Souls for Sale.

Review #1995: Souls for Sale.

Cast: 

Eleanor Boardman (Remember "Mem" Steddon), Lew Cody (Owen Scudder), Richard Dix (Frank Claymore), Mae Busch (Robina Teele), Frank Mayo (Tom Holby), Barbara La Marr (Leva Lamaire), Arthur Hoyt (Jimmy Leland), David Imboden (Caxton), Roy Atwell (Arthur Tirrey), Forrest Robinson (Rev. John Steddon), Edith Yorke (Mrs. Steddon), William Orlamond (Lord Fryingham), Aileen Pringle (Lady Jane), and Snitz Edwards (Komical Kale, the Klown) Written and Directed by Rupert Hughes.

Review: 

Well, there's always room for movies about Hollywood. The movie is adapted from the novel of the same name, which was written by none other than Rupert Hughes. Born in Lancaster, Missouri, he studied at both Case Western Reserve University and Yale University and graduated from each with degrees before the turn of the 20th century. Eschewing the idea of teaching, he decided to become a writer, turning his attention to novels alongside reporting on occasion. He entered film in the 1910s as a writer with films such as The Deaf Mute (1913). His first film as a director was The Wall Flower (1922). In total, he was a director-writer on seven films from 1922 to 1924, although he continued to dabble in screenwriting, which included him introducing his nephew Howard (yes, that Hughes) to the film industry; Hughes died in 1956 at the age of 84. Boardman was actually in her first starring role here. She had dabbled in the stage, but when she lost her voice, she assumed it was dwindling down. Hearing about a contest for "New Faces" by the Goldwyn studio, she entered it and became one of two winners (the other was William Haines) among hundreds of entrants. Paul Bern, a director/writer of what became Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, helped her with the screentest, turning a disastrous first take into one that got her a contract (incidentally, Haines appears in a small role in this film). She made her debut with The Strangers' Banquet (1922) and did supporting roles with two further films before appearing as star with this film, which ironically is a role about an aspiring actress trying to make it in Hollywood; she retreated from acting after 1935, having had highlights in films such as The Crowd (1928). The film was thought lost for many years until it surfaced in vaults in the late 1980s before it was restored in 2006.

As a whole, the movie is light fun in melodrama and mythmaking. It varies wildly in what genre it wants to be, mostly because it can't settle between the perils of Hollywood on a youth or an oddball serial killer that likes young brides. It doesn't exactly gel well with each other, with only the offbeat title cards (interestingly, "simp" is used here about trying to sell oneself to a person when it comes to trying to act) coming in second in making an odd tone. It is generally involving at 90 minutes though, mostly because one can't help but wonder what little surprise cameo you could see coming, whether that involves Charlie Chaplin at work or whatever. I find it more interesting when it tries to play perspective in what it means to try and be an actor in a grueling industry and the emotions that come with it rather than, well, the moralizing that happens with those title cards. My favorites: an oddball that says when an actor gets into trouble, "they blame the screen" or movie folk that are "factory hard" when rising and leaving early and late. Bottom line, the movie thinks to try and put the stars on a pedestal too highly, especially considering that Hollywood actors like Roscoe Arbuckle had just gone through two trials (with a third happening in the very month this film was released) for manslaughter. In other words: actors may have interesting lives and troubles, but you really can't expect me to believe they have a hard factory life like this. Anyway, the movie itself is just fine, because Boardman does fine with the material, malleable in drama and plucky ambition (despite probably having the corniest name seen in a silent lead character in quite some time). Dix and Mayo try to make this a love triangle, but honestly, I forget sometimes which is which, so go figure that the director is the one who gets the girl over the actor. Interestingly, this was one of Dix's first roles as a film actor. Cody evidently was known for "male vamp roles", so this makes an interesting adversary, even if it tries to play it both ways a bit with the ending (you can do creeping or you can do sympathetic, don't try both). Really, it is the light relief provided by people such as Busch (a future associate of the Laurel and Hardy films) or with La Marr (a vamp icon until her premature death) or with Edwards and his usual presence. As a whole, I wanted to like the film more than I did when it comes to films that have not had the pleasure of being discovered as long as other silent films, but it mostly is just okay. As a weird and odd mess that tries to play melodrama and Hollywood sunshine, it comes off as a strange amusement that can work if one is in the mood for certain expectations.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Five to go.

