The Hands of Orlac.

Review #1896: The Hands of Orlac.

Cast: 

Conrad Veidt (Paul Orlac), Alexandra Sorina (Yvonne Orlac), Fritz Kortner (Nera), Carmen Cartellieri (Regine), Hans Homma (Dr. Serra), Fritz Strassny (Paul's father), and Paul Askonas (Servant) Directed by Robert Wiene (#261 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari)

Review: 

If you remember, Robert Wiene directed one of the most notable expressionist movies of its time. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), with Conrad Veidt as one of the stars, is also one of the most notable horror features in the pre-1930 era, when horror was in loose definition for films. The German-born Wiene got into acting in the early 20th century before directing and writing by 1913, with Fear [Furcht] (1917) also serving as an early horror feature to go along with Genuine (1920). Wiene continued to make films on a regular basis until 1933, when Nazis took power in Germany. He made one further film in exile before dying of cancer in 1938 at the age of 65. This film (originally released as Orlacs Hände) was released as a production from Austria as an adaptation of Les Mains d'Orlac, a 1920 French novel by Maurice Renard. Two further films were adapted from the book: Mad Love (1935) and The Hands of Orlac (1960), although there have been a number of unofficial adaptations that cribbed elements from the book such as Hands of a Stranger (1962) and Body Parts (1991).

If one is thinking they are going to get a strange and eerie horror feature involving a man wondering what to make of his newly transplanted hands...you will get something, but one should temper their expectations. It is more of a psychological feature with the barest of horror elements (while not being an Expressionist work either), moving at a pace that will see just how one's patience goes on the strength of one good actor and well-enough cinematography for 90 minutes. Veidt is the best part of the film because of how he elevates what would be a bland character in lesser hands and makes it one with tortured patience and vulnerability that keeps you invested in seeing where the pain lies with him. He may seem a bit overwrought when it comes to looking at silent performances, but it works with what needs to be shown here. Kortner makes a sinister showing to make the buildup more than just a glacier-pace, because there isn't exactly much to really describe about the movie about "killer" hands besides a grouchy parent, since we know that our lead isn't exactly a killer (but Kortner doesn't have too much time anyway). This kind of overshadows the others such as a withering Sorina or Strassny being an old nut, but at least the movie is respectably done from start to finish. The train wreck that is in the beginning of the film is handled in sprawling detail I do think the second half works a bit better than the first when it comes to getting down to business, but its attempts at a tidy conclusion does seem a bit too convenient (strangely, Berlin had one quibble in its censorship authority: not the idea of a guy going nuts due to having "killer" hands, but a sequence talking about making molds of fingerprints from wax). So yes, the movie is a psych-out scare rather than a body count movie, and that will work out for others better than others when it comes to imagination and patience, and I think it ends up doing just fine in that regard. It may not be as particularly creeping as its title might suggest, but you could still have a decent time regardless.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Okay, here's a blueprint of the month to guess on: the decades of the 1910s to the 2010s gets one film featured to review before the cycle repeats itself again (of course, the 1910s may be hard to repeat...)

So yes, a film from the 1920s gets followed by one from the 1930s, so enjoy the guessing.

The Man Who Laughs (1928).

Review #999: The Man Who Laughs.

Cast: 
Mary Philbin (Dea), Conrad Veidt (Gwynplaine / Lord Clancharlie), Brandon Hurst (Barkilphedro), Olga Baclanova (Duchess Josiana), Cesare Gravina (Ursus), Stuart Holmes (Lord Dirry-Moir), Samuel de Grasse (King James II Stuart), George Siegmann (Dr. Hardquanonne), and Josephine Crowell (Queen Anne Stuart) Directed by Paul Leni (#863 - Waxworks)

Review: 
I figured that it would be fitting to do a silent film for the 999th review, with this being the 62nd of its type covered on Movie Night. You may notice that the square right next to the title card is in a few colors like pink, grey and black. These colors were utilized for the 99th review (Mutiny on the Bounty), albeit with a bit more stylizing this time around. Enjoy this review.

This was adapted from Victor Hugo's 1869 novel of the same name. The novel had one previous adaptation in 1921 named The Grinning Face, made in Austria. Universal had previously adapted Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame (#850) back in 1923, and the intent was to have Chaney star in the title role after the success of that film, although issues to the rights of the novel meant that Chaney would be released from doing this film in favor of The Phantom of the Opera (#774). After that film's release, producer Carl Laemmle decided to try and make this as his next attempt at Gothic success, with Veidt picked to play the title role. Leni, who had recently moved to Hollywood after having been invited by Laemmele, was selected as director. Both choices prove to be fairly crucial in why this film works as well as it does; Leni uses his lighting and sets to fine effect, as one might expect from a German Expressionist such as him. Veidt wears a makeup device that made his mouth swollen while being supplied disturbing teeth, which contributes to the look of his character. While it is a great effect, it takes a good actor to help convey numerous emotions with only his eyes, and Veidt stands up to the challenge quite well. The appearance of Veidt proved to be the visual inspiration for the comic book villain the Joker, appearing in comics over a decade later. Philbin, playing a role not too different from her role from Phantom of the Opera (in which she played opposite Chaney), does a decent job, given that she is playing a blind person.

