Style2

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) Directed by Rex Ingram





(Review originally written at 1 December 2007)

The first halve of the movie already makes a great movie on its own, in which it focuses on the more dramatic and romantic aspects. Everything you would expect from a Rudolph Valentino movie. But the movie gets even better halve way trough, starting with the prophecy of the four horseman of the apocalypse, at the dawn of WW I. The movie then becomes such a great and powerful anti-war movie. It's the sort of 'war and peace' approach of the movie that makes it so great as well as effective.

In its storytelling and compositions the movie was at least 20 years ahead of its time. At times while watching this movie it's really hard to believe that this movie was made in the very early '20's. It has some amazing powerful striking images, such as the visualization of the actual four horseman of the apocalypse and a couple of sequence toward the ending, which I'm not going to spoil.

The movie features some religious themes, but it isn't done in a preachy or distracting way. It's sort of done in the same way as in the "Ben-Hur" movies. It's beautifully weaved into the story, without scaring off the non-religious persons.

The movie can be a called an epic because of its story and storytelling but also because of its images. The early battle sequences are all grand and impressive looking (although its obvious that some of it is simply archive footage, from presumable WW I) and so are its settings. It of course helps that the movie is set throughout in different places and continents as well.

Despite that this is Rudolph Valentino's first real big movie role and this was the movie that made him a big star, it isn't really a Valentino movie, in the sense of that he is the one and main hero of the movie. The movie throughout focuses on a lot of character and only in the middle part it focuses prominently on Valentino.

Truly one of the best and most powerful movies out of the silent era.

10/10

Orphans of the Storm (1921) Directed by D.W. Griffith



(Review originally written at 16 March 2007)

Basiscly in essence this movie is a very original and pleasant take on the French revolution, when the monarchy got replaced by the republic. The story is told through the viewpoint of two sister, of which one is also blind, who get separated, during the events that lead up to the eventual French revolution and its aftermath. It's a great and original way to tell the story, without ever becoming too 'historical', with that I'm meaning that it doesn't turn into a dull history-class lesson.

It's an amazing looking and crafted costume drama that above all is also really well told. Leave it up to D.W. Griffith to tell a grand epic story. Of course the movie is mostly melodramatic, like basically every other genre movie from the same time period. And melodramatic or not, the movie and its emotions work really well. It makes this a really effective movie to watch, though it's definitely not only just drama but the movie in its overall style is quite light (especially compared to other D.W. Griffith movies) and even leaves room for plenty of humor, despite it's heavy and dramatic undertone.


D.W. Griffith movies have always contained humor, mostly of the small and subtle sort, that often worked refreshing from its more heavy and dramatic elements. This movie is no exception and even has a comical relief in it, in the form of Creighton Hale, as the servant Chevalier de Vaudrey. The movie actually features quite a lot slapstick humor, especially in its second halve. It proofs that D.W. Griffith had a great sense for timing.


The movie is filled with many characters and also features many developing plot lines. The movie is however definitely not as tiresome and overlong as with other D.W. Griffith movies sometimes is the case. This movie knows to keep your interested because of its fantastic story and the well it's told and made to look in the eventual end movie. The movie is also not as hard to follow as with many other silent movies often is the case. I think this is also due to the more 'light' way of storytelling. It's obvious that the movie makers wanted to entertain its viewers.


The many characters are being played by some fine actors, although of course their performances are definitely over-the-top all by todays standards. The real life sisters Lillian and Dorothy Gish play also the two sisters in this movie, in their last movie role together. Lillian is of course the best known of the two, definitely thanks to D.W. Griffith's other movies but Dorothy in this movie shows that she is just as talented. The two also have a really great chemistry together on the screen which definitely helps the movie and its story. Joseph Schildkraut plays a great. pretty looking, noble and heroic character. But especially great in this movie are the 'villains'. The movie has a wide variety of villainous characters, from many different classes. The aristocratic villains are great, mainly also because of their looks and style of acting but also the characters from the lower classes such as Jacques-Forget-Not and the vile Mother Frochard are great. All of the characters are really powerful and the movie manages to give each of them a defining personality.


The movie gives a good and detailed look into the Parisian aristocratic lifestyle of the 18th century. It also perfectly explains how and why the French revolution occurred, without ever loosing its main focus on the dramatic story lines of the two sisters, who in essence don't really have anything to do with the revolution. They're just at the wrong place and the wrong time with the wrong people. The French revolution merely serves as a backdrop for the movie.


The movie has a great look, with impressive looking sets and especially costumes. You can definitely describe this movie as a costume-drama in my opinion. There also are some great mass sequences and battles, all of course part of the D.W. Griffith trademark style of film-making.


The race against the clock sort of ending is totally fantastic. It's tense and extremely well build up and executed. The eventual end of the movie is also really great, in which everything reach a satisfying conclusion. It suits the genre and especially this movie, really well. The movie left me with a great happy feeling and the overall movie made a big impression on me.


Not even D.W. Griffith's best (that really says something about his other movies!) but certainly his most pleasant to watch- and entertaining one.


10/10

Körkarlen (1921) Directed by Victor Sjöström



(Review originally written at 28 February 2007)

Not as well known as the English, American, German and French cinema, though cinema from Sweden from the '20's was also quite good, interesting and revolutionary.

This is a movie that is made great by its story. The story is told in 'A Christmas Carol' kind of way, in which the death himself confronts the deceased with his past, present and what could have been. It's of course a story that concentrates on morals and it does this very well. The message comes across as very powerful and effective. This is of course also definitely due to the effective directing from the father of Swedish cinema; Victor Sjöström.

The story is based on the novel by other Swedish author Selma Lagerlöf. The story is adapted by Victor Sjöström himself, who perhaps should had taken out a few more elements, to let the story and movie flow better. It perhaps takes a bit too long before the movie starts to take form and the story gets clear but when the movie does take form and pace it becomes a really wonderful one.


The movie does not only have a great story, it also is a good looking one. The movie uses some early and effective effects and uses some different color filters to create the right mood and to indicate what it past, present and 'future'.


Sjöström did not only wrote and directed this movie, he also plays the main character. Of course the acting in the movie is over-the-top at times, by todays standards but not as bad as in for instance early German movies was the case. And after all, this movie is more about its story and morals than it is about the acting, so it really doesn't matter much, or distracts.


A really great and effective underrated silent-movie classic from Sweden.


9/10

The Lucky Dog (1921) Directed by Jess Robbins





(Review originally written at 14 July 2006)

This is the very first movie with Laurel & Hardy as a comical duo, even though the two appear as enemies in this movie instead as friends. So I don't really consider this movie as a Laurel & Hardy picture.

The first halve of the movie is the best. Stanley Laurel plays the maim character in the movie and he yet again gets himself into some silly trouble. Ironicaly from the moments Oliver Hardy makes his entrance the movie goes downhill. The movie starts to get incoherent and messy, especially in the final few sequences.

Of course this movie is historically still an interesting to watch, since its the first movie in which Laurel & Hardy appear together in sequences. So for fans this still remains a sort of a must-see. Also fans of the early slapstick humor will still find plenty to enjoy in this movie. The movie is certainly better than the most other slapstick movies, made from the same period. For everyone else this movie probably remains a messy, incoherent silent comedy short that isn't really worth watching.

6/10

Top