A Journey Through Cinema History
 

It's official, I've run out of movies to watch. Well, not really, but it's come to the point that I'm going to just start over from the very beginning.

My quest is to watch the classics (and not so classics, and some anti-classics) in order of the year that they were released, starting with the dawn of film.

The first movies were made by Eadweard Muybridge in the mid 1880s. His technique was really just a series of photographs that gave a loose appearence of motion. You could say that these movies had a frame rate of 1 frame per second. Among the first movies were of naked women performaing various acts like walking up stairs, putting a vase on the floor and hopping on one foot. Brilliant!

It wasn't until the early 1890s when Edison (or W.K.L. Dickson who worked in Edison's lab) created the kinetoscope that creating movies became practical and profitable. In 1893, Edison built the world's first mvoie studio called The Black Maria. In this studio, W.K.L.Dickson would direct many short films, mostly lasting about 5 or 6 seconds.

These films included a woman performing a belly-dance, Sandow ("The World's Strong Man") posing, Annie Duke demostrating her sharpshooting, various comedy routines, Native Americans performaing dances, boxing matches, etc.

In fact, one of the earliest "scandels" was the fact that boxing was illegal in most states, including New Jersey where the Black Maria was location. The film of Jim Corbett vs. Peter Courtney was documented proof that Edison staged a boxing match. However, he simply claimed that it wasn't really a boxing match and it was just a demostration. Because of Edison's popularity, he got away with it. The first "Hollwood Star" to escape the law.

As you can see, the entire movie industry is founded on the stuff that people complain are happening "now". Sex, violence, people inside the industry breaking laws and the authorites allowing them to get away with it. The early success of the industry was founded on these things. :)

In France, the movie inustry was taking off as well, in a similar mold (shooting shorts). Inspired by Edison's work, the Lumiere Brothers built their own version of the kinetoscope. They called it the cinematographe. Over the next few years, many other people would create their own offshoots of the kinetoscope, but none of them caught on.

It took a magician to really take movies from simply filming people doing various acts to the use of special effects. His name was George Melies, a magician from France. He had seen a demostration of the Lumeire Brothers and wanted to buy one of their cameras, but they refused. So, he had to build his own, a variation of a different camera and projector and created Europe's first movie studio in 1897. He would go on to create over 500 shorts films in this studio that he would show in his magic theater. Very few of the films have survived, unfortunately.

In the early 1900s, a director in the US named Edward S. Porter, and the French magician George Melies, would start creating longer stories. The public was growing bored with the shorts and wanted more in ways of story telling, and both Porter and Melies predicted that it would happen. Exhibitors in the US would oftan take shorts and put them together to try and tell a story. So Porter decided to do that from the start, and in France, Melies did the same.

And that is where our journey begins...

Jack And The Beastalk (1902)
Director: Edward S. Porter
Length: 10 Minutes

One of the very first films that told a story, Porter took the well known story of Jack and the Beanstalk. It's a simple retelling fo the story, and very straightforward. Jack sells his donkey for some magic beans. His mother, in a fit of rage, throws the beans on the ground. Overnight, they grow into a giant beanstalk that Jack climbs. There, he finds a house where there lived a giant. (spoiler warning!) He then grabs the goose that lays the golden eggs, climbs down the stalk and chops it down, killing the giant as it falls to the ground.

Historical Rating. This is how I try and do my best to rate the movie for its historical importance, influence, how good it is releative to the rest of films at the time and how enteratining it is.
Entertainment Rating - This is where I just simply rate the movie on how entertaining I found it, regardless of age, importance, etc.

Historical Rating - 7/10
Enteratinment Rating - 4/10

A Trip To The Moon (1902)
Directed By: Goerge Melies
Length: 16 minutes

George Melies' most popular film, and his crowning acheivement. A Trip To The Moon was not successful at first, since a lot of distributors did not want to pay Meleis' asking price, which seemed very high compared the price for the 1 minute long shorts. However, after Melies gave a free screening of it at a carnival, the popularity of the film took off and became a huge success. Unfortunately, Melies could not reproduce the popularity of A Trip To The Moon, and by 1913, his studio was bankrupt.

The film starts off with a group of astronomers gathered to plan a trip to the moon. It's very slow at first, but once they start building the ship ("bullet"), it starts to take off. The 16 minutes watching this film seemed faster than the 10 for Jack And The Beanstalk. The film is filled with special effects that only the magician could conjure in his head. A great film that does hold up a bit after more than a century as the world's first Science Fiction movie.

Historical Rating: 9/10
Entertainment Rating: 7/10

The Great Train Robbery (1903)
Directed By: Edward S. Porter
Length: 12 minutes

The nation's first blockbuster. This film is essencially what started america cinema as it grabbed headlines. This was the first film that was shot out of order and edited afterwards for practical reasons.

