Change Your Image
ostia666
Reviews
Prinsengracht (1899)
Unconscious heart of darkness
This movie had such an impact on me... It was astonishing! All right, I may be exaggerating, but it brought out some strange feelings in me, which happens to be the main reason why I'd like to review it.
Prinsengracht is one of the main canals of Amsterdam. While on board of a ship, we'll get to see the city buildings, its bridges, and every day scenes: from people walking down the streets to carriages, other ships and so on. It's just a regular non fiction movie -hundreds alike were made showing beautiful (sometimes not so) exotic places-. But this one was particularly special to me, must have been its saddened atmosphere.
Filmed by Emile Lauste (according to the information I've compiled), this man was sent over to the Netherlands by the Biograph Company to film some movies in this country (Lumière agents worked in a very similar way). In fact, a Dutch Biograph & Mutoscope Company was established as a subsidiary, but it would be closing down a couple of years later, after releasing just a few films.
So, this is a beautiful unpretentious movie. It's not meant to teach you anything (as a matter of fact it won't), it's just an inner-journey that made me feel like Marlow sailing upriver. But once again, I may be exaggerating... Anyhow, take a look at it, it won't hurt you. In case you've never been to Amsterdam, you'll get to know what it was like. In case you ever visited the place, this movie will sure make you nostalgic. Those good old days...
Solomon Roth
Programme Nadar (1896)
Unoriginal early filmmaker
Given that no one has deigned to comment on this movie I feel compelled to since this film pioneer can't be overlooked any longer. Paul Nadar was a photographer, he specialized hinmself in famous people and his portrait of Sarah Bernhardt is one of his notorious works.
To start off, this is NOT a movie... It's 6 movies! put together. Since film techniques were yet to be developed, filmmakers would let the camera roll till the roll was over and suddenly stopped. This gives us, in this particular case, films that go slightly over one minute long. In 1950, once Nadar was dead, the French government purchased his material. His films ended up at the Cinémathèque française where they were restored by mythic Henry Langlois helped by his assistant Marie Epstein (Jean Epstein's sister). The films were edited together and released under the title Programme Nadar by 1970.
Supposedly, this material was filmed in 1896, but who knows for sure. Four of the filmed pieces consist of dances. Two of the dancers have been successfully identified as Carlotta Zambelli (ballet) and Loie Fuller -who performs a serpentine dance in this movie, pretty much like the ones filmed at the Edison studios-, as a matter of fact, the black walls in the back remind very much of Edison's Black Maria studio. The two last films share no relation with the others (all of them are hardly related to one another either way, as I said, we're talking about different films edited together). Well, the two we get to see in the end consist of crowded places. The camera is placed in a public square in one of them and in a nearby street, I believe, in the last one.
This movie can't get a fresh rating since it shouldn't even exist. It is purely Langlois' film obsession. Buy, analyzing them separately, we can conclude that Nadar did not evolve the medium. His films merely copy what others had made before. Anyway, we've got his point of view here.
Solomon Roth
Jön az öcsém (1919)
Dispensable political pamphlet
This review won't add much more to what my comrades have pointed out about the movie but I'd like to share my opinion as well because Michael Curtiz is one of a few good directors that made it successfully from silent movies to talkies. Unfortunately, most of his work from his first period is lost, so let's break it down here and now.
Jön az öcsém (My Brother is Coming) isn't only Curtiz's sole surviving Hungarian film but also the last one he made in his native homeland before leaving the country abruptly leaving what would've been the first on screen adaptation of Liliom unfinished. Now, for a 1919 movie Jön az öcsém, put simply, sucks. Its runtime (11 minutes, 3 extra minutes to what the IMDb states) does not set the movie in a competitive position compared to others made at the time in different countries (average runtimes ranked from 50 to 90 minutes, sometimes more, at times less). The best of it is certainly the mise en scène, the tainting and the close-ups. Being all utilized in a very proper way. If you can't read Hungarian, the poem is lost aesthetically in the translation but hey, this is a movie, not a book. So that's no excuse.
This would've been an ambitious movie if made 10 years earlier but by 1919 one could expect much more. Even Griffith's 1910 The Unchanging Sea (also based on a poem, a very short one, to make matters worse for Jön az öcsém) was more ambitious! The actors' lack of experience works against the film as well, but to be honest, it was impossible to get any experienced actors from an industry that had just been born in 1912, when Curtiz's debut film was released. Besides, its propaganda message: workers of the world unite! clearly in accordance to Hungary's newly installed government turned the movie into a political pamphlet.