The Street (1923).

Review #1836: The Street.

Cast: 

Eugen Klöpfer (Middle-aged man), Aud Egede-Nissen (Harlot), Max Schreck (Blind man), Lucie Höflich (The wife of the middle-aged man), Anton Edthofer (Pimp), Leonhard Haskel (Gentleman from the provinces), with Sascha, and Hans Trautner (Fellow) Directed by Karl Grune.

Review: 

Admittedly, the country of Germany has had plenty of spotlight when it comes to featuring them as part of world cinema on Movie Night, since it is the second most covered country next to Japan. And yet, there always seems to be another director to encounter for the first time that released a film first in that country, whether involving expressionistic nightmares or other things. This applies to the director for this film in Karl Grune, who was born in Vienna, Austria; he attended drama school and served in World War I before becoming a film director. He would direct 27 features from his first in Menschen in Ketten (1919) to his last in A Clown Must Laugh (1936, also known as Pagliacci). After emigrating to England in the 1930s, he died in 1962 in Bournemouth. He also served as a producer on four films and wrote nine films, with The Street (1923) being one of the films he wrote (doing so with Carl Mayer and Julius Urgiss, with the former responsible for the treatment), and it is generally the film he is most known for.

There are a few discussions one could have over just what kind of movie this is, with most describing the film as a morality tale or an expressionistic nightmare. It also is a movie dedicated to telling a story as visually as possible, since there are very few intertitles present during the film, which has a run-time just under 90 minutes. In that sense, one feels adrift for a time when it comes to absorbing the atmosphere of a chaotic street, complete with likely the most notable shot of the film: a man walking in the street encountering a optician sign with glowing eyes that glow near him. It goes well for a film with nameless people that might as well not even have clear faces when it comes to how things seem so murky, and it all starts because someone tries to find a "choice of excitement" in their lives, which only results in someone finding themselves trapped in a nightmare without many choices to make. The title of the movie may seem generic, but it really is a movie about just how much a street can absorb into one's soul with the blend of reality and artifice (the sets are sets but presented with plenty of flicker). In that sense, it ends up making a decent curiosity piece within a slow burn of city life. Klopfer is tasked with making a character full of bumbling curiosity without being tasked with just playing it for silliness or bombast, and I would say he does a fine job, because he carries the movie along with the right amount of earthy presence that is swept with the flow of the things around him with righteous timing. Egede-Nissen serves as the casual alluring presence to street life that works out well in the careful contrast to Hoflich (who is used for one scene in the start and the end as the patient figure for Klopfer). Meanwhile, Schreck accompanies the film for a time with piercing interest (using his time playing a blind man for good effect), while Edthofer makes a useful goon to the proceedings. It does plod a little bit in the middle win the club sequences, and the climax isn't exactly surprising with its conclusion (again, morality tale, not a dark musing piece). I can't exactly call it a great movie, but it is at least a semi-interesting average movie. As a whole, the movie generally works out in making the events that happen mean something without just pointing a finger or going for easy sentiments, which makes a movie that closes its lead character in the same way that a street feels narrower when the lights come on, which generally works out for those curious to see a perspective of the street in all the murky details. If you can find the movie online, you might find something you like here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Chapter in Her Life.

Review #1809: A Chapter in Her Life.