This was the first western that started a few cliches that lasted for quite a long time, such as making someone dance while shooting the ground at their feet. While not big on the special effects innovations like Melies' A Trip To The Moon, it was the start of many filming technicque innovations such as, as I said, shooting out of order and editing the film in proper sequence, filming on location rather than in a studio, camera movement rather than having the camera stationary, and several other post-production techniques.

Historical Rating: 10/10
Entertainment Rating: 7/10

If you were to look at a history or timeline of cinema, you would think there were no films made between 1903 and 1915's Birth Of A Nation. With good reason.

After watching several 1904-1907 films, there really isn't a memorable film at all. Here's a rundown of a few of the notable ones.

The Kleptomaniac (1905)
Directed by: Edward S. Porter
Lenth: 12 minutes

It's a parallel story of two women caught stealing. One woman is wealthy and steals a piece of cloth from a store. The other woman is poor and steal bread to feed her family. They are both caught and are put in front of a judge. The poor woman is found guilty and sent to jail, despite a plea from her daughter, while the wealthy woman is let go because of her social standing. The film ends with Lady Justice holding up her scales, with a loaf of bread on on end.

This is about the time when films with social meanings start to come out.

Historical Rating: 5/10
Entertainment Rating 3/10

-----------------------

Coney Island At Night (1905)
Length: 5 minutes

One of the first, non-short documentaries. Until now, there were films of the aftermatch of the San Francisco earthquake and the hurracane in Galviston, TX. But they were short, mostly just 15-30 seconds. This is the first one lasting several minutes. This was also a time when not everyone had electricity, so it must have been quite the sight to see Coney Island all lit up when in many parts of the country, electricity was still pretty rare.

Historical Rating: 6/10
Entertainment Rating: 2/10

-----------------------

The White Caps (1905)
Directed By: Edward S. Porter
Length: 12 minutes

The White Caps is a movie about a group of vigilanties called, unsurprisingly, The White Caps. They enforced a sort of moral law. The story is about a man who beats his wife, and then she runs away and the White Caps find out. They grab the guy at his home, but he escapes. What follows is the hunt for the man, his capture and then he gets tarred and feathers. The last scene is of the White Caps parading him down the street.

Historical Rating: 4/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

-----------------------

The "Teddy" Bears (1907)
Directed By: Edward S. Porter
Length: 12 minutes

This is a retelling of the story of Goldilocks And The Three Bears. What makes this noteworthy is that it includes an extended stop-motion animation scene, definately one of the first scenes of stop-motion animation.

Historical Rating: 6/10
Entertainment Rating: 3/10

I'm reading

Sab, where do you go to rent/buy/whatever these old films?

Netflix. Most of the Porter films, and the ones before made for Edison, I watched off a documentary series: "Edison: Invention Of The Movies" (4 DVDs). And then there's a DVD called "Melies The Magician" which is a documentary about him that has a few of his movies on it (including A Trip To The Moon). "Landmarks Of Early Film" is another DVD I have out, but most of what is on there is on the Edison DVDs.

Two more DVDs that I should get in the middle of the week are "Biograph Shorts" which is 2 DVDs of D.W. Griffith's short movies that he made for the American Biograph Co. (a competitor of Edison's company).

Very interesting read Sab, and it's certainly got me interested in tracking some of these down.

The oldest movie I've ever seen is 1920's Der Golem, which is FANTASTIC.

I never heard of Der Golem, and Netflix doesn't have it (either of them. Looks like one from 1915 and one from 1920). Looks like I can buy it though, but I decided before I did this not to get carried away and start buying the DVDs that Netflix didn't have yet. That would cost a small fortune. :D

I bought the Kino version, which was of the 1920's release. It's a horror movie, but as you'd expect it's not very scary today. The sets are amazing though, with one Amazon reviewer nailing it perfectly by saying they are Tim Burton-esque. Also has some very nice special effects for 1920 and is a good story to boot, with a classic final scene.

But yeah, it's easy to get carried away and start blowing wads of cash on movies like these. After I saw Der Golem I bought quite a few releases from the 20s and 30s which cost me some cash, but Der Golem stands as my favourite, even over Metropolis. But I'm probably alone in thinking that. :D

Der Golem is an absolute classic, I love German Expressionist film as a whole. However, nothing tops Metropolis for me.

Reading and enjoying this so far. The Great Train Robbery is a very interesting film to watch, so much innovation and so many firsts that are now integral to the film process.

Interesting idea.

I will be following and looking forward to seeing you progress through history.

Very interesting dynasty, I'll be following.