As a conclusion, Curtiz's talent was a wasted one in Hungary. If this movie ain't more ambitious it's just because the producers wouldn't take any chances. Directors, particularly Curtiz, would always be willing to take things one step further by attempting the more complex projects, the better. The only reason I don't rate it any lower is just because some of the images are beautiful. I'm sorry to say this but this movie is entirely dispensable, even to fans of Curtiz.
Solomon Roth
La maison ensorcelée (1906)
Scary
La maison ensorcelée is a remake of J. Stuart Blackton's The Haunted Hotel, which, at the same time, Chomón would remake more ambitiously the following year under the title The Electric Hotel. These remakes were the norm back in those days; as a consequence, copyright issues would arise but, until then, life was all a bowl of cherries to filmmakers.
Blackton's film was so successful in Europe, Pathé ordered Chomón to make a version of it and, even though some of the scenes (especially the one containing food being served on the table all by itself) are copied frame by frame, it isn't fair to give all the credit to Blackton since Segundo de Chomón had released his La maison hantée a year before The Haunted Hotel appeared. Who should we thank then? Méliès again. A bunch of tourists being harassed by spirits at some inn was certainly a recurrent subject matter in his movies, take The Black Devil as an example.
Regarding this movie, the two first scenes (introducing the atmosphere) are quite impressive: it's raining, the trees move as the wind blows and rays were added to the print causing a really shocking effect. It does look like a hell of a night (which couldn't be easy to portray so well in silent films). Three travelers take shelter in a house by the woods in which every kind of funny thing is going to happen: a ghost appears, clothes begin to fly all of the sudden, a painting comes to life, the house starts shaking up and so on.
The copy I had the chance to view came from the Nederlands Filmmuseum and I must say it was pretty neat and very well conserved too. The effects are very successful, scary even to this day; performances are good too, but once again it lacks originality. Chomón was an expert in imitating things and even though he did not invent anything, he helped to develop some important techniques. His use of the stop-motion in this movie is amazing. This is a great film I could watch all over again and again.
Solomon Roth
Dévaliseurs nocturnes (1904)
Underrated oeuvre
Not enjoying as much popularity as his contemporary counterparts (perhaps due to his brief career), Gaston Velle made of "Dévaliseurs nocturnes" (one of his earliest directional efforts) one of his very best films, being a rather ambitious one as well.
Its title pretty much gives away the plot of the story, so I won't give anything else away, but it's worth highlighting the bicycle tracking shot, which was quite impressive for a 1904 movie (even though we can now clearly tell the bicycle was standing on some sort of moving platform, possibly a freight car). There's a well-defined storyline where every detail is taken care of. Add the traditional happy ending in order to please audiences, then you've got an entertaining movie.
Don't expect much more about this. As I said, the movie is complex for its day but so were others, and, unfortunately, Gaston Velle doesn't bring anything new to the scene. We could even say this is a good movie we've already seen before, reaching out to the commercial film concept. The actors do a good deed, especially the burglars, looking even quite professional, whereas the good ones look just as clumsy and ridiculous as real clowns.
The movie drags a little in the end but that's just a modern point of view to it. These days, we've got to see so many thief pursuits, I was frankly much more impressed by the beginning rather than the by its end, but I'm sure audiences were thrilled back then. Finally, my favorite scene is an outdoors night scene at the beginning. I believe the atmosphere caused the impact on me but I also believe it turned out that way just by pure chance. Anyhow, the movie is well-paced, well-intentioned and very entertaining (as said earlier). That's why it deserves to rank almost as high as its contemporaries despite its lack in originality.
De wigwam (1911)
A forgotten little masterpiece
This movie is quite interesting for several reasons; first of all, it was the first movie directed by the renowned documentarist Joris Ivens, whose career would expand for almost 80 years! (that is, from this point till the late 80's). Secondly, it is an early dutch film (which happens to be quite unusual given that its industry has never been very flourishing), and thirdly (and most importantly), it is a western!
Now, how unusual could that be? Not as much as we may believe a priori. Westerns were becoming increasingly popular amongst audiences all over the world, hence westerns production had tripled from 1909 to 1910. Important directors such as Edwin S. Porter, D.W. Griffith or 'Broncho Billy' would shoot them regularly. Not only that, but in France the locally produced series 'Riffle Bill' would become quite popular too and french directors Joë Hamman or Jean Durand would produce their own westerns as well. All this proves that Europeans had a taste for American themes and their cinematographies were getting americanized long before WWI.
That said, let's get straight to the plot's core. The action is supposed to take place in Canada. A farmer family is first introduced in a very theatrical way. The parents come back from a trip and distribute gifts among their children. A native American kid (what used to be called an 'Indian' back them) comes in begging for something but he's literally kicked outta the area. The boy gets back to his camp wherein he explains the situation. In revenge, 'Black Eage' kidnaps one of the family's white kids. Flaming Arrow, an Indian friend, is called in by the parents to retrieve their missing child.
