Foolish Wives.

Review #1838: Foolish Wives.

Cast: 

Rudolph Christians (Andrew J. Hughes; Robert Edeson from the back), Miss DuPont (Helen Hughes), Maude George (Her Highness Olga Petchnikoff), Mae Busch (Princess Vera Petchnikoff), Erich von Stroheim (Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin), Dale Fuller (Maruschka, a maid), Al Edmundson (Pavel Pavlich, a butler), Cesare Gravina (Cesare Ventucci, a counterfeiter), and Malvina Polo (Marietta) Directed by Erich von Stroheim (#1782 - Blind Husbands)

Review: 

Sometimes you need a romantic epic drama. Yes, one with a person that serves as director, co-producer, writer, and star. And yes, one with Erich von Stroheim behind the wheel for his third time around the director's chair (all with Universal Pictures), with this following Blind Husbands (1919) and The Devil's Pass Key (1920, a lost film), which generated success with audiences and publicity alongside a raise. This would be a project that would feature an elaborate production of spectacle and melodrama with large re-creations built by the studio to try and mimic the French Riviera and the Mediterranean coast. This would turn into a production that would require the extensive attention of the studio with its technicians that drove Universal to promote Irving Thalberg to head of production to try and bring von Stroheim into control. Believe it or not, von Stroheim actually wanted the film to be released "as is", which would have run long enough to have to be shown on two consecutive nights. With a cost of over one million dollars that had a shooting time of nearly a year to go with half a year in editing with countless extras, interiors, and sets, it one perhaps isn't surprised to find von Stroheim as a possible successor to the legacy of D. W. Griffith, particularly since Griffith was a mentor to him for a time. However, this would be the last time that the director would have complete control over a film, as his next film in Merry-Go-Round (1923) would see him clash with Thalberg to the point where he was fired after six weeks (this time he did not have the luxury of using his power as star and director to create a stalemate, since he wasn't acting in that film); he was fired from Universal. Greed (1924) would have been his great epic...but von Stroheim would find himself clashing with the newly established man in charge of production in Thalberg; von Stroheim would direct five further times in the next eight years, but none were as successfully realized.

One wonders just how much von Stroheim enjoyed being at the center of all the attention when it comes to spectacle like this, because simply stating the plot may not be enough to get the whole point across about how oddly effective the film is, one century removed from its release. You can point at the fact that the director ordered actual caviar and champagne for banquet scenes, or the fact that he effectively is playing the devil with all of the romances he goes off on that go from married women to a half-wit to a maid, but my favorite little moment is the time a book is seen in a shot called "Foolish Wives by Erich von Stroheim" that ends up closing the film. It all seems to fit together for a movie built on facades, either in the time taken to make facades that look like the real locations or the facades of the people in the film to hide who they really are. The restored version of the film runs at 142 minutes, so you'd better believe you are getting plenty of time to spend with the oozing qualities of von Stroheim, because he easily is the best part of the film, controlling the camera whether in front of it or behind in terms of stage presence in conviction that you believe through and through (i.e. one sees a swindler that could swindle someone straight out of a melodrama). DuPont does okay as the romantic interest, filled with calm grace mixed with a bit of nativity that makes for fairly curious moments spent being pursued by the other main lead. Christians died midway through production, which means that the second half of the film features the character he was playing shown with his back to the camera (since Edeson is playing the character from the back). The performance is therefore murky to quantify, because the role is already one destined to be dwarfed as a "normal" foil to the director at any rate. George and Busch make fair facades of alleged dignity that pays off with the last scene in particular. Fuller and the rest are fine, even if it is the climax that is more memorable than actual sequences of chemistry attempted with the star, which features fires and sewer stuffing. As a whole, it may be more of a spectacle movie than a movie filled with deep plotting, but it is entertaining spectacle that generally rewards the patience of its viewer by pulling out the stops necessary to get where it wants to go in the folly of facades without hammering one in the head with piety. Instead, it presents a tale of decadence and stays where it wants to go right until it needs to stick the landing in appropriate measures that doesn't fall into mockery. Whether one likes this film or Blind Husbands, it is clear to see where von Stroheim gets his interests in terms of making useful spectacle with facades in human nature that make for distinct films that are very much his own (warts and all) that served its time well that could still reach a viewer today.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars. 

Sky High (1922).

Review #1783: Sky High.