Several more shorts...(and the reason I stopped posting pics is because, as I said, these are not memorable or really all that noteworthy so I can't find pics of them online and I can't get my DVD software to take screen caps)

The Rivals (1907)
Director: Edward S. Porter
Length: 12 minutes

A simple story of men competing over a woman. Each scene was one man pulling a prank or a scheme to sabotage the guy the woman was with and take her from him. Each scheme got progressingly more and more complexe, not to mention, absurd. Kind of funny, put I never actually laughed. The funniest thing was the womna going off with the sabotaur each and every time. In the end, she marries on of them, and the other 2 congradulate them.

Historical Rating: 2/10
Entertainment Rating: 3/10

-------------------------

The Little Girl Who Did Not Believe In Santa Claus (1908)
Director: Edward S. Porter
Length: 14 minutes

This first Santa film (that I know of) starts off simple enough. One boy, living in a nice home, beleives in Santa, and a girl, who lives with her mom in what can best be described as a shack, does not. So the boy has a plan (And after this, I don't want to hear ANYONE bitching about violence in movies again!). The boy takes a GUN, and ambushes Santa when he comes to his house. Ha takes Santa hostage, ties him up and forces him to go to the little girl's house. He then makes Santa leave the girl lots of toys and creates a Christmas Tree for the girl as well. They leave, and right after they do, the little girl wakes up and finds the toys and tree. The last scene is of Santa carrying the boy back to bed. I guess that's a sign that Santa let the boy ambush him with a handgun and take him hostage. *shrug* It made it entertaining, though! :D

Historical Rating: 3/10
Entertaining Rating: 4/10

-------------------------

Rescued From An Eagles Nest (1908)
Director: Edward S. Porter
Length: 8 minutes

A short tale of a child that gets kidnapped by an eagle and taken to its nest. The mother finds the child missing and gets the father. The father and his tree-chopping down buddies find the nest on the side of a small cliff and lower the father down. An epic, 10 second battle between father and eagle ensues, in which the father kills the eagle. He then takes his son to safety.

Historical Rating: 2/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

-------------------------

New York Today (1910)
Length: 7 minutes

Another documentary. It was pretty neat to see places like Times Square and Central Park 100 years ago.

Historical Rating: 2/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10


Porter basically created a system of expressions and motions to help tell his stories. But as stories became more complex, his way of director was seen as old-fashioned. Porter mainly told well known stories and simple stories. But when you have to pump out several movies at a time, you run out of ideas and well known stories. Porter is pretty much phased out around this time, as best as I can tell. He simply didn't adapt well to new on-screen techniques that helped to advance a story. There was more than one time when I was watching one of these shorts where a few minutes in I just thought "What the hell is going on!?"

I'll pick this up later when my next batch of Netflix gets here. Probably won't get it updated until late this weekend since I'll be gone all day Friday.

w00t!

I found The Golem on Netflix. Didn't see it before since they have it as just "Golem" (I searched for "The Golem" and "Der Golem" and didn't find it). So that movie goes on the list!

My last shorts update before I get to the first full length film, The Bith Of A Nation.

Those Awful Hats
Length: 3 Minutes

This seemed to be the first "please be considerate at the movie theater" film. The simple plot if that women keep entering the movie theater wearing a larger, more absurd hat than the one before. Finally, the movie theater erupts into a large confrontation. The end has text on the screen asking the ladies to please remove their hats when they enter a movie theater.

Historical Rating: 3/10
Entertainment Rating: 2/10

----------------

The Sealed Room (1909)
Director: D.W.Griffith
Length: 11 minutes

The king's wife is a tramp! The king catches his wife in a room with another man. She is sitting in a chair while the man is sitting on the floor with his head in her lap. She seems to be feeding him some kind of food. The king quickly assembles a few bricklayers and seals the door. The two lovers panic as the king laughs. Then end.

Historical Rating: 4/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

-------------

The Battle of Elderbush Gulch (1913)
Directed By: D.W. Griffith
Starring: Mae Marsh, Lillian Gish, Robert Harron
Length: 30 minutes

As with the last jump in length of film (The 2-3 minute shorts to the films like A Trip To The Moon and The Great Train Robbery), the jump in production value is also very noticable.

This movie shows a tribe of native americans battling against a town. By today's standards, the way the Inidans are shown would be extremely offensive. However, I'm trying to judge the film based on its point in history. The film shows the Indians performing a ritual, and then a few of them go to the town. Getting there, they try and kidnap a few dogs (to eat them) but the girl who owns the dogs takes them back. As the Indians are struggling with the girl, a man shoots them and she gets away. One of the Indians dies, the son of the Chief. The Indians get ready for battle and attack the town. The battle rages on for quite awhile until help comes and saves the town.

The battle scenes were pretty impressive for its day. And, having seen the first half of The Birth Of A Nation so far (will be watching the second half tonight), the battle scenes in this movie were actually better than the Civil War battles in The Birth Of A Nation (although, the be fair, this movie's climax was the battle, while the battles in The Birth Of A Nation are just used to advance the story and timeline of events and aren't that important to the movie.)

