Style2

Ten Dollars or Ten Days (1924) Directed by Del Lord

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 8:06 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,



Foremost reason why I really liked this slapstick is because it has plenty of creativity to it.

It's so easy and temping for a slapstick to take the formulaic and safe road with its visuals gags and story developments but I do feel that in the case of this movie some more creativity went into it. There are plenty of original moments in the movie, that often are random but therefore also unexpected and funny to watch.

The movie doesn't even necessarily focuses on just its main character, played by Ben Turpin. Normally most of the situations featuring only secondary characters never works out that very well in a slapstick, or at least not as effective when compared to all of the comedy involving the main characters. In this movie this however really isn't being the case. The movie is consistently fun and funny to watch, no matter who is on the screen at the moment.

And the story, well of course you shouldn't worry abut that at all while watching this movie. It's very random all and the movie pretty much can be divided into 3 parts, each taking place at a different locations, with also mostly different characters involved.

Still of course the most important thing about these type of slapstick movies is the slapstick itself. And yes, luckily this movie has some real good and funny slapstick in it, that got well timed and executed. Besides, the movie doesn't ever feels like its starting to repeat itself with some of its jokes, which again, is something that it is part of the reason why I regard this as a very creative slapstick movie, from the silent era.

A perfectly watchable and also real funny Ben Turpin slapstick!

8/10

Das Wachsfigurenkabinett (1924) Directed by Leo Birinsky & Paul Leni

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 10:48 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 19 April 2008)

This is a movie that features 3 kind of different stories, when the owner of a wax museum hires a writer to write 3 stories for 3 of his models; Harun al Raschid, Ivan the Terrible and Jack the Ripper. It provides the movie with 3 different stories, set at different times and each with a new different main character, played by the finest 3 German actors of their time period. It's a very creative and interesting concept, also of course really when considering that this movie got made in 1924.

In order to keep all of the stories still somewhat connected and make the movie more coherent as a whole, all of the stories feature the two actors William Dieterle and Olga Belajeff, each time in different roles. But when you have 2 stories of about halve an hour and then another one of just 5 minutes, can you still really call this movie a coherent one? It can be presumed that budgeting reasons was the reason why the last story of the movie is so much shorter. It was originally even planned to shoot a fourth story about Rinaldo Rinaldini. The character can still be seen at the start of movie, standing between the other waxed characters. Even though all stories are different and set in completely different time periods, they still have the same overall style over it, which still is a reason why this movie still feels like a whole one.

All the episodes are good looking but the stories for it aren't always that interesting. Basically since it at times it kind of dragging and despite some early action and adventure elements, the movie still is sort of a lackluster. Well lack-lusting perhaps isn't the right way to describe it. It's more that it's not really engaging enough at all times.

But of course the looks and style of the movie compensate a lot. This is a real expressionistic German movie, with some fantastic distinctive expressionistic sets. That alone already makes this movie for the lovers of German expressionistic style an absolute must-see.

It's absolutely a great fact that this movie features Emil Jannings, Conrad Veidt and Werner Krauss, who were really the biggest, best known and best German actors of their time. The movie also features William Dieterle, who later gained more fame as a director of movies such as "The Life of Emile Zola" and the 1939 version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", with Charles Laughton.

It's basically a fun entertaining movie from the early '20's, that is truly worth watching for plenty of reasons.

8/10

Greed (1924) Directed by Erich von Stroheim

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:33 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 25 August 2007)

"Greed" is one of the most notorious partially lost movies. Even though we'll probably be never able to watch the full 9 hour+ version of the movie as Erich von Stroheim intended to, the 1999 restored TCM version gives us a pretty good idea of what Erich von Stroheim intended and how great and epic this movie really was and still is, despite not being available in its full glory. I'm not Erich von Stroheim greatest fan but this movie was simply great.

It's the first feature length MGM movie, when it was still called Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corporation, even though it also had Louis B. Mayer as one of the producers and obvious big man behind the movie. The fact that it's the first feature length MGM movie should alone already interest the movie buffs.

Because most of the original 9 hour footage got destroyed by the studio, only a fraction of the movie as it was originally intended to by the director still exists today. The original released version was over 2 hours long and in 1999 a restored 4 hour version of the movie was made, to honor this movie and as a attempt to make the movie the way Erich von Stroheim wanted us to see it. However because most footage got destroyed and is assumed to be lost forever, the restored version uses lots of production stills. It's similar to the way "London After Midnight" got restored. Non-moving pictures of course aren't the best way to watch a motion picture. Because of the lack of moving images, the movie gets forced to use lots of title cards, which make the movie a bit tiresome and overlong at parts but also at the same time definitely helps to tell the story and make things clear. Something that the restored version of "London After Midnight" lacked at times. I don't know if the cut down 2 hour+ version of the movie also uses many title cards (guess its not as many) since I haven't seen the cut down 2 hour+ version of the movie but I think its fair to comment just on the 4 hour restored version of the movie, since it obviously comes the most close to the way Erich von Stroheim originally intended this movie to be.

The movie begins as one without worries and with all of the usual character introductions and love/drama. However from the moment on when the $5000 gets won, the people in the movie and the story suddenly changes. The movie perfectly shows the effect greed can have on people. Suddenly everybody wants a piece of it and some even go really far to get it but also the persons with the money start to get greedy and suspicious of the society around them. The greed starts to destroy friendship, relations and the individuals, which eventually all leads up to the fantastic climax of the movie, set in Death Valley. It makes "Greed" a really powerful and effective movie to watch, that is quite similar to D.W. Griffith earliest epic work. The messages and morals ('money doesn't make happy') of it all and the epic way it gets delivered are all comparable.