Cast: 

Claude Gillingwater (Mr. Everingham), Jane Mercer (Jewel), Jacqueline Gadsden (Eloise Everingham), Frances Raymond (Madge Everingham), Robert Frazer (Dr. Ballard), Eva Thatcher (Mrs. Forbes), Ralph Yearsley (Zeke Forbes), Fred Thomson (Nat Bonnell), and Beth Rayon (Susan) Directed by Lois Weber (#644 - The Blot)

Review: 

"As I was convinced the theatrical profession needed a missionary, he suggested that the best way to reach them was to become one of them so I went on the stage filled with a great desire to convert my fellowman."

The story of the silent era has many names and many faces, but one that is not to be forgotten in the era when it comes to multi-faceted talent is Lois Weber. Actress, screenwriter, producer, and director, Weber cultivated an eventful career that lasted roughly two decades in motion pictures. Born in Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, she excelled in music, doing so in both piano and soprano singing to go with her evangelical interests (which she served on street corners alongside social activism). It was at the age of 25 (in 1904) that she decided to take up acting, convinced that the profession needed a missionary (in her words). She would work in the theater for a number of years before becoming involved with the film industry through the American Gaumont Chronophones; in 1911, she would become a director, serving as a co-director for several short films. In 1914, alongside her husband Phillips Smalley (a familiar pairing as they directed a handful of films together), she directed her first feature-length film in The Merchant of Venice (1914), although it is now lost. She would work for numerous studios such as the Rex Motion Picture Company and Universal before she would form her own studio in 1917, which had its own shooting stage while employing her husband as studio manager and her as the key brain behind filmmaking (although their relationship would soon deteriorate). Her most noted works generally touched social problems of the time (in the tradition that directors like D.W. Griffith had done), such as Where Are My Children? (1916), which touched on the subject of abortion alongside The Blot (1921), which touched on the issue of poverty. Of course, 1921 would end up being her peak. She would direct just five further works until 1934. This film was the third-to-last film that Weber would direct, in part because of the collapse of her film studio in 1921 but also because of the shift of audience curiosity with the advent of the Jazz Age (well, one could also cite a push within Hollywood to weed out certain folks, but whatever). 

By this point in her life, she returned to Universal to remake her previous effort in Jewel (1915), which like this film is an adaptation of the 1903 novel Jewel: A Chapter in Her Life, which had been written by Clara Louise Burnham. By the time the 1920s ended, she spent her time within house operations (such as her own Garden Village and ranch), before a mild comeback attempt in 1932-33 formally ended her career; Weber died in 1939 at the age of sixty, but her legacy has only now come into focus when discussing driven directors of the early age, complete with a recent biography (Lois Weber in Early Hollywood by Shelley Stamp). Weber adapted the book with Doris Schroeder (she would help write a handful of Westerns in the next few decades). Older moviegoers might find familiarity with works such as Pollyanna when it comes to main characters being idealistic children (after all, its lead actor in Gillingwater would appear in a handful of films opposite Shirley Temple from 1936 until his death in 1939). The movie is more of a vehicle for Weber to express her belief in the power of divine love through faith to help guide others back from their old ways (i.e. weird socialite people). So yes, the power of innocence overwhelming hypocrisy is exactly the kind of thing that springs just an hour for one's attention. In that sense, one will be just fine here, since this is a mild effort that works out in its attempts at good-hearted optimism without choking the viewer in too much sentimentality. Gillingwater was already forty years old when he entered the film industry, so he naturally makes a worthy foil for kind folks to play off (or play historical characters); this was the debut star role for Mercer, who was featured in a handful of roles before falling out the industry. Her wide-eyed expressions do okay for what is needed in terms of passing the time between trying to not just say "swell". The others fit the formula required in doing expressions that don't turn into vacant stares (for a film that utilizes little sets, anyway). The film maneuvers towards the inevitable with few surprises, but at least it does not ooze in tedium or with an overbearing sense of importance (take one or two steps and it might fit within the religious film craze, really). While this isn't exactly one of Weber's best films, it is a mild curiosity that could still fill an hour for any curious cinema enjoyer, and I suppose that will be more than enough when it comes to exploring women directors of the early 20th century.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to Women's History Month for March once again. We will feature films from numerous decades while featuring familiar and new feminine faces. Next Time is Working Girls (1931).