Historical Rating: 5/10
Entertainment Rating: 5/10

I'm still enjoying this dynasty. You should pimp it a bit on the main board, as I'm sure a lot of folks are missing out on it.

Also, just wanted to say that this plot sounds like one of the horrendous ones that I put together when I was playing the Movies :) :

If they can't bother to check the dynasty forum, they deserve to miss out. ;)

(I may pimp it some....)

The Birth Of A Nation (1915)
Director: D. W. Griffith
Starring: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Henry B. Walthall, Miriam Cooper, Robert Harron
Length: 187 minutes

Honors
#44 on AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies" list (1996)

While not the first feature length film (A film over an hour long), as Griffith had made one for The Biograph Company after he was inspired by an Italian film called Cabiria that was two hours in length. After seeing Cabiria, he was convinced that feature-length films were commercially viable. The Biograph Company disagreed, and Griffith left over it, and all of the company's top actors and actresses left with him. He created his own production company and created partnerships to fund this movie.

First off, to get this out of the way since it must be said, the film is based on two novels/plays by Thomas F. Dixon Jr (The Clansman and The Leopard's Spots) and is extremely racist. All but 2 black characters are portrayed in a very negative light. (The 2 black characters that are not shown negatively are 2 black servents who stayed faithful and loyal to their sourthern masters after the war). The film celebrates the KKK as heros and protectors of the south. The NAACP protested the film when it was released, and the film was banned in a few cities. Even today, the KKK uses this film for recruitment purposes.

D.W.Griffith was the son of a conferderate soldier and raised in the south. To go off on a tangent, I was friends with a foreign exchange student when I was in high school. He came over from Egypt when we were in our junior years. He didn't like jews. At first, I was like "eh...what?", but as I thought about it, could I really blame a 16 year old Egyptian arab for not liking jews considering the enviroment he was raised in? That would be pretty unfair to him. We ended up going to the same college together, and as the years went by, he became noticably less prejudice against jews. Unfortunately, I lost touch with him after we graduated from college. The point of this is to demonstrate how I feel toward's Griffith's blatent racism in this film. I can't really blame someone for being racist in 1915 considering the enviroment he was raised in, and lived in in his adult life. It wasn't until after the film's release, and the backlash Griffith suffered for it, that he realized how racist it really was.

Here is Roger Ebert's final paragraph in his review of The Birth Of A Nation:

"As slavery is the great sin of America, so "The Birth of a Nation" is Griffith's sin, for which he tried to atone all the rest of his life. So instinctive were the prejudices he was raised with as a 19th century Southerner that the offenses in his film actually had to be explained to him. To his credit, his next film, "Intolerance," was an attempt at apology. He also once edited a version of the film that cut out all of the Klan material, but that is not the answer. If we are to see this film, we must see it all, and deal with it all."


The film is, without a doubt, a technical masterpiece. Just as the other instances before, the length of movie increased, and so did the production value with it. The film cost $110,000 to make, an astronomical sum for the time, but it's easy to see where the money went. Griffith used several innovative shots such as the full screen close up, high angle panoramic long shots, panning and moving camera shots and nighttime photography. He also used cross-cutting (cutting between multiple scenes to build suspense). He also had costumes specifically made for the film to match the fashion of the Civil War era, the first time this was done. He spared no expense to make this movie as historically accurate as he could. He even brought on West Point engineers as advisors to the battle scenes (and they also provided artillery for him to use).

The movie is broken up into two parts, and I'll try to keep this as spoiler free as possible. It follows the lives of two families, one in the north and one in the south. Both families suffer tragedy during the Civil War. In fact, this film is also very much an "anti-war" film. It shows the Civil Wat as a great sin and a black mark in American history. It is displayed as the death of state's rights and the creation of a federal nation, hence the title "The Birth Of A Nation".

The second part of the film is the Reconstruction story. It shows the south as oppressed and the northern whites and freed slaves as their oppressors. By today's standards, the story would probably be seen as cliche. It's basically the story of the oppressed fighting and revolting against their oppressors and the treachery of one side of the oppressors against the other, followed by atonement by some of the oppressors to the oppressed. (That's a lot of oppressing going on in there). You could easily put this in a sci-fi setting, and replace and whites, blacks and mulatto with Humans, Klingons and Romulans or put it in an medival setting and replace races with kingdoms and/or bloodlines.

Imagine paying $36 dollars to see a movie. That's how much it cost to see The Birth Of A Nation ($2 in 1915). It quickly became extremely popular and remained the most profitable movie made for decades. It grossed $10 million in its first run and had pulled in $18 million by the time 'talkies' came into existance (the film was rereleased several times over the next few decades).