Easy plot, written by Joris Ivens himself, who also plays the leading role. The rest of the cast includes members of his own family. This film loses the game when compared to American, Italian or Danish films produced at the time. Yet, it is very well filmed, many title cards explain the action quite well. The Flaming Arrow's character was probably taken from previous films or western novels from the 19th century. Anyway, I think at least one scene is missing at the beginning, but still the plot is understandable. This film is built on the classical Manichean American western stereotype, nevertheless, it works out very well, specially for a dutch film made in 1911! The pacing was good and so were the actors and the story. Thumbs up for this neglected little masterpiece.
La caduta di Troia (1911)
Not among the best but decent, though
The Fall of Troy adapts the Iliad to the big screen format. I've had the opportunity to see a 25 minutes long print, but camera speed in the early days was so slow and rather jumpy at times, it's got to be readapted in current restorations so whether I've got to see the full version or some scenes are missing, I can't tell. The Iliad has always been both less epic and popular than her younger brother, the Oddyssey. Hence, Pastrone had hard work to accomplish upon making this one, yet he checked out just fine.
The story is a classic we're all familiar with, Paris kidnaps Menelaus' wife Helen, the Greeks take this as an offense declaring therefore war on Troy (homeland of Paris). After years of battling, the Greeks come up with the magnificent idea of building a wooden horse that will take them into Troy, setting the city on fire and winning the war like that. The movie misses some important parts as it fails to portray the allegorical Gods atmosphere, no trace of Achilles is shown either, and many other characters are missing as well: Hector, Cassandra, Ulysses or Zeus himself among many others.
Yet, the print was pretty well conserved and the great epic ending scene has pushed me into rating it 6 instead of 5 so that's one extra point thanks to the good taste it's left in my mouth. Other movies were better and more entertaining but Pastrone shows some of his talent and manages to make this work.
L'assommoir (1908)
Good (but not great) movie
Greatly surprised no one has commented on this movie yet. At the time of its release, L'Assommoir was hugely successful. Based on Zola's novel, this movie is about the free fall of human beings, deals with degradation, alcoholism and it is, in short, a very pessimistic story.
Reading the book first would help a lot understand the plot since the film is a little old-fashioned when it comes to introducing the scenes (very few intertitles explain the action rather than speaking for the characters). Dialogs wouldn't be introduced till the 10's, by then only a few years away, but despite its flaws at story-telling, the camera shots are quite complex for its day and it was beautifully filmed. If it were a talking picture, it certainly would be a great movie.
Director Albert Capellani was one of the greatest at the moment. The movie runs for over 35 minutes making it one of the longest released up to its date (10 to 12 minutes one-reelers were just the norm). Besides, it was the beginning of film d'art, and taking plots from famous novels would dignify the film industry. All this proves that L'assemmoir was a pioneer in many different aspects. Hence I can't even figure out how no one has commented on this one yet.
L'Odissea (1911)
Very good adaptation of the Odyssey
One of hundreds of movies produced by Milano films, L'Odissea is good enough to let us know why Italy was one of the world's top film producers before WWI. At a time in which most films ran for about 10-12 minutes, this half an hour film (part of it is said to be missing, so its length could be even longer) is quite an accomplishment.
The Oddysey is told to every last detail: from the departure from Ithaca to the adventures involving the cyclops Polyphemus, the sirens, the monster Scylla, the nymph Calypso, Nausicaa and her father Alcinous, the return of Ulysses and his fight against the suitors disguised as a beggar. The style is a little old-fashioned (anything prior to The Birth of a Nation could be considered as such) but the intertitles guide us very well throughout the entire movie (contrary to others in which we can easily get lost, take L'assommoir (1909) as an example). The special effects are good enough: Polyphemus is huge compared to Ulysses and his crew, and Scylla is quite impressive for a 1910 monster.
I believe comments from other users to have been very unfair to this movie that depicts the passages of the Odyssey quite well. The copy I got to see was a little worn; it could be one of the reasons why this movie does not rank as high as others but it definitely deserves a good chance.
La secta de los misteriosos (1914)
Incomplete Spanish serial of the early days
Following the success of "Los misterios de Barcelona", "La secta de los misteriosos" was a serial made as well in Barcelona (and actually released in 1916) by one of the top directors of the Spanish film industry (we should better say Catalan film industry, since all production facilities were based in Catalonia) at the time: Alberto Marro. Fed by the successful release of similar serials produced in France at the time (being "Fantomas" an outstanding predecessor to this one), "La secta de los misteriosos" was thought lost for many years until an incomplete copy exhibited in Austria and Germany in the 20's was found and underwent a partial restoration by the Cineteca del Friuli resulting into this film to which more than a half of the footage remains undiscovered.