Cast: 

Tom Mix (Tom Newbury), J. Farrell MacDonald (Jim Frazer), Eva Novak (Estelle Halloway - his ward), Sid Jordan (Andrew Bates), William Buckley (Victor Castle), Adele Warner (Marguerite Castle), Wynn Mace (Henchman Patterson), and Pat Chrisman (Pasquale - Henchman) Written and Directed by Lynn Reynolds.

Review: 

In a way, this is exactly the time to spring a tale of a somewhat obscure director and the actor that starred in several of his films that became one of the first Western icons. Tom Mix was born in Pennsylvania in 1880, where he learned to ride horses from an early age. He worked a variety of jobs before breaking into film, one of which included working in a ranch with a touring Wild West show. Mix began his film career in 1909 with the Selig Polyscope Company, going from supporting actor to a star of his own in the near decade he worked with them. By 1917, he signed with William Fox's Fox Film Corporation, where he would make a string of Western films that consisted of shorts and feature-length (with Mix even directing some of the former category himself). His salary and the growing demand for imitation Westerns led to his departure from Fox in 1928; he appeared in fourteen films and one serial for two studios before his retirement in 1935. By this time, he had appeared in over 200 films, although a good deal of them is lost (a significant amount of Fox Film's silent film output was lost in a vault fire that occurred in 1937). What is remembered about Mix was the various programs that bore his name, which involved radio and comic books. Of course, one can't forget about the director behind the camera, even if time has perhaps made him obscure to audiences of the Western. Iowa native Lynn Reynolds directed Mix in nineteen films in a career that saw him direct 81 films (several shorts) from 1915 to 1927; he died that year, having shot himself at the age of 37 after a quarrel with his wife (about alleged infidelity on each side) led to him shooting himself.

The film we are talking about is a bit curious to consider. On one side, you have a government agent going around trying to find smugglers of Chinese immigrants (with "jewels and laces"!) and on the other side is the fact that this mostly takes place in the Grand Canyon that sees our hero rescue the ward of someone who just happens to also lead the gang. Of course, one can also see horse-riding and airplanes here, so we have a contemporary Western. Well, at least for the time, since it is now a century since this film was first released, although the stunt involving Mix and his plane is still quite interesting. As the successor to Western stars such as William S. Hart, one can see the interest audiences had in his flashy charm that showed grittiness within stunts while seeming capable in whatever story was thrown at him. In this case, a contemporary Western with shots of the Grand Canyon is a fair fit; Mix maintains interest in the film where a lesser actor might have made one go to sleep (or if the film really did try to build up chemistry with Novak beyond the contrivance levels it already was bubbling up to). Of course, MacDonald was a noted character presence for several years, and he makes a fair foil. Novak at least seems ready to have a go in cursory action, which makes up for the offbeat "ward" thing (hard to do when you look 25). The movie moves at a careful pace that seems just right for Reynolds to make solid work of, in that it has decent location shooting, a plot that makes semi-sense, and folks interested to make it happen with some enthusiasm. Granted, the movie isn't particularly great by any means, but one could do less to fill an hour than to deal with a movie like this. It may not be a seminal film of the silent era, but a century hasn't taken off its appeal when it comes to both Mix and Reynolds in the discussion of the evolving Western.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Tramp, Tramp, Tramp (1926).

Robin Hood (1922).

Review #1319: Robin Hood.

Cast: 
Douglas Fairbanks (Earl of Huntingdon/Robin Hood), Wallace Beery (King Richard the Lion-Hearted), Sam De Grasse (Prince John), Enid Bennett (Lady Marian Fitzwalter), Paul Dickey (Sir Guy of Gisbourne), William Lowery (The High Sheriff of Nottingham), Willard Louis (Friar Tuck), Alan Hale (The Squire/Little John), Bud Geary (Will Scarlet), Lloyd Talman (Alan-a-Dale), and Billie Bennett (Servant to Lady Marian) Directed by Allan Dwan.