To ignore this film's importance and place in history would be a crime. This film created the movie industry as we know it. Before Birth Of A Nation, studios would not make and release long films because they thought they would hurt the eyes of the viewers. They were mass production factories, pumping out as many short films as they possible could, not taking much time or money to really develop a quality film. It was quantity over quality. When this became a huge success, the feature-length film was born, and so was the movie industry.

Historical Rating: 10/10
Entertainment Rating: 6/10


Question to those following: Do you care if I post spoilers? I doubt anyone is going to view most of the filsm I post about, so if you don't really care, I'll give a more detailed explaination of the plot and story. If I do post spoilers, feel free to request that I don't for certain movies you are interested in watching at some point. I'll post a list of movies I'll be watching soon every once in awhile to keep you guys posted on what movies are coming up soon.

Reading and don't mind if you post spoilers. If I see in the title that it's something I might actually watch, I'll skip it until I've actually watched it. This is a fun little dynasty to read through.

Upcoming Movies

Carmen (1915)
The Cheat (1915)
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (1916)
Intoloerance (1916)
Broken Blossoms (1918)
Outside The Law (1920)
Der Golem (1920)
Way Out East (1920)
The Mark Of Zorro (1920)

Lost Films or Films Not on DVD
(these are movies that are on my list, but I can't watch because they have not made it to DVD yet, or they have been lost)

The Poor Little Rich Girl (1917)
Cleopatra (1917)
Mickey (1918)
Tarzan Of The Apes (1918)
Within Our Gates (1920)

Very well done. Please post spoilers.

I can't wait until you get to Nosferatu and something on Max Schreck, perhaps the greatest of all pre-talkies.

Spoilers won't be a problem for me.

Hey Bucc, what was it like to see the first talkies?

Spoilers are fine with me.

Yeah, I don't think spoilers are a major problem. I'll do as RH says, and just not read the review if I plan on catching the film.

If you can't avoid spoliers without explaining the film the way you want to, then I think it would be fine.

I think the statute of limitations on "spoilers" is about 80 years, so you should be good.

Great read, you've encouraged me to diversify my Netlifx queue.

Carmen (1915)
Directed By: Cecil B. DeMille
Starring: Geraldine Farrar, Wallace Reid, Pedro de Corboda
Length: 59 minutes

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Passions"

Based on an opera by the same na,e this is the story of a woman who helps a band of smugglers. A new guard shows up to guard a hole in the city wall. His name is Don Jose. The smugglers try to bribe him, but he will have none of it, so they get a woman, Carmen, to seduce him so they can get their smuggled goods into the city.

She does a bit too good of a job at it, and Don Jose becomes obsessed with Carmen, ultimately getting into an arguement with a fellow guard and killing him. The smugglers help Don Jose flee, but he follows Carmen and her lover to the city of Seville. There, he confronts Carmen, tells her that she belongs to him, and as they struggle, he pulls a knife and kills her. Immeditately filled with grief over what he had just done, he kills himself.

The move was ok. Nothing all that great or technically impressive. The only reason the movie ended up on my list was because it came on the same DVD as the next movie I watched, The Cheat. The two most notable things, maybe the only notable things, is the director and that Charlie Chaplin spoofed it.

Historical Rating: 2/10
Entertainment Rating: 3/10

The Cheat
Directed by: Cecil B. DeMille
Starring: Fannie Ward, Jack Dean, Sessue Hayakawa
Length: 59 minutes

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies"
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Thrills"

There once was a man named Richard Hardy (played by Jack Dean) who had a wife, Edith Hardy (played by Fannie Ward) who would spend and spend and spend some more. Richard Hardy had all of his money in stock investments, and could not afford his wife's spending habits. He kept assuring her that his stock would pay off soon.

She was also the treasurer of a Red Cross charity. She recieved a stock tip from a friend, and took the money from the charity and put it in the stock. Oops, the stock fell through and the charity's $10,000 was gone. She asked Haka Arakau, another friend of her's, for a loan. He'd give it....for a price. Her body. She agreed.

Her husband's stock hit the next day and she tried to pay the money back, but Mr. Arakau wouldn't accept and wanted his prize. She fought back, and he branded her on the shoulder. She fights him off, grabs his gun and shoots him. After she runs away, her husband shows up just before the cops. He takes the blame for the shooting.

He is put on trial for the shooting. Even after finding out why she was there, he still wanted to take the blame and told her to not say anything. As the verdict of guilty is read, she loses it, stands in front of the court and shows the branding and says she shot him. The court erupts into a brawl, for some odd reason. Mr. Hardy's verdict is overturned and he and his wife leave the courtroom.

What the fuck. Maybe there was a different code of chivalry back then, but why did he take the blame if her telling the truth meant no trial, for either of them?