This film is sometimes counted as one of the films of the Universal Monsters series, and while it isn't much of a horror film, there is a fair amount of gloom within its tone to make a case for it, although it also has elements of romance and swashbuckling action. Yes, it has a climax with excitement, but the scenes that precede it also can be sad, such as when Veidt's character is shown in a freak show, or when he is being propositioned by Baklanova's character. The scene at the House of Lords proves to a moving and effective scene in part because of Vedit and his mannerisms towards the others. Though this is a silent movie, it was (on re-release) shown with sound effects, a synchronized score, and even a theme song (named "When Love Comes Stealing"). The sounds we get to hear are of laughter during the freak show, which is certainly a startling (and satisfying) effect, and the theme is fairly passable as well. As a whole, this is an efficient movie that satisfies on numerous levels while being fairly paced well at 110 minutes. It might not be the horror film that you might expect from seeing Veidt's appearance on screen, but it is a satisfying romance drama (with a bit of horror) with enough competence and style to make a top-notch effort.

Well. Here we are at end of review nine hundred ninty-nine. 
You are likely wondering what is next for the one thousandth review, so I'll tell you...

...tomorrow night, when the review is actually up. I'm not trying to hype the review, but I figure it makes sense to let you all wonder a bit and enjoy. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Waxworks.

Review #863: Waxworks.

Cast:
Emil Jannings (Harun al-Rashid), Conrad Veidt (Ivan the Terrible), Werner Krauss (Jack the Ripper / Spring-Heeled Jack), William Dieterle (The Poet / Assad the Baker / A Russian Prince), John Gottowt (Inhaber der Panoptikums), Olga Belajeff (Eva-Maimune-Eine Bojarin) Directed by Paul Leni and Leo Birinsky.

Review:
Waxworks (known as Das Wachsfigurenkabinett in Germany) is an anthology film, with some fantasy and horror elements (yes, this another German "world cinema" film on Movie Night. Do not worry, other countries will get their due all in good time). Two main stories (Harun al-Rashid, Ivan the Terrible) and a closing one (Jack the Ripper/Spring-heeled Jack) are conveyed to us (with the framing piece being that the Poet must come up with backstories for the two wax figures), with Dieterle being in all three parts. The sets and costumes for the two main stories are spectacular, with fine cinematography work by Helmar Lerski. There is also a bit of neat color tinting as well. The first segment is pretty good, with a nice performance from Jannings that brings out some nice humor. It's the longer segment (by a few minutes), but it doesn't overstay its welcome too much. The second segment is also pretty interesting, with Veidt playing this villainous kind of role with a bit of lunacy that later turns into desperation, with the scene of him trying to reverse the hourglass being quite frantic, with his fate at the end being quite poetic. The final piece to close out the film is brief (around six minutes), but it is serviceable, even if it ends a bit like you'd expect (who could've dreamed that one up, I wonder), for the 20's anyway. Obviously it isn't likely realistic with world history facts, but there is a curiosity that the movie inspires within itself. Krauss does fairly well as the last villainous character. On the whole, this is a fine piece of work, weaving some enjoyable stories together with a good sense of style and flair for the time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Thief of Bagdad (1940).

Review #400: The Thief of Bagdad.

Cast
Conrad Veidt (Jaffar), Sabu (Abu), June Duprez (The Princess), John Justin (Ahmad), Rex Ingram (Genie), Miles Malleson (Sultan of Basra), Morton Selten (The Old King), Mary Morris (Halima), Bruce Winston (The Merchant), and Hay Petrie (The Astrologer) Directed by Michael Powell, Ludwig Berger, and Tim Whelan.

Review
The Thief of Bagdad is a remake of the 1924 version (reviewed previously - #399), and in some ways the two films are alike, but in other ways they are different, and that is a good thing. The two films differ in sound, in color, and other various things (such as the Prince and the Thief being different characters rather than one) but they both seem to carry the magic of fun, as a tale as old as time. Conrad Veidt is a brilliant villain, who I've covered before in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (#261) and Casablanca (#125), and he works well. Sabu is a fine actor, not annoying or dull, more an actor in development as he already was acting at 13, but he would sadly die at the age of 39. A good actor nonetheless. Duprez and Justin are fine romantic leads, not too bad or too cliche. The supporting actors (like Rex Ingram) are decent, and they do add to the film's depth. This is a film with many ambitions and many ideas. The effects are great because they are groundbreaking for the time, a blue screen (also known as green screen), developed by Larry Butler which gives the film a new level of spectacle, much like how the 1924 version did with its own effects. This film has good ideas which also inspired Aladdin (#156) as I mentioned before. This is a delight for both children and adults, as it manages to have a good heart and a well enough attempt at entertainment. A treasure trove for everyone. I'd like to say it has been a fine thing to review for 400 films, and I am sure there is more to come for me and you. Thanks to everyone who has been reading, and I hope you keep reading as I hope I watching films.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Review #261: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.

Cast
Werner Krauss (Dr. Caligari), Conrad Veidt (Cesare), Friedrich Fehér (Francis), Lil Dagover (Jane Olsen), Hans Heinrich von Twardowski (Alan), and Rudolf Lettinger (Dr. Olsen) Directed by Robert Wiene.

Review
This is the second German film reviewed here, and it figures to have be a silent film from a while back. A really long while back from 1920. Like Nosferatu, this is a silent film. How is it then? Good. Its jagged buildings combined with a creative expression filled story give a chilling feel to the film. The actors convey a good amount of movement, which is required in a way to keep a movie going. The film also delivers what is considered to be the first twist enging in film history, and...it works. It really does. In the end, it's a greatfully designed film with good chills to make a great film.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.