The plot involves a gang of criminals (The Heron, The Fox and The African) hot on the the trail of a mysterious jewel. Divided in two different pieces, once put together, the jewel will lead its owner to a marvellous treasure. One of the pieces is owned by Dr. Planas whereas the other belongs to the countess of Bellevue. The burglars take the countess' part of the jewel as they kidnap her daughter. Inspector Hernandez helped by his faithful assistant Carlos will overcome every sort of danger in order to retrieve the jewel and rescue the girl unharmed.
Unfortunately, the plot gets badly damaged by the continuous jumps and the story becomes in straightforward terms unknowable, resulting so hard to follow the movie fails at catching the viewer's attention. The best of it is "the moor legend", used by one of the characters to embellish the jewel's background. The rest is nothing but a Feuillade wannabe film that brings nothing new to light. Had a proper restoration been performed and...who knows. But once most of the material couldn't be found, they must have thought: whatever is better than nothing. But "whatever" doesn't necessarily add up, that's why this movie, to me, doesn't make it.
Carne de fieras (1936)
Poor comedy-drama...who knows what it is!
"Carne de fieras" was filmed right before the Spanish Civil War broke out, hence the film was never released and it is now available to be watched just because the Filmoteca de Zaragoza took care of assembling it in 1992. Made in the summer of 1936 in Madrid, this movie takes good advantage of outdoor locations such as the Buen Retiro Park. The film provides the viewer with popular variety shows (as much as did other films at the time such as El Misterio de la Puerta del Sol), so we get to see folk dances, tango, boxing, circus, giggles comedy club... All in a row.
The title "Carne de fieras" could be roughly translated as "Wild Animals' Meat" and it echoes back to Hollywood's fixation on wild animals (from the Keystone comedies back in the 10's to 1938's Bringing Up Baby just to name some of them) which became very popular and appreciated in Europe too as portrayed in Eduardo Garcia Maroto's (aka Eddie White Tie) "Una de fieras", a hilarious parody on this sort of film featuring some wild creature.
Coming straight down to the plot, the movie examines the life of a regular man who rescues a young boy from drowning, catches his wife with another man and then falls in love with a circus star who reminds very much of Marlene Dietrich (her name is Marlene too, she's got a picture of the diva stuck on her dressing room's walls and is even referred to as Blonde Venus!). So the movie deals with as delicate issues as unfaithfulness, divorce and adoption in terms the Hays Code would've never allowed. Plus, the leading actress shows up completely naked twice (although covered by a micro thong). Another factor worth to be mentioned is that the leading actress and her companion speak nothing but french throughout the entire movie.
Up to this point do the innovations lead, the rest can't seem to simply work out well. Performances are at times poor and you can tell the actress is just a good-looking circus star who's never been in front of a camera for one thing. The kid, although tries his best to be funny turns out really unnatural. Curiously enough, the best performance in my view is given by Lucas, the mad servant, played by director Armand Guerra. The end proves quickly arranged to please audiences with a pathetic happy ending. Besides, there's at least one scene missing (when the kid is rescued) which dislodges the movie from its sensation of continuity; this becomes aggravated by synch failures or jump cuts at the various performances (which in the end make up minor mistakes after all). The story is simply silly and proves once again that Spanish Cinema during the Spanish Second Republic was just plain stupid and either so much freedom or free-thinking couldn't prevent the industry from collapsing. The movie is entertaining but it won't contribute to your personal development by any means.
Du rififi chez les hommes (1955)
Great hold-up scene but not worth watching
Let's be realistic: this isn't as good as 'The maltese falcon' or 'Touch of Evil' (the films that meant an opening and an ending to the film noir genre according to critics, even though we all know film noirs started long before that and have never been abandoned). Rififi (slang word for a street fight) deals with a hold-up in the beginning but turns into a revenge story while approaching to its end. The 30 minutes silence sequence in which the robbery takes place is certainly a masterpiece, as a matter of fact I didn't even realise it was so long and not even that it was completely noiseless! (so absorbed was I). But it is the only really worth thing within the movie.
Some of the actors are good, especially Jean Servais (who had become a top star in the 30's but was in his low days at the time Rififi was being made) and the director, Jules Dassin, who plays César, the Italian specialist in safes. This movie tries to poorly imitate her American contemporaries but then again, fails. It is sooo folkloric the club shown in the movie is called L'âge d'or (paying homage to Luis Buñuel), a woman sings a local song which gives the movie its title (this reminds me of Jean Vigo's 'L'atalante' which the producers released under the title 'La chaland qui passe', name of a very popular song at the time). It, to sum up, is plain french fries without the main course.
