome reputation and it is, in my opinion, Buster Keaton's magnum opus.

Notes: Even though it might seem to be a simple story (it is basically about a guy losing his job, not much more), I have to admit that I was really impressed by the sheer power of its visuals and of the performances, especially by Emil Jannings who played the main character. It’s only afterwards that I discovered that Jannings, arguably one of the best actors of all time, was actually a major Nazi supporter and I’m glad I didn’t know that before watching the damned thing. Anyway, it was still a powerful movie, so powerful, that they didn’t have to use a single title card for the dialogues. Seriously, it was quite impressive and there was not a single moment while what was going on was not crystal clear. Furthermore, it was such a sad movie, probably one of the saddest I have seen so far. The saddest part, at least for me, was when his neighborhood found out that he had actually lost his job and was pretending to still be a doorman. Indeed, for some reason, maybe I’m too optimistic but I was expecting them to be supportive but, eventually, they were all mocking him which was just so cruel but I guess it was actually true to human nature, I’m afraid. There was also this rather weird and ridiculous happy ending coming from nowhere. Apparently, the producers forced F.W. Murnau and Carl Mayer to end up with something else and more upbeat than the inevitable death of the poor doorman but since they really hated this idea, they went for something really far-fetched and cynical. At first, this ending really bothered me but, the more I think about it, the more I believe it was actually quite brilliant.

Notes: To be honest, I usually have a hard time to watch silent features. Indeed, I think it's pretty tough to sit through a full length feature without any dialogs, especially when it is about 3 hours long. However, I had a good time to watch this one though because it was actually quite fun. Indeed, it is a great adventure, a real escapist feature, and I thought it was more entertaining than all those heavy dramas directed by D.W. Griffith for example. I especially enjoyed the first part when you have Douglas Fairbanks making some trouble in Bagdad’s market. To be honest, as soon as he fell in love with the princess, the whole thing lost some steam and I preferred when he was just a devilish thief. Also, the fact that ‘Aladdin’, one of my favorites Disney animated features, was basically a remake of this old classic, might have played a part in the fact that I didn’t completely enjoy this feature since I already knew most of the plot. Furthermore, the thief, as a character, is actually more fun than Aladdin but you miss the genius and, with a running time around 140 minutes, it was just too long for its own good. Still, it is definitely a fun and entertaining movie.

Notes: What can be said about this movie that hasn’t been said so many times before? Basically, it is pure and simply another impressive piece of cinema coming from Charles Chaplin and it is probably even better than 'The Circus' which I also loved. In fact, I have actually a nice story about this flick. Many years ago, I showed this movie to my step-children because I thought it was important for their education. Back then, Nick, my step-son, was only 8 years old but, suddenly, out of nowhere, 7 ears later, during one of our endless conversations about movies, Nick started to precisely described in details the famous scene when the Tramp eats his shoe. Seriously, it was quite something and it shows the huge impact of this movie (but it could be said about anything done by this guy). Myself, I started to watch this movie when I was just a kid and, already then, I thought it was just fascinating and completely hilarious.

Notes: To be honest, I thought it was rather hard to judge this movie after all. Indeed, on one hand, it was a huge box-office success at the time, it was also the first time that a war epic of this size was made (we shouldn’t forget it was made already 100 years ago) and it was really influential for all the war movies that came afterwards. However, on the other hand, I have to admit that I actually struggled to really care about this movie though. Indeed, first of all, there was the fact that, with a running time of 150 mins, it was pretty damned long. Then, another thing that bothered me even more was the fact that it took them forever to finally get involved in this worldwide conflict. Eventually, I’m not sure if I really cared about these 3 soldiers bonding about the most random things that you could imagine. The war scenes came therefore fairly late but these were the reason why this movie became pretty famous. However, to be honest, even these scenes left me rather unfazed. That’s the tricky thing when you watch a movie so old, it’s sometimes difficult to forget all the movies you have seen in the same genre that came afterwards which were technically obviously superior to this one. However, none of these other war movies would have been possible if this movie wasn’t made in the first place.

Notes: It was apparently a big success when it was released and it’s because it was so successful that Dreyer would manage to make later on ‘La passion de Jeanne d'Arc’, obviously his magnum opus. Unfortunately, to be honest, I actually had a hard time to really care about the damned thing though. The fact that it took me 3 attempts to watch it until the end maybe didn’t help but, with each session, it never really interested me. Sure, it was technically well made, especially for a movie made 100 years ago, and it was a nice time-capsule showing how people lived back then in Denmark. However, I never really cared for any of the characters involved and what they were going through. I mean, the way Viktor treated his wife but also the rest of his family was of course rather deplorable but you might wonder if it was really uncommon back then (even nowadays some guys are pretty nasty with their partners). As a result, you might wonder how the audience back then thought about a movie about a man showing typical dominant, or even tyrannical, being actually corrected by the women around him. Still, this setup never really intrigued me though and, to make things worse, the way they completely infantilized Viktor to make him change his ways was, in my opinion, rather pathetic. Seriously, they even brought his childhood’s nanny who treated him again as if he was 12 years old.

Notes: It’s pretty cool to keep discovering Harold Lloyd’s work after all these years and even though it might not to be one of his best movies, at least, not for me, it was still pretty good though. Indeed, even if it was still pretty random which is inherent to such vintage silent comedies, there was actually a plot. In fact, it was even shot in sequence probably because the focus was not really on the jokes (there were still plenty of them) but on the main character, Harold Lamb played of course by Harold Lloyd himself. Sure, Lloyd who was more than 30 years old was actually too old to play a young freshman in college but I think this character was a perfect fit for this comic genius. The other interesting thing about this movie was that Lloyd always wanted to shoot a movie about football/American football and the sports sequences turned out to be pretty decent after all. In fact, it was even one of the first, or even the very first sports movie ever made.

Notes: I was surprised to find out that it was actually Sergei Eisenstein's directorial debut as the damned thing was quite complex and ambitious for a first-timer. Still, to be honest, I have to admit that I had actually a rather hard time to get into the damned thing though. The fact that such Soviet propaganda movies actually never focused on the characters individually and instead handled the working class as one single character probably didn’t help. On the other hand, I have to admit that it was just quite inspiring and exhilarating to see this crowd of working men rising up all together against their bosses but also the whole system in general. Even if you believe that Communism and Socialism were the worst possible thing in the world, there was a time when an alternative was actually possible. At least, for a short while, it was explored and this alternative did provide something else than our current endless chase after financial profits and personal gain. The final act during which the ruthless repression took place was also strong and, unfortunately, felt quite realistic. It’s interesting that, when you read other reviews, they mostly focus on the technical aspects of this movie which was, for the time, apparently quite groundbreaking, but, to be honest, I didn’t focus too much on that.