I'm not going to give away any of the plot in this review, it's worth simply watching the film and going with it.
However, I did want to address a couple of things in previous reviews.
Firstly there is a review from MARIO GAUCI that isn't exactly complementary. The thing is, the reviewer clearly saw a very inferior print of the movie, likely missing almost 30 minute3s of footage.
Like all movies, you really ought to give the benefit of the doubt to movies that you're seeing in 16mm reductions prints with a third of the film (which, true, at the time the other DVD of this came out, was considered "lost") missing. If you're into silent film, then don't go the cheapo route - spend the money on good restorations, it really pays dividends.
Secondly there is mention of the acting here being "stagey". This is a comment I see often, but i never truly understand it. This was made in 1921! If you're watching a piece of early cinema you can't expect the realism that we see on the screen today. Not only did the rules of cinema not exist at the time these films were made, but the technology available at the tie didn't allow for it. The call this film "stagey" is, if you don't mind me saying, rather ignorant. What did you expect? Instead, approach this for what it is. It is an early mystery film. There are some good performances, but I mostly enjoyed the shots of the rain drenched roads and fields. The dream sequences do a good job of balancing fear and comedy, and while the plot is rather transparent to modern minds, if you can set aside your critique and just allow the film to wash over you, it really works quite well.
However, I did want to address a couple of things in previous reviews.
Firstly there is a review from MARIO GAUCI that isn't exactly complementary. The thing is, the reviewer clearly saw a very inferior print of the movie, likely missing almost 30 minute3s of footage.
Like all movies, you really ought to give the benefit of the doubt to movies that you're seeing in 16mm reductions prints with a third of the film (which, true, at the time the other DVD of this came out, was considered "lost") missing. If you're into silent film, then don't go the cheapo route - spend the money on good restorations, it really pays dividends.
Secondly there is mention of the acting here being "stagey". This is a comment I see often, but i never truly understand it. This was made in 1921! If you're watching a piece of early cinema you can't expect the realism that we see on the screen today. Not only did the rules of cinema not exist at the time these films were made, but the technology available at the tie didn't allow for it. The call this film "stagey" is, if you don't mind me saying, rather ignorant. What did you expect? Instead, approach this for what it is. It is an early mystery film. There are some good performances, but I mostly enjoyed the shots of the rain drenched roads and fields. The dream sequences do a good job of balancing fear and comedy, and while the plot is rather transparent to modern minds, if you can set aside your critique and just allow the film to wash over you, it really works quite well.