Review: 
Never let it be said that adventure films were content with being quiet affairs. When it comes to large-scale adventure films, this is a good case to highlight (copyrighted as Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood, I kid you not), with this one having a large castle set and village (all constructed at Pickford-Fairbanks Studio), with some designs done by architect Lloyd Wright (who went on to use its leftovers to design shells for the Hollywood Bowl). The budget has been reported to be around $900,000, which went into making such lavish sets, costumes, and even extras (with large moments reportedly having as many as a thousand present). The film is also noted for being shown as the first Hollywood premiere, doing so at Egyptian Theater in Hollywood (who you might recognize as one of the theaters developed by Sid Grauman). It wasn't the first film to feature the legend of Robin Hood on screen - there had been six productions involving the character, with the first being in 1908. Two of them were notable, with the 1912 version having big costumes and superimposition of animals to demonstrate their good/evil qualities, while Ivanhoe (1913) adapted the 1819 historical novel of the same name by Sir Walter Scott with the character present. Fairbanks was already a well paid and highly regarded star at the time of this film's release, and he helped formed United Artists alongside Mary Pickford, D. W. Griffith, and Charlie Chaplin in 1919 in order to help with artistic control and distributorships. The Mark of Zorro (1920) helped in creating a superstar image for its lead actor, and swashbuckling films owe a great deal to Fairbanks and the efforts he took in sparing no expense when it came to entertaining films, which continued with this feature that solidified the legend of Robin Hood in the eyes of the viewer alongside with solidifying the legend of Fairbanks as a whole.

It is a 127 minute grand spectacle that lands most of its merry advances, particularly when it comes to its action sequences (no photo trickery needed), which are fun to view when seeing how one can do such leaps and smile all the way through. It takes a bit of time to really get going, but it proves to be a useful reward that holds up to the edges of time fairly well after all these decades. Fairbanks (who had started acting just before the turn of the century and would turn turn 40 the following year after release) is clearly enjoying himself here, knowing where to go best, whether when needing to be coy or on the mark with someone else on screen. Beery makes for a fair supporting component to Fairbanks, while De Grasse makes for an adequate villain to encompass the film. Bennett and Dickey each do their own part to carry things respectively, as does the rest of the Merry Men. Two actors would later reprise their roles. Berry returned to his role the following year in Richard the Lion-Hearted, which was based on Scott's novel The Talisman, while Hale would reprise his supporting role twice - The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950). It may not be the greatest Fairbanks adventure film (he personally felt The Thief of Bagdad (1924) was his best), but it certainly ranks up there when it comes to fun memorable times with interesting heroes, that much is for sure. It is an easy film to find in the public domain (remember, the new year means that works from 1923 are now available), and it is easy to recommend finding the best looking print one can find, where one can see different hues of color (as opposed to just monochrome) and have adventure play out for wonderful curiosity.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Häxan.

Review #1288: Häxan.

Cast: 
Benjamin Christensen (the Devil), Ella la Cour (Sorceress Karna), Emmy Schønfeld (Karna's Assistant), Kate Fabian (the Old Maid), Oscar Stribolt (the Fat Monk), Wilhelmine Henriksen (Apelone), Astrid Holm (Anna), Elisabeth Christensen (Anna's Mother), Karen Winther (Anna's Sister), Maren Pedersen (the Witch), Johannes Andersen (Pater Henrik, Witch Judge), Elith Pio (Johannes, Witch Judge), Aage Hertel (Witch Judge), and Ib Schønberg (Witch Judge) Written and Directed by Benjamin Christensen.

Review: 
Like goodness in heart, evil can exist anywhere. This proves true when it comes to witches and their part in culture, and how superstition can play a part in hysteria. Christensen had found a copy of Malleus Maleficarum, a late 15th century treatise on witchcraft that endorsed the extermination of witches while recommending inquisitorial practices to deal with them, such as torture. For two years, he spent his time studying manuals, illustrations and treatises on witches and the hunt, striving to make an innovative film that was not merely an adaptation of past material. Häxan (known as Heksen in Denmark) was expensive for its time, made for 1.5-2 million kronor. The film was a Sweden-Denmark co-production, where he used funding from Svensk Filmindustri to refurbish the Astra studio in Denmark; the movie spent over a year in production, where filming was done only at night or on a closed set, while post-production meant that it did not premiere until September of 1922 (in four Swedish cities at once). Its premiere in Copenhagen, Denmark two months later was accompanied by a 50-piece orchestra, complete with a bibliography in its original playbill (an American release did not follow until 1929). Although it is generally regarded as a documentary, it does invoke horror within its dramatized sequences, particularly with its imagery. It certainly is an imaginative work to look at, that much is for sure.