The film has influenced popular culture so much that a lot of films released in Europe in the following years would be called: Rififi whatever... Even the word riffraff is said to be originated from this term. It was the film that showed that Europe could do good film noirs too, only that I can't agree. Even Truffaut said about it: the best film noir I've ever seen. Well, his words are never to be believed since he is sooo french he preferred the french dubbed version of 'Fahrenheit 451' rather than the original (no comment on that).
The female character was one of the worst I ever saw in film history, being treated like an ornament, but the main problem is the pace, most french films have always been so slow it almost makes someone doze off on the chair; besides, the plot twist (which should be one of the pros and quickly becomes a con) turns the movie into a stupid vengeance thriller in which Servais struggles to change his character into some sort of tough cowboy in lust for revenge. Pathetic. Near the end, we see an abandoned place which reminds very much of the one shown in 'The french connection', only in the latter it wasn't so pathetic. A fight of egos takes place and everyone loses, above all the movie. So don't waste your time on this, if you wanna see a hold-up you should see Kubrick's 'The Killing'. Only if the hold-up scene could be taken away from the movie, it would get a 10 rating, otherwise the entire movie is an entire mess.
Quo Vadis? (1913)
Astonishing masterpiece
Perhaps the best film made to its date, 'Quo Vadis?' is an astonishing masterpiece. At a time in which most movies comprised 2 reels (running for about 20-24 minutes) this early feature was certainly the best epic film till 'Cabiria' (1914) was released. Based on the memorable novel written by Henryk Sienwiewicz, this adaptation is more faithful to the book than the 1951 MGM version (this version was called 'Quo Vadis' without the final ?, for it was thought to be bad luck an interrogation mark at the end of a title). I haven't seen the 2001 polish version yet, which was submitted to the Academy Awards (but not nominated) as Best Foreing Language Film but, since it didn't get very positive reviews, I'd dare say this 'Quo Vadis?' is the very best of them all.
First of all 'Quo Vadis'? was originally released in 1912 not in 1913, it premiered all over the world in 1913: USA, Spain, Poland, France... But the original Italian release was in 1912. Now, over a year ago the existence of this film was unknown by many people who were asking over and over whether or not this one was available. There was only one review on the film here and the IMDb claimed it was a lost film so there was a lot of talk about it! Nothing further from the truth, ever since I uploaded it on youtube, doubts have been vanished.
'Quo Vadis?' is a maserpiece for its date. The portrayal of Nero and all the characters is very accurate, the epic scenes with Rome in the background or the circus, extras, dialogs... Everything is awesome! The dialogs especially are very accurate too, saying as much as needed to make the complex story understandable, not saying too much but not too little either, just the right words. If you're into early film history this is certainly a must-see!! If you like epic movies, roman atmosphere, this kind of literature or whatever topic related to this particular movie this is a must-see. And if you aren't into silent films but you'd ever consider watching one, this is a good choice. Though not as good as Caligari, Potemkin or Nosferatu (after all film techniques would evolve a lot within the next few years), very worth watching either way.
Fear and Desire (1952)
Watch out! Even worse than Plan 9!!
In straightforward terms: this film just sucks. I've never seen anything worse ever since I saw 'Single Action'. Nothing seems to add up: a bunch of soldiers lost in the woods behind enemy lines don't look terrified, and when some horror is shown or sort of dreamlike sequences are shown, it looks just like bad comedy; these seedy characters grant us some of lowest on screen performances you can possibly imagine. You can't even imagine how awful it is! I can't tell whether this was supposed to be serious or funny or what! but if it was supposed to be serious, it was a spectacular failure, and if it was supposed to be funny then it failed too because it was just completely stupid. The voices, the woman's role... Everything within the movie seems to be there just to be having you on, laughing in your face in some kind of (not so) subtle way.
I think people giving positive reviews to this crapp just can't see beyond their love towards Kubrick. It isn't any better than I expected whatsoever! (as many people over here said), it's far worse than I could even think!!, no wonder Kubrick repulsed this ·$&%$&"!/* garbage is actual the word.
A comment on 'Codename: Cougar' goes: every great director comes up with a clunker. Well, this is Kubrick's. Now, people considering to watch this film... If not too crazy about Kubrick, stay away from this shitt and if you just love Kubrick... stay the heck away too!!! Run out as fast as you can, otherwise you might forget you liked his movies once.