Ok, I did not like the plot, especially at the end, as I kind of found the characters way too unbelievably 2 dimensional. However, story telling in these silent films has gotten quite good. With only showing bits and pieces of the conversation (text of the screen), you can still easily follow along. The use of music, camera and lighting techniques and body language really goes a long way in keeping the audience informed as to what is happening. Earlier films (the shorts), I had no clue what was going on a lot of the time, but am having no trouble following now. Maybe I've gotten a bit used to them, but I think that movie making had become an art form by this time. I give this a bit of a high historical rating, since apparently some people in the AFI like it. But I didn't really enjoy the movie that much.

Historical Rating: 5/10
Entertainment Rating: 2/10

20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (1916)
Director: Stuart Parton
Starring: Matt Moore, Dan Hanlon, Jane Gail, Allen Holubar
Length: 101 Minutes

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies"

Adapted from the novel by Jules Verne, this was the first movie to use filming from underwater. Part of the movie felt like it was just a demostration of this new technique.This was the second time Jules Verne's novel was made into a film. The first was in 1907 by George Melies.

The story is the basic story of revenge. Captain Nemo builds a submarine, called Nautilus, to rule the ocean and seek revenge on the world. I never read the original novel, but reading over the plot of the novel on wikipedia shows that the film makers of this movie changed quite a bit from the novel. As best as I can tell, most movie makers tried to stay as faithful to the original play/novel as possible. This might be the first time a movie deviated a lot from the original source.

The movie introduces a whole new story arc involving an island, a hot-air baloon crew and a "wild girl". Also, in the movie, Captain Nemo is made to be a former Prince from India and his revenge is directed at once person, instead of "civilization" as a whole.

The most redeeming quality of the film are the underwater shots. They didn't go very far, but they did get some video of schools of fish, sharks, and all kinds of coral. Neat, but overall the movie wasn't all that good. I suspect it was a nominee for the 100 movies list on the underwater photography alone.

Historical Rating: 5/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

Intolerance (1916)
Director: D.W. Griffth
Starring: Mae Marsh, Robert Harron, Elmer Clifton, Alfred Paget, Seena Owen
Length: 178 Minutes

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies"
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Thrills"

D.W. Griffth's follow up to The Birth Of A Nation, he created this film as an answer to the controversy that Borth caused. He originally was creating a shorter film about the Progressive Era labor unrest and strikes. He added three seperate story lines taking place in different time periods and wrapped them around a single theme.

The modern story is about a man who scrapes by after losing his job. He ends up marrying a girl, but is framed for a crime by a local "mob boss" for whom he did work for, but quit. While in jail, his wife gives birth to their child, but then the child is taken away by a group of over-zealous women who think they know better than everyone else and that their perceptions are always spot on (DYFS anyone?). They get a warrent to take her baby away. The mob boss promises to get her baby back, after he takes an interest in her. Her husband is released from jail, but when the mob boss' wife kills the mob boss, the husband is found with the gun (the boss' wife threw the gun into the room and the husband picked it up) and is taken back to jail and sentanced to death. The mob boss' wife confesses and the man is saved at the last second.

The second story line is that of Jesus and his batryal and crucifixion. It was pretty much worthless as there were only 3 or 4 scenes for this story line and took up a toal of 10 minutes, if that. It felt tacted on.

The third story line is that of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre during the reigh of Cathrine de Mecini and her son Charles IX of France. Another pretty worthless storyline as it took up maybe 15 minutes, if that. This storyline felt tacted on as well and only served, along with the previous storyline, as a distraction from the modern story and the 4th story, the fall of Babylon. I continually forgot about these two story lines as the Modern and Babylon stories dominated in length.

The 4th story, and best story IMO, was the Babylon story. It is the story of a Mountain Girl who is sent to the Babylonian Courts by her brother for being "incorrigable". King Belshazzar gives her freedom from the "marriage market" (she was sentanced there by the court to be sold to a good husband). Later, she is sentanced to death for fighting a priest, but the King pardons her when she pleads that the only reason she attacked the priest was because he said bad things about the king. The Mountain Girl learns of a plot by the High Priest to betray the king, but the king is hesitant to believe her. His hesitation causes the downfall of Babylon as the Persian armies enter the great city when the gates are left open.

Two huge battles are fought during the Babylon story. The sets built for the Babylon story were enormous, the largest built for a movie. They featured thousands of extras, cavarly and war elephants for the battles, large props, etc. Part of the set for the Babylon story stood in Hollywood for many years.

The movie cuts between storylines as the movie progresses, the first time a movie was present in a non-linear/hybrid way. Intolerance was not a commercial success, most likely due in large part to this. Audiences were not used to seeing a movie this way and were probably confused through some of it.

