Style2

Robin Hood (1922) Directed by Allan Dwan





(Review originally written at 6 August 2008)

Believe it or not but this isn't actually even the first Robin Hood movie ever made. Robin Hood movies already got made back in the 1910's both those movies are of course now days hard to come buy. This Robin Hood movie version was also presumed to be lost, until a print reappeared again somewhere in the '60's. It's the first Robin Hood adaptation though which featured many of the elements of the legend that would be featured in most later movie versions. So in many ways this was an unique and renewing movie for its time.

Still it's a slightly different movie version than you would expect for instance now days (we'll still have to wait how the Ridley Scott/Russell Crowe version will turn out to be though, if it ever gets off the ground). The difference is mostly notable in the movie its first halve, which focuses mostly on the crusades Earl of Huntingdon/Robin Hood with King Richard the Lion-Hearted ventures on. Basically the movie its first halve is one big introduction till the movie hits the point at which the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes the courageous and honorable thief with the good intentions Robin Hood. This is also when the fun mostly kicks in.

The movie features some grand sets and mass sequences. It's a very detailed made movie, that looks perfect and spectacular in basically every shot, with its costumes, set dressing and large castles. The castle as featured in this movie is actually the largest ever built set in a silent Hollywood production. It also was the most expensive movie ever made at its time with its $1.4 million budget. The movie was also the first to get a large Hollywood release at its time, in the Grauman's Egyptian Theatre, which is still around now days.

It's a movie that very skillfully got directed by already very experienced director Allan Dwan, who during his career directed a total of 404 movies, starting in 1911 and ending his career in 1961. He even directed plenty more films (about 3 times as much), when also considering his one-reeler's. He could had directed plenty of more movies though, when considering that he didn't died until 1981. But he must had probably been fed up with film-making or modern film-making anyway. He directed mostly adventurous and swashbucklers, so he truly was a perfect pick for this movie. It was the last movie he did with Douglas Fairbanks. They made a total of 11 movies together, of which this one and "The Iron Mask" are the best known ones which they did together.

It stars Douglas Fairbanks as the main lead, so of course this movie is a swashbuckler with plenty of action in it but what sort of disappointed me about the movie was that it wasn't really always an entertaining one. It seems to me that the movie is a bit too serious at times, instead of adventurous, entertaining and action filled. The movie is often more emotional and dramatic than fun to watch really. This is mostly why I still prefer the 1938 Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie version above this one, no matter how great it's all looking.

It's really the movie its second halve which still makes this such a fun movie to watch. The story becomes more light and even a bit comical. It's fun seeing Robin Hood being chased around in a castle by a bunch of soldiers. Of course Douglas Fairbanks was doing all of his own stunts again and he shows some dangerous antics again in this movie, like only he could back in his days. The movie is quite long though and the movie just never gets fully over its contract between its first and second halve.

A wonderful looking and great, yet really not perfect, swashbuckling entertainment from the 1920's.

8/10

Häxan (1922) Directed by Benjamin Christensen



(Review originally written at 28 April 2007)

This movie is a great achievement when it comes down to the technical aspects of the movie. The movie is visually a great one but story-wise not an entirely successful one.

Its visuals are truly the thing that makes this movie such a remarkable piece of work. The movie is nicely put together with the use of drawn pictures from books, miniatures and life action. To be honest, the slide-show and miniature elements were often more effective and impressive and interesting to watch than the life action sequences with actors. Nevertheless, the movie also features some great looking costumes and make-up effects. Especially the devil looks terrific, though he also looks about as formulaic as can be but that maybe also is the beauty of it.


In the beginning the movie still shows a good balance between the 'slide-show elements' of the storytelling and its life-action sequences. The movie remains almost entirely on its visuals. The movie feels like a history book that is being read to you, complete with fantasy and nightmare like images. However toward the ending the movie almost entirely becomes life-action, which really isn't the movie its strongest point. The story and sequences are often overlong and also quite confusing to follow. Story-wise the movie isn't always the easiest one to follow, since its visuals also makes sure that this movie always has a nightmarish, strange and certainly unique feeling all over it, that provide the movie with some beautiful but also strange and difficult to understand and follow, moments.


At first the movie seems to be a sort of documentary like telling of witchcraft through the ages. However toward the end it becomes more and more obvious that this movie is way more than that, as it begins to show parallels between the middle ages and modern life, mainly regarding the position of women and treatment of mental states and such. So the movie also makes a clear- and thought provoking statement and you can actually wonder to yourself what has changed between 1922 and this present day, regarding all those subjects. Parelles between events in this movie and modern day life and society can still be drawn, which is both interesting but also shocking to note.


A great to watch and also interesting movie regarding the subject of witchcraft, that is still being considered to be one of the most ultimate resources on the subject and inspired many, later film-makers.


8/10

Foolish Wives (1922) Directed by Erich von Stroheim




(Review originally written at 28 March 2007)

Normally I enjoy watching old movies from the '20's, even the more slower paced one's but this movie just didn't do it for me, although it also is of course far from the worst I have ever seen.
The movie has a good enough story but it isn't exactly the most intriguing or tense stories to follow. Lots of sequences don't seem to have a relevant enough importance. It might have to do with the fact that the original length of the movie was over 6 hours long, which might had shown some of the relevance of certain sequences and characters but there is really no way I'm ever going to watch this longer version. The movie was already overlong as it was. The movie didn't had very much interesting drama in it and although the main character seemed intriguing, it just didn't worked out powerful enough in the movie.