The Covered Wagon.

Review #1320: The Covered Wagon.

Cast: 
J. Warren Kerrigan (Will Banion), Lois Wilson (Molly Wingate), Alan Hale (Sam Woodhull), Ernest Torrence (William Jackson), Tully Marshall (Jim Bridger), Ethel Wales (Mrs. Wingate), Charles Ogle (Jesse Wingate), Guy Oliver (Kit Carson), and Johnny Fox (Jed Wingate) Directed by James Cruze (#1263 - The Roaring Road)

Review: 
What is it about the Western that inspires such curiosity? What inspired so many directors and studios to make their own tales (or adapt works) about cowboys, gunslingers, and other various subjects that dominated the film landscape for over half of the 20th century, doing so from the very get go with the first one shot in the United States (and second overall) in The Great Train Robbery (1903), which captivated audiences with its action in such quick time at 12 minutes. The evolution of film production in the two decades that followed meant that at some point one would strive to make a big budget Western epic to hang their cowboy hat on, at least until someone made one that looked better. The honor of being known as the first big-budget Western epic (made for roughly over $700,000 from Paramount Pictures) falls to this feature, which is adapted from the novel of the same name by Emerson Hough. Expense was not spared when it came to research to get costumes and locations scoped out, particularly when it came to finding a herd of wild bison (alongside other animals like oxen and horses) to roam the plains, complete with authentic wagons. If that sounds daunting enough, try being an actor having to spend months in the desert of Utah, dealing with various weather elements alongside being fairly distant from railroads, with one sequence involving wagons fording a torrent being a risky one to film in part because they had to actually swim for it alongside the accompanying horses and oxen. Simply put, one can trace Western epics and the level of craftsmanship one must take in executing ambition from costumes to characters to this film, which manages to hold itself fairly well without becoming too much a thing of the past.

It is an honest spectacle, welcome of curiosity for those who seek out fair pleasures. It has exactly the kind of things you would expect from a Western, with a clear hero, romantic lead and heavy to follow, and one can take a guess as to how these pioneers will do in their journey from Kansas to Oregon for 98 minutes - as long as one does not find themselves checking their watch from time to time or peeking at what comes next, you should do fine. It is the journey that counts when it comes to films, and how one enjoys the ride or trip with these actors and views that counts most, and this one does fine with that in mind - you could probably see this and at have some sort of interest in wondering about the plight of the pioneer, whether that means trouble with just getting to where they need to go or in-fights and so on. The highlight proves to be Torrence and Marshall, giving a bit of amusement as the comic relief, while Kerrigan and Wilson prove adequate if not too memorable people to look at through the lens of a routine romantic Western. Regardless, it proved an audience hit, making roughly seven million dollars, exceeding films now regarded as classics for that year such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Safety Last!, which now can all be found in the public domain for one to eye with curiosity. This film may not stand too highly with some of the Westerns that would come to pass over the next decade and beyond, but it still holds ground as a resilient charmer when it comes to entertainment, and that surely will prove enough for those who want to seek it most.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Woman of Paris.

Review #1041: A Woman of Paris.

Cast: 
Edna Purviance (Marie St. Clair), Clarence Geldart (Marie's Father), Carl Miller (Jean Millet), Lydia Knott (Jean's Mother), Charles K. French (Jean's Father), Adolphe Menjou (Pierre Revel), Betty Morrissey (Fifi), and Malvina Polo (Paulette) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, #820 - Modern Times, #923 - The Pilgrim, and #1025 - The Circus)

Review: 
The film (sometimes referred to as A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate) begins with a preamble: "To The Public -- In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to announce that I do not appear in this picture. It is the first serious drama written and directed by myself. Charles Chaplin." This was the first film that Chaplin distributed through United Artists, which he had founded with D. W. Griffith, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks in 1919; the film was released seven months after the release of The Pilgrim (#923) through First National Pictures. The film was meant to help boost Purviance's career, although this did not happen. This was her last starring role prior to her retirement from acting in 1927. At the time, Chaplin was well known for his comedic works, and despite Chaplin's statements over how one should enjoy this film as a drama, it didn't prove too appealing for audience and thus it was not a success. The film was re-issued in 1976 by Chaplin with a new musical score along with having a shorter run-time due to cuts, which shortened the run-time from 82 minutes to 78.