I really liked the fast paced editing of the movie, with lots of different camera-angels for one sequence. It helps to make this movie more than just another average genre piece from the '20's. Still there are some sequences in the movie that simply go on for far too long. I don't I completely disagree with the studio bosses wanting to cut this movie down, though they in this case did it to the extreme- and inexcusable way, without even knowing the book or script of the movie, which obviously went to the expense of the movie and its story and flow.

The movie doesn't have the most interesting main character. Gibson Gowland just isn't the most charismatic or interesting looking actor. It also doesn't help that he looks like Torgo from "Manos: The Hands of Fate", especially toward the ending of the movie. Zasu Pitts on the other hand was perfectly cast. The supporting actors are all charismatic in their roles, though the movie perhaps tried a bit too hard to put many characters, with story-lines into the movie. It works on some levels, especially for the morals of the movie but it also makes the movie tiresome and at times perhaps even hard to follow.

A must-see for (silent)movie lovers.

8/10

Der letzte Mann (1924) Directed by F.W. Murnau

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 3:50 AM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,





(Review originally written at 12 August 2007)

This is such a great- and even better told story. It features normal average persons who get in some realistic difficulties and struggle with life. You can just feel how heartbroken the old man is after loosing his job and the respect he had among the community because of his uniform. Yeah, uniforms were still a that big thing at that time. The movie especially does a good job with showing the contrasts between the 'two worlds', of money and respectability and poor and being just considered average, or even less. It makes "Der Letzte Mann" such a powerful and effective movie!

I love it when a silent movie doesn't use too many or hardly any title cards. Just let the images tell the story. It takes a great director to do this but F.W. Murnau was obviously one of the best, not just of his time but of all time!

The movie is filled with some greatly made and looking memorable sequences, such as a couple of great dream-like- and surrealistic sequences. In those sequences it becomes once all the more obvious how great of a director F.W. Murnau was.

The movie is filled and even more uplifted by its fantastic camera-work! I love it when old movies use early movement-effects and pans and zooms, though obviously the movie doesn't use this all the time. Especially the beginning is memorable, when the movie opens with one of the first ever hand-held camera shots. It's different from the normal usual static camera-work from the '20's and '30's. But also the lighting of the movie is absolutely phenomenal. It gives the movie such a good, warm and effective powerful look. The same goes for the fast and nimble editing and compositions, that make the story flow extremely well. Old movies normally feel distant because of the old fashioned style and look. But not this one!

The movie was obviously mostly shot at studios and the street sets look like they were made out of cardboard (which they most likely also were) but that is all part of the charm of these expressionistic German movies from the '20's, such as also "Metropolis", "Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari" and "Faust".

The make-up effects are perhaps an underrated aspect of the movie. I mean it's not a 'make-up' movie, such as "Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens" or "Faust" (both also directed by F.W. Murnau by the way) but remember that Emil Jannings was in his early 40's during this movie, though he truly looked like he was in his 60's or so. So some really effective and convincing make-up effects here! If you didn't knew any better you would just think that this movie had a 60 year old playing the main character.

A great, powerful- but also beautiful movie experience, from F.W. Murnau!

10/10

Sherlock Jr. (1924) Directed by Buster Keaton

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 4:28 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 27 July 2007)

As much as everybody seems to love this movie, I just don't count this among Keaton's best. It's a very creative movie but I feel that it also could had been made more fun.

Nevertheless, Buster Keaton movies from the '20's of course always remain a must-see. Keaton was unique in its sort, not only was he a great comedy-actor with excellent timing he also was an awesome stuntman, in the period when stunts weren't halve as safe as they are now.

What makes this movie especially distinct itself from other genre pieces made in the same period is the enormous amount of creativity in the movie. There are some unforgettable and brilliantly constructed sequences, such as the one in which Keaton literally enters a movie in the theater he works in. I still don't understand how they created those effects! The movie keeps changing locations with Keaton in it and he falls, runs and hides, without the camera ever moving, or the movie cutting. The movie is filled with more creative sequences such as this one and other daring stunts that look amazing.

There isn't much to the story of course really. In my opinion its also not really the most interesting one the genre has ever provided but it provides the movie with some fun moments and sequences nevertheless.

Not the best in its genre but for '20's standards a truly excellent movie!

7/10

The Thief of Bagdad (1924) Directed by Raoul Walsh

Posted by: Frank Veenstra Posted date: 12:30 PM / comment : 0 , , , , , , , ,



(Review originally written at 16 July 2007)

This movie is great fun to watch, like you would expect from a genre movie such as this one. It has all the typical adventurous, action and comedy elements present to make this a great swashbuckling movie. Add to that Douglas Fairbanks in good shape and you have a classic unforgettable genre movie!

Douglas Fairbanks is totally great in this one. He looks, acts, breaths, eats like a real superstar. He handles all of the athletic action in the movie really well. It's not hard to see why this man was THE swashbuckling hero of the '20's.

The movie is really great looking, with many grand looking sets. Really great looking stuff! (though obviously all fake.) Something you would normally expect to see in a D.W. Griffith movie. The movie also has some silly looking but yet great early special effects, toward the ending of the movie.

The story has all the ingredients needed for such a genre movie as this one; an heroic main character, a love interest, stereotypical villains and lots of fun and action. Especially toward the ending the movie starts to become greatly adventurous after a sort of slower middle and good first part. It's of course all rather simple and formulaic but this is also what makes the genre so great. You just always know what to expect. It's good simple fun that's professionally and well made, that's also beautiful to look at.

Also definitely fun to see how much of this movie was later used again in Disney's "Aladdin". Some, mostly action sequences, are obviously almost directly copied.

A great fun movie, from swashbuckling-specialist director Raoul Walsh.

9/10
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Copyright © 2014 Boba_Fett1138's movie reviews
⬆
Top