The movie also isn't as technically advanced as some of the other movies from the same time period, clearly directed by more talented and more experimental directors such as F.W. Murnau, Fritz Lang, Victor Sjöström and D.W. Griffith, among others.


But this all of course doesn't mean that the movie is a bad one to watch. The story of a fake Russian aristocratic lady-killer in Monte Carlo trying to get money from rich ladies as on its own quite a good story and in a way for movie standards also ahead of its time. Many more movies like this one, in many different forms were made and are still being made, many years later now. In this particular case this is a movie I wouldn't mind seeing remade, perhaps also with some more humor in it and a more clear message. The movie also uses some quite good camera positions, on a positive note.


Also the acting is good enough, though Miss DuPont seems heavily miscast as a pretty 21 year young girl. She is too old looking for her role and she also most certainly wasn't pretty enough to find the story very convincing. Same perhaps goes for Dale Fuller. Erich von Stroheim plays the real main part of the movie and he does this with lots of flair. He also wrote and directed the movie. Laurel & Hardy regular Mae Busch shows up in a serious role for a change and it was refreshing to see her like that for a change.


Certainly a watchable movie but really no essential viewing in my opinion.


6/10

Nanook of the North (1922) Directed by Robert J. Flaherty



(Review originally written at 21 March 2007)

This is not fully a documentary, since Robert J. Flaherty had to forcefully put in some staged elements. Also the characters in the movie did not really lived that way as seen in this movie and they weren't even related in fact, just put together for this movie. Nevertheless the movie still gives a interesting and detailed look into the lives of the Inuit people. You also have to watch this movie in perspective, back in 1922, really nobody was really familiar with how people lived on the Artic. In that regard "Nanook of the North" is a really insightful and interesting movie for its time, that I bet was watched with great interested at the time of its release.

It's of course not the earliest 'documentary', since in the early days of cinema, the medium was almost entirely purely used for documenting events, such as the building of a skyscraper. But this however without doubt is one of the earliest- if not earliest, full length featured 'documentary'. All the more reason why the movie is a sort of significant and essential movie.


The movie concentrates on a family of Eskimo's (Inuit) and their everyday live. Basically their entire life is about one thing; finding food for the day, for survival. Everything they do evolves around food. Quite ironic actually that months after this movie was finished Nanook (Allakariallal) died of starvation.


The movie flows well and features some interesting sequences. It's actually hard to believe that they really followed the family for a year, since the eventual end result looks like it also could had been shot in one month or even less. The movie concentrates on the most interesting aspects of their life, though I definitely wouldn't want to trade with them.


The movie is very well put together and since it's a silent movie, it allows its images to tell the entire story. It in a way certainly makes this movie all the more powerful and effective to watch. the landscapes are dull and cold but in this movie they're made to look as lively and warm.


Despite that it's over 80 years old already, the movie is still perfectly good and informative to watch.


8/10

Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler - Ein Bild der Zeit (1922) Directed by Fritz Lang



(Review originally written at 10 March 2007)

This is the movie that features one of fist arch-criminals, Dr. Mabuse. A manipulative character, who by hypnosis manipulates people and set them up against each other and steal their money, by letting him play card games against him, while he lets his opponents deliberately loose, even when they have the better cards. He manipulates for more money and the love from respectable woman but also most definitely purely for his own pleasure. It doesn't need to be explained why Dr. Mabuse is evil, he just simply IS. That is what makes a great and memorable movie villain.

Definitely true that the second halve of the movie is better than the first. In the second halve the movie really starts to take pace and form. Does it make the first part obsolete? I think not. It perfectly shows how manipulative Dr. Mabuse and the characters also get strongly developed in it. But yes, it's definitely true that the movie is a long sit. Almost 4 hours is of course a long time (and there even is a longer version). It does not ever make the movie bad or boring but it does make it a bit tiresome at times. The movie also isn't easy to follow but that often is the curse of early narrative full-length movies from the '10's and '20's of the previous century.


For 60% of the movie, the movie concentrates on card games. Some of the sequence involving the games are made to look more exciting and and tense than in any James Bond movie ever had been the case.


The movie uses some good early cinematic ticks and also some interesting storytelling techniques such as some interesting fast flashbacks, to help to remind to the viewer of what happened earlier in the story.


The movie also shows some early film-noir tendencies and other thriller and mystery elements. Not just with its story, psychological thriller elements or style of film-making but also with its characters. The main villain Dr. Mabuse is of course the best example of this. He plays an early full-blooded big movie villain, who is also being accompanied by a couple of typical crook-like looking henchmen. All elements that later would become defining for the genre. The movie is about good versus evil, in good early cinematic form.


Some of the tricks make sure that the movie is filled with a couple of memorable and effective sequences, mainly regarding the manipulative hypnosis sequences, by Dr. Mabuse. It makes the movie highly imaginative and original, though it all obviously is not as revolutionary as the other Fritz Lang classics; "Metropolis" and "M".


Of course by todays standards the acting in the movie is definitely over-the-top. Fritz Lang never casted actors just because of their acting skills but also because of their powerful looks. It all helps to make the early acting in Lang movies still fascinating and powerful to watch. Bernhard Goetzke as the state attorney von Welk is a great 'main-hero' for the movie. Of course Rudolf Klein-Rogge is also great as Dr. Mabuse and so is Alfred Abel, though I liked him in "Metropolis" even better.


Definitely worth seeing, if you can handle its long running time.


9/10

Top