It is obvious to credit the craftsmanship done by Christensen with his third directorial effort (alongside writing and starring) that had begun in 1914 with The Mysterious X - he clearly made the effort to deliver a creepy panorama that seeks to deliver a lesson in the past that still stands tall for the present after nearly a century. He of course is not the only one meriting credit for the film's success, where he thanks the art director (Richard Louw) and cinematographer (Johan Ankerstjerne) for their work on the film. It sure is an unsettling movie to view, where its lecture on cultural history can blend fact and fiction so handily through the lens of a silent film, where patience can be the best virtue to enjoyment. The actors certainly seem game to roll with the weird yet captivating nature of what goes on in its 104 minute run-time, with their weary eyes resonating with its medieval settings (alongside later moments spent in the modern age, where the problem is now hysteria rather than accusations of witchcraft), with Christensen lurking quite well as the beast below without going for camp. Everyone plays it pretty straight, whether involving monks, old and young accused of witchcraft, or inquistors tasked to deal with such fears. One can still think of this film today as still being important to understanding the nature of superstition, fear, and what we hold on to when it comes to belief with fantasy and desire. We may not accuse people of being witches today, but it doesn't mean the real world is free of irrational things that bind us.

There have been a few re-releases and restorations over the years of various lengths. A 1940 Danish release had an extended introduction from Christensen with the inter-titles re-worded, a 1968 Metro Pictures release re-edited the film (now known as just Witchcraft through the Ages) to have narration from William S. Burroughs and a jazz score (lasting 74 minutes), and the Swedish Film Institute has restored the movie three times, beginning in 1976 (finding a decent quality print on the Internet is not too big of a challenge, however). To close it out, let me invoke some words that Christensen wrote for an article around the time this movie was being made: "I would like to know at this time whether a film is able to hold the public’s interest without mass effects, without sentimentality, without suspense, without heroes and heroines—in short, without all those things on which a good film is otherwise constructed. My films consist of a series of episodes that—as part of a mosaic—give expression to an idea.” I think he did just fine in that regard with a film basked in morbid realism that lines up just nicely for the horror season. It takes its time to get going, but when it does find its footing, it works up a storm of interesting imagery and a fine look and music to go along with quite a thrill to look at.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Nanook of the North.

Review #1232: Nanook of the North.

Cast: 
Allakariallak (Nanook), Alice Nevalinga (Nanook's Wife - the Smiling One), Cunayou (Nanook's Daughter), Allegoo (Nanook's Son), and Camock (Nanook's Cat) Directed by Robert J. Flaherty.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film I had been interested in covering for quite some time now. It isn't easy to justify watching a documentary when there are so many films out there for me to try to watch and cover. But in any case, I realized that the chance to cover a silent documentary (also known as Nanook of the North: A Story Of Life and Love In the Actual Arctic) like this could be a unique experience to cover, particularly one that stands high as one of the seminal films of the past century. It contains elements of re-staged events of drama (docudrama) that attempts to capture the struggle of an Inuk in the Canadian Artic, from his travels with family to hunting a walrus to building an igloo. Robert J. Flaherty had a curiosity that drove his childhood, in part because of his father's iron ore explorer background, working as a still-photographer in Toronto. Flaherty was commissioned by Sir William MacKenzie to examine the potential iron ore deposits on certain islands in the East Coast of Hudson Bay. He made four expeditions over the span of six years, most notably finding the Belcher Island archipelago in Hudson Bay (a re-discovery for which for which he was inducted into the Royal Geographic Society of England in 1914). On one of his trips, he brought a motion camera with him; he filmed 30,000 feet of film of the Inuit people over this time. A chance accident in 1916 involving a cigarette burning the negative meant the loss of his footage, which only inspired Flaherty to try again. He made his focus onto one Inuit family while trying to raise funds for filming, which took four years to do. The film itself depicts some events as reality despite being staged by Flaherty. Examples of this include Allakariallak hunting much in the same way of his ancestors instead of his traditional rifle, which had been common by this time. The igloo used for interior shots was a special three-walled one in order to help with lighting (along with the fact that making an igloo big enough for the camera to be included proved unfeasible).