With all of that history that I mentioned, how is the film? I think that the movie is fairly well-made, much like other Chaplin-directed films that preceded and followed this film, being constructed fine enough within its drama. I wouldn't consider it any too great, but I'd say that it would likely fit as a hidden gem. The film doesn't fall prey to too many cliches with regard to its characters, having a bit of originality along with some clever touches. Purviance does a fine job with what she's given, having a bit of alluring nature to her while not falling prey to being too obvious with her movements. Miller does an okay job, giving a performance that isn't anything too special, but it isn't anything that ruins the mood. Menjou is the one who stands out the best, having an air of sophistication that works to his advantage in making an entertaining performance. The other cast members do fine jobs for what they are meant to do, with the parents being interesting contrasts to their offspring. It's a bit of a morality play, but at least it isn't any too overblown or too out of the bend, for lack of a better phrase. It may take a bit of time for the film to really get itself going, but it manages to have some sort of impact by the time it gets to its climax.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Our Hospitality.

Review #926: Our Hospitality.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (Willie McKay), Joe Roberts (Joseph Canfield), Natalie Talmadge (Virginia Canfield), Ralph Bushman (Clayton Canfield), Craig Ward (Lee Canfield), Monte Collins (The Parson), Joe Keaton (The Locomotive Engineer), Jack Duffy (The Locomotive Leader), and Kitty Bradbury (Aunt Mary) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, #805 - The Navigator, and #877 - Three Ages, and #908 - The General) and John G. Blystone.

Review:
This was Keaton's third starring role in a feature film (along with his second that he directed), and it was the second film of his released in 1923, the first being Three Ages, previously reviewed just last November by me. In that movie, there were good moments, but it was moderate entertinament that benefited from Keaton being himself. In this movie, the plot is much more focused, feeling well-rounded and working with the gags (instead of a movie with just gags and some sort of plot cobble) to make for a cohesive film. Inspired by (or better yet, satirizing) the Hatfield-McCoy feud (though the time period is decades prior to the feud), the film has a fine attention to set design, with some wonderful cinematography by Gordon Jennings and Elgin Lessley along with a good use of the locations (such as the Truckee River in California) and sets. The film is also pretty funny, too. The sight gags are present, but there is also a sense of adventure and madcap thrill that make the film stand out. The climax is a good sign of the fun present, with Keaton and Talmadge (her last film) having an easily charming kind of chemistry together along with a finale that allows the former to engage in rip roaring fun. The rest of the cast is also well put-together, with Roberts (who died a month prior to the release of the film) being a capable adversary for Keaton. One particularly interesting note is that there were three generations of Keatons in this film: Buster Keaton plays the starring character, while his father plays the locomotive engineer and his son plays a 1 year old version of the main character in the beginning of the film. On the whole, this is a fine piece of film that strives to entertain along with inspire some laughs, succeeding in both quite well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Pilgrim (1923).

Review #923: The Pilgrim.