The Babylong story was very entertaining, while the Modern story was just okay. As I said before, the Judean and French storylines were pretty worthless and only served as a distraction due to them being very short compared to the other two. Recent archeaologist finds at the time had spurred interest in Babylonian times, and I wonder if it would have been more profitable had Griffith released the Modern story and Babylon stories as seperate movies. The budget is unknown, but best estimates place it at $2 million ($33 million today), an astronomical sum for the time. It was a flop at the box office, and caused Griffith's studio to go bankrupt. This result might be part of the reason why it would be awhile before a studio put that much money into making a movie again.

The historical rating is high, despite it being a flop, as many people do consider it a masterpiece and one of the best silent films ever made. The entertainment rating suffers due to 3 of the 4 storylines not being that good. Rating them seperately, I'd give the Babylon story an 8, the Modern story a 5 and the two storylines that were so short, I already have forgotten what they were about, 2 each.

Historical Rating: 8/10
Entertainment Raiting: 6/10

I hope the MPAA doesn't sue me for posting a movie here, but here is a copy of the oldest surviving movie. It's name is Roundhay Garden Scene, and it was directed in 1888 by Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince.



IMDB Page: Roundhay Garden Scene (1888)

nice movie!

That was great to see. Actual footage of real people of the 1880s!

Nice find, Router!

What is that guy in the coat on the right doing? SOme kind of jig it looks like to me.

That must bring back a lot of memories for you.

Those "Bucc is old" jokes never get tired.

Bucc: damnit, they didn't respect my privacy even back then....

Broken Blossoms (1919)
Directed By: D.W. Griffith
Starring: Lillian Gish, Richard Barthelmess, Donald Crisp
Length: 90 min

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Passions"

We jump up to 1919 from 1916's Intolerance. One reason, I suspect, would be because of World War I effecting the nation. Another would be that a lot of movies still haven't made their way to DVD from this time (and we'll see this again in the mid 1920s). Not to mention a lot of movies from this time just have not survived.

Today, the language in the movie would be seen as quite offensive. Cheng Huan (played by Richard Barthelmess) is a Buddhist from China who leaves for London to spread the word of Buddhism. As a white actor trying to portray a chinese character, he spends most of the film with his eyes mostly shut. He looks like he's asleep for most of the film. His character is also called "The Yellow Man" and "Chink" in the text shown on the screen. But, during this time, there was only one actor (Sessue Hayakawa) of East-Asian decent that played leading roles in films. The rest were played by whites.

Lillian Gish plays Lucy, the daughter of an abusive father and boxer named Battling Burrows. He routinely beats Lucy when he had been drinking causing Lucy to live most of her life in fear of her father. Cheng Huan, after arriving in London, becomes a shopkeeper and opium addict. He admires Lucy's beauty from afar until one day he finds her outside his shop, passed out after wandering around after another beating from her father. Huan takes her inside his shop and cares for her.

And, of course, they fall in love (but no touching!) Lucy's father finds out where she is and takes her back home by force. She runs into a closet but her father grabs and axe and chops the door (The Shining!) She screams for her life, but her dad gets to her, pulls her out and beats her to death. Huan shows up shortly after, finds Lucy dead and shoots Battle Burrows to death. He then goes back to his show, and can not live without her, and kills himself.

While a lot of the language, and the portrayal of a chinese man by Bethelmess, would be considered pretty offensive by today's standards, this was one of the first, if not the first, on screen inter-racial love stories. It was a film, that Roger Ebert says, "helped nudge a xenophobic nation toward racial tolerance."

Historical Rating: 7/10
Entertainment Rating: 5/10

Outside The Law (1920)
Directed By: Tod Browning
Starring: Priscilla Dean, Wheeler Oakman, Lon Chaney
Length: 75 min

Lon Chaney played two roles in this film. The one pictured above (Ah Wing) and as the main bad guy, mobster 'Black' Mike Sylva. He was a pioneer of make up in movies, but we'll get to that in later films (namely, the monster/horror films he starred in).

Molly Madden (Priscilla Dean) and her father were once crooks who went straight with the help of Ah Wing (Lon Chaney), a teacher of Confucius philosophy. However, 'Black' Mike Sylva (Lon Chaney) frames Molly's father of a crime, and he is sent to prison. Sylva's framing of Molly's father is known only to Dapper Bill Ballard (Wheeler Oakman) who then turn to set up Molly.

However, Molly and Dapper Bill turn the tables on Sylva and make off with a fortune in jewelry and go into hiding. Sylva tries to track down the two theives as Ah Wing makes a deal with the chief of police that the charges will be dropped if Molly and Dapper Bill return the jewels. Ah Wing correctly predicts the two will have a change of heart, thanks to a little boy that melts their hearts, but it happens a bit too late as Sylva finds them. A back and forth struggle of words and actions between the three ensue. In the end, Sylva's framing of Molly's father is revealed, while Molly and Dapper Bill are let go.