Flaherty later described the food he had brought with him for filming, which contrasted with the food diet of his fellow Eskimos, later stating: "My food outfit comprised one hundred pounds of pork and beans which had been cooked in huge kettles at my post and then put into a canvas bag and frozen. These beans chopped out with an axe from the frozen mass along with dried fruit, sea biscuit, and tea comprised my food supply. Nanook and his companions' diet was seal and walrus augmented by tea and sugar from my supply and, most important of all, tobacco." With this film, he combined documentary subjects with a film narrative, showing the calamity of nature and the plight of a community to survive despite great odds against them. The walrus fight is a sight to behold. Seeing someone attempt to land a harpoon onto an over 2,000 pound animal with tusks locked in battle - that is something you just can't replicate today, unless you happen to be in a situation like that yourself. Seeing the construction of an igloo is still a sight to see regardless of what one might know about its structure modification. This is a film that is a product of the time, where the rules of what makes a documentary and what you could and couldn't really do with depicting staged events as authentic weren't as prominent as they are now. At least one can't say Flaherty put his crew in complete danger or overbears on depicting a culture as they are, instead finding them remarkable to view through the lens of film. It is the courage one sees in these individuals such as Allakariallak that makes this a fascinating film to view for its 79 minute run-time. One gets a feel for what made people like him attempt to endure here despite the chills of the North riding through the day and night, for which Flaherty got to experience this first hand through production of this film. How can one not enjoy what they see on screen, a film that depicts exactly it promises to depict on screen with such conviction and such enduring power to this very day? Perhaps it is not everything one would desire in a documentary depicting people of a culture, but it surely stands tall for its entertainment value and its ambition from Flaherty and his crew to make a worthwhile experience for any sort of curiosity. In an age where looking at other cultures and views on the Internet increases by the decades, Nanook of the North endures in the scope of curiosity of film as a well-deserved pioneer of its time.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Bride's Play.

Review #916: The Bride's Play.

Cast:
Marion Davies (Enid of Cashell / Aileen Barrett), Jack O'Brien (Marquis of Muckross), Frank Shannon (Sir John Mansfield), Wyndham Standing (Sir Fergus Cassidy), Carl Miller (Bulmer Meade), Richard Cummings (John Barrett), Eleanor Middleton (Bridget), and Thea Talbot (Sybil) Directed by George Terwilliger.

Review:
Well, it's St. Patrick's Day, so why not a movie that has a main Irish character? (even if its plot device is likely not an Irish custom). This was a film meant as a starring vehicle for Marion Davies by producer by William Randolph Hearst, her lover. Davies is fairly interesting, doing her part with enough effort and competency. At 72 minutes, there is a mildly decent pace, though it feels like it will slog around the middle, and it certainly is a bit weird seeing Davies play her ancestor role (though it makes some sense). Standing and Miller are decent enough romantic leads (with O'Brien and Shannon being fairly tolerable supporting castmates) to carry their weight along with Davies. Simply put, the romance scenes are what you'd expect, being useful to watch if not too special. The love triangle is somewhat entertaining if you've never seen one of these before, but the real star of the show is the set design, with lavish costumes and a fine amount of flair to boot that helps give the movie some extra entertainment. It isn't so much that the movie is bland as it is just a movie with the similar kind of edges that you'd expect in other films, just with a supposed tradition of Irish "origin". In case you're wondering, here's how it goes: So the bride goes around and asks the round of the guests and asking each man he is the one she loves best (with all of them saying no), until the bride is left to say yes. Obviously this could be manipulated by a jilted guest, which to the credit of the movie does happen (albeit unsuccessfully for him), so whoopee for traditions. The bottom line: If you're a fan of these kind of romance movies (I don't dislike it, it's just I try to spread these out) or even a fan of silent films with a standout design and mostly standout cast, this might be the one for you.

Happy St. Patrick's Day, folks. How did I start the day off? Donating blood. See, you really can do something productive on this day.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Jack.

Review #903: Dr. Jack.

Cast: 

Harold Lloyd (Dr. "Jack" Jackson), Mildred Davis (The Sick-Little-Well-Girl), John T. Prince (Her Father), Eric Mayne (Dr. Ludwig von Saulsbourg), C. Norman Hammond (Jamison, the Lawyer), and Charles Stevenson (Asylum Guard) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, and Hot Water)

Review:

Dr. Jack was the third feature length film starring Harold Lloyd, released two months after Grandma's Boy had come out. Unlike that film, this is a more gag focused movie that runs at a length of just an hour long. Lloyd is once again good at his element, always managing to be likable and easy to see in nearly any sort of heroic role. The gags are par for the course (the card game one is a good one, taking its sweet time to work), and Mayne is a fine foil for Lloyd in part because of how easy he sells this antagonistic role, with the climax being a satisfying conclusion for the main characters. Davis and Lloyd (who married each other the following year) are a good pair once again, doing the staring at each other bits well enough. Prince also does a decent job as the father. On the whole, if you've seen one Lloyd film, you'll probably think this has some sort of familiarity (hence why it is best to spread out the schedule), but there is always enough charm and a sense of believability within the madcap fun that goes on at times to make for a fun time, which is the case for this film. The structure may seem familiar, but it's a structure that works just as well in part due to its nature of enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Toll of the Sea.