Cast:
Charlie Chaplin (The Pilgrim), Edna Purviance (Miss Brown), Sydney Chaplin (Eloper / Train Conductor / Little Boy's Father), Mack Swain (Deacon Jones), Loyal Underwood (Small Deacon), Dean Riesner (Little Boy), Charles Reisner (Howard Huntington), and Tom Murray (Sheriff Bryan) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, and #820 - Modern Times)

Review:
At just under 47 minutes, this was Chaplin's second shortest feature length film (next to Shoulder Arms, which is just a few minutes less than this film), and this was also the last film he made for First National Pictures (which he had done since 1918). It definitely isn't one of his finest pieces of works, but The Pilgrim is at least a serviceable good time. Chaplin does a fine job as usual, playing a crafty convict who impersonates a preacher. One particular highlight is when he delivers an improvised sermon revolving around "David and Goliath", which goes as well as you'd expect. Chaplin can do any sort of stranger role (whether it be a stranger in military action or as The Tramp) with an easy kind of finesse. Purviance (in her last appearance with Chaplin in a feature film) is fairly decent, and the rest of the cast (some familiar to anyone who sees enough silent film) is pretty satisfactory in the roles that they play; Murray is part of a particular good part during the end of the film, with Chaplin "escaping" near the border. The movie goes at a fine pace, owing to its short length, but it is a decent enough movie to recommend because of the serviceable amount of gags it uses, with Chaplin being the key link. In a sea of great Chaplin films, this is a little gem that is fairly useful at being entertainment and sometimes that's all that matters.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Why Worry?

Review #918: Why Worry?

Cast:
Harold Lloyd (Harold Van Pelham), Jobyna Ralston (The Nurse), John Aasen (Colosso), Wallace Howe (Mr. Pipps), Jim Mason (James H. Blake), Leo White (The Mighty Herculeo), Gaylord Lloyd (Man), and Mark Jones (Mounted Captain) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer (#667 - The Freshman, #674 - Grandma's Boy, #758 - Safety Last!, #864 - Hot Water, and #889 - A Sailor-Made Man, #903 - Dr. Jack) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman, #727 - For Heaven's Sake, Safety Last!, Hot Water, Dr. Jack)

Review:
This was the fifth feature film featuring Harold Lloyd, and it was the first film with Jobyna Ralston as the leading lady, with Lloyd having married previous leading lady Mildred Davis during production of this film. At any rate, this is a film with a good amount of visual humor and an enjoyable cast along with a quick pace for a movie filled with gags. This time around, Lloyd plays a wealthy hypochondriac who goes on vacation on a small island in the Pacific - only to encounter a revolution, and a 7'2 giant played by John Aasen, one of the tallest actors in history. Aasen (along with the foreign setting) is used to make some clever enough gags, with one of my favorites being when Colosso knocks over some of the soldiers (standing in bowling formation) all over with a cannonball. Naturally there are some gags involving the unassuming nature Lloyd conveys, and some language gags that go by quickly enough. Lloyd and Ralston are fair enough together, doing all the cues you'd expect from these films, even if they spend a good chunk of the film apart from each other. Mason is a okay villain, not much of a bully but not too bad and pretty much what you'd expect from a dude wanting to just take over a country. On the whole, it's another good Lloyd film, and with a runtime of barely over an hour it's an easy one to recommend as a likely good time for someone looking for a good silent film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Three Ages.

Review #877: Three Ages.

Cast:
Buster Keaton (The Boy), Margaret Leahy (The Girl), Wallace Beery (The Villain), Lillian Lawrence (The Girl's Mother), Joe Roberts (The Girl's Father), and Kewpie Morgan (The Emperor / Cave Man / Roman Thug) Directed by Buster Keaton (#757 - Seven Chances, #762 - College, and #805 - The Navigator) and Edward F. Cline.

Review:
This was the second starring role for Keaton, made three years after The Saphead and his first feature that he directed. The film was structured and shot as three separate shorts, as a form of insurance in case it did not work well as a feature, with the three films representing a different Age, from the Stone Age to Rome to the modern-day. The main prevailing theme in all three parts is the prevalence of love in society all-throughout time, with Keaton getting the girl in each story. In that regard, it is somewhat interesting (if not slightly repetitive), though the end result is a film that is moderately entertaining, but not really all that funny. In other words, you'll get some chuckles, but nothing is really that memorable (although Keaton escaping a prison due to his phone booth being towed out of the prison). Neither period really stands out entirely from the others, but they are fine for the course. Leahy is a decent lead, and Beery is a fair enough villain. It has good moments, but nothing that you could really say is rip-roaring hilarious, though Keaton is good as it gets. In a sea of Keaton films, this likely wouldn't be one I would recommend immediately, but it is adequate enough to see at least once.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923).