Review #766: The Toll of the Sea.

Cast
Anna May Wong (Lotus Flower), Kenneth Harlan (Allen Carver), Beatrice Bentley (Barbara 'Elsie' Carver), Priscilla Moran (Little Allen), Etta Lee (Gossip), and Ming Young (Gossip) Directed by Chester M. Franklin.

Review
Not only am I reviewing a 1920s film, I'm reviewing a movie filmed in Technicolor. In fact, this was the 2nd (two-color - red and green) Technicolor film made in Hollywood (the first being the now mostly lost film The Gulf Between - 1917), with this also being Wong's first starring role. The same process that this film was made under would later be used for the 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera, The Black Pirate, it was utilized until 1928. The movie was thought to be lost in the 1967 MGM vault fire, but it was restored in 1985 by the UCLA Film and Television Archive from the original negative, though they did need to shoot the final four minutes due to that part being lost, even utilizing an original two-color Technicolor camera to capture shots of the Pacific Ocean, key to the climax, while also recreating the titles for the close sequence. The movie is based off the opera Madame Butterfly, which had been adapted twice prior to this film. It's interesting to look at the movie and the colors brought out by the camera (especially the greens), which makes it all seem like I'm looking at a painting come to life. The colorful look of the movie certainly seems to contrast with the gloomy tone, especially evident in Wong's expressions (and tears), especially near the end. She stands out among the rest of the actors (rightfully so), visually and in terms of acting, filled with grace, style, but also grief. It is a great movie? No, but it is at least a good one to watch, and given that it lasts barely less than an hour and is easily available to find, I'd recommend seeing it, alongside the technical achievements of color that the movie made in over 90 years ago.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Grandma's Boy.

Review #674: Grandma's Boy.

Cast
Harold Lloyd (Grandma's Boy/ Grandfather), Mildred Davis (His Girl), Anna Townsend (Grandma), Dick Sutherland (The Rolling Stone), Charles Stevenson (His Rival / Union General), and Noah Young (Sheriff) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman)

Review
Yes, I am aware of the 8 day delay between reviews and that the month has had only two reviews. I'm doing a pretty terrible job on quantity, but I just hope the quality is at least good enough. Enjoy. Oh hey, another Harold Lloyd film, this being his second feature film (The first being A Sailor-Made Man), out of the 18 (or so, if you count compilation) films he did. The movie's structure is simple, but effective enough, the trope of the wimpy hero who overcomes his weaknesses is standard nowadays, but back then it was probably like Silly Putty, a fad that keeps going (and stops being a fad, I suppose) and going. The gags are pretty good; I like Lloyd and his character's look, it just seems like Lloyd could make a gag work even with just shoes and a cat. The movie is well-paced for 60 minutes, and it manages to be enjoyable, especially the last 20 minutes, which manage to be laughter-inducing, especially with the facial expressions by Lloyd and Sutherland. The movie built itself on gags and a pinch of story development, which make for a fine film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Nosferatu.

Review #256: Nosferatu. Cast Max Schreck (Count Orlok), Gustav von Wangenheim (Thomas Hutter), Greta Schröder (Ellen Hutter), Alexander Granach (Knock), Georg H. Schnell (Harding), Ruth Landshoff (Ruth), and John Gottowt (Professor Bulwer) Directed by F. W. Murnau. Review To begin with, this is the first silent film ever reviewed here (along with the first 1920s film reviewed), and it is the first film from Germany reviewed here (while being the 5th world cinema film). And after 90 years, this film still works in frights of delight. Originally this was an adaptation of Dracula until the Stoker estate sued for the right reason of the film company not actually having the film rights to do Dracula. But nonetheless, the film is still useful. Schreck is genuinely terrifying due to the effects, which give it a weird style that works in its own right. As a silent film, it works on its own merit. All in all, a good, if not great film. Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.