Review #850: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Cast
Lon Chaney (Quasimodo), Patsy Ruth Miller (Esmeralda), Norman Kerry (Phoebus de Chateaupers), Kate Lester (Madame de Gondelaurier), Winifred Bryson (Fleur de Lys), Nigel De Brulier (Don Claudio), Brandon Hurst (Jehan), Ernest Torrence (Clopin), and Tully Marshall (King Louis XI) Directed by Wallace Worsley.

Review
While this does not necessarily fall into the horror genre (being more of a romance/drama), it is often considered the first film in the "Universal Monsters" series, with a few of the films from that line already reviewed on this show (such as The Phantom of the Opera (#774), the Dracula films, the Frankenstein films, The Invisible Man (#069), The Old Dark House (#465), Murders in the Rue Morgue (#531), The Mummy (#632)...), adapted from the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo, with certain liberties taken. I figured it was time to get to this film, which I had considered doing for quite some time, though I always seemed to push it back for other movies, until now. It is clear to see why Chaney was often called "The Man of a Thousand Faces", as he is spectacularly unrecognizable as the Hunchback, with the makeup being exquisitely grotesque, looking great for the time and even now. Miller and Kerry do fine in their romance scenes, having some sort of chemistry amidst the ultimate heartbreak. Hurst plays a decent villain, but the real star of the show is the grand scale of everything. There is a good deal of depth in the sets and costumes that create such a magnificent and true atmosphere, with different color hues in certain scenes that really stick out nicely. There isn't too much use of inter-titles, but the film manages to convey itself neatly without dialogue, like most great silent films do. The version I watched includes music compiled by Donald Hunsberger (with adaption and conduction by Robert Israel and his orchestra), which accompanies the movie excellently in capturing the movie's scale. The length of the movie depends on what copy you are seeing, ranging from 95 minutes to over two hours, with the version I watched being nearly around 110 minutes, and it paces itself well. Clearly I recommend this movie, and you can find it almost anywhere in part due to it being in the public domain.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Safety Last!

Review #758: Safety Last!

Cast
Harold Lloyd (The Boy), Mildred Davis (Mildred, The Girl), Bill Strother ("Limpy" Bill, The Pal), Noah Young (The Law), Westcott Clarke (Mr. Stubbs, The Floorwalker), and Earl Mohan (The Drunk) Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer  (#667 - The Freshman and #674 - Grandma's Boy) and Sam Taylor (The Freshman)

Review
Yes, Safety Last. When it comes to an actor doing all their own stunts, Harold Lloyd is a prime example of this, and especially in the 1920's. The scene of him hanging from the hands of a clock high above the street is especially impressive while also one of the most memorable scenes put onto film. Lloyd shines once again as the everyman (sorry, everyboy) who manages to get himself into such fun situations. As with good silent movies, there are good titles, with my favorite being this gem: "There were certain days of the week when she could be sure of a letter from him. They were Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday". Words fail me here. The movie runs along nicely, not dragging and managing to have fun gags, especially with the climax of Lloyd trying to climb a building. It is impressive to see Lloyd hanging from a clock, because it just showcases his brilliant physicality (I myself would not climb 5, let alone 12 stories), but it is his charm of being likable despite all of the madcap stuff that happens to him that makes the movie work well. Silent comedies are fun to watch because the gags that work manage to do so without needing sound, just good ol' slapstick, with a little bit of suspense this time around. The movie is enjoyable while also having thrills that make for good entertainment. Whether it be Keaton, Chaplin. or Lloyd, you really can't go wrong.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.