A good crime thriller that painfully drags in the middle. The whole story arc with the kid is just....well, something that people who love kids will probably eat up. I felt like vomiting.

Lon Chaney, of course, steals the show in his role of 'Black' Mike Sylva, as I'm sure he stole the show in most movies he did. In the era of Silent film, it seems like every actor either overacts or underacts, does things way too slowly or way too fast, and just generally comes off as odd and boring as they do their best to act their lines. To me, making 'odd' boring is a sin! Lon Chaney seemed to find just the right level of behavior acting and just the right pace. I would say, admittedly based on this one performance, he is so far the best actor I've seen on my journey, followed closely by Lillian Gish.

The historic rating of Outside The Law is hurt by the fact that it doesn't seem to be remembered much at all. It didn't make its way as a nominee for any of AFI's lists, there aren't any reviews of the film by modern critics (like those I've been able to find of Ebert on Nation, Intolerance and Blossoms). And, I could only find one pic on the internet from the movie, and that was of the supporting character that Chaney played. It would seem that the only real historic merit it has is that it has Lon Chaney in it! Entertainment wise, it would score higher if it wasn't for the middle. Great beginning, good ending, horrible in between.

Historical Rating: 4/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

Der Golem (How He Came Into the World) (1920)
Directed by: Carl Boese
Starring: Paul Wegener, Albert Steinruck, Lyda Salmonova
Length: 85 min

One of the first, if not the first, monster movie that would go on to be the prototype of many other monster films, namely Frankenstein.

In the city of Prague, the jewish ghetto is being evicted. The city just wants all of the jews gone. Rabbi Loew (Albert Steinruck) creates a man made out of clay, called Golem (Paul Wegener), and he comes alive when the Rabbi places an amulet on the creature's chest. The Rabbi created the clay made man to protect the jewish community, and after displaying the Golem's ability to the queen, she decides to reverse her order to evict the jews.

However, Rabbi Loew loses control of the Golem for some astrological reason and it starts to go crazy. Rabbi Loew quickly takes the amulet, however, and all is saved. That is, until Rabbi Loew's assistent, who is in love with the rabbi's daughter (played by Lyda Salmonova), catches the rabbi's hussy daughter being all hussy with another man. The assistant reactivates Golem and leads it to kill the rabbi's daughter's lover. Much insanity ensues. The Golem leaves the city to find children playing, one of them gives Golem a flower (I think). A scene that would be duplicated in countless Frankenstein movies.

Some of the scenes are very Tim Burton-esque, or should I saw Tim Burton's scenes are very German Expressionistic. Not scary by today's standards, but I can imagine the audience in 1920 sitting in the theater, and being scared out of their wits at seeing Paul Wegener's eyes open really wide as he slowly turns towards Albert Steinruck with his hands out. Definitely a different style of filmmaking from that of american film makers of the time. The sets are very interesting, and were definitely left an impression on Tim Burton (or left an impression on someone who influenced Burton). Some of the scenes reminded my of Bettlejuice and Edward Scissorhands, expecially the building architecture.

Unfortunately, as far as historic rating goes, Der Golem (the third or a series of Golem movies and only surviving film of the series) is oftan overshadowed by a film I will get to soon called The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Almost anything that mentions German films from the early 1920s reference Dr. Caligari, along with Metropolis. But, it gets a little bump up as it's obvious that a lot of monster films and film makers were influenced by this series.

This film was pretty entertaining to me, despite the slow pace. Not only were the sets interesting, but the style and techniques were as well. An example would be that so far in movies I have seen on my journey, every fade out meant the scene was over. Every single one. But, in Der Golem, there is a scene where a quick fade out is used when the character covers up one light source, and then quickly fades in when he opens a different light source (the door) and then fades out quickly again as the door is shut. A fade out and then fade in during the same scene. Definitely an interesting scene and one that immediately stuck out as I watched the film, as many more scenes would jump out at me as I watched the movie. A must see for horror movie fans (for historical purposes) and for those who are interested in film making (for technique and style purposes) .

Historical Rating: 6/10
Entertainment Rating: 7/10

Note: Horror, fantasy, sci-fi, etc. These movies will be rated a bit higher in entertainment than a lot of other movies. They are the genres that I prefer, along with crime/mob movies as well as historical epics.

Romance movies (love stories), musicals, movies that try and teach/preach a moral or political message (if I pick up on it), I will tend not to like these movies. Just keep that in mind when looking at the entertainment ratings.

Upcoming Movies

Way Down East (1920)
The Mark of Zorro (1920)
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
The Last of the Mohicans (1920)
The Sheik (1921)
The Kid (1921)
The Three Musketeers (1921)
Shadows (1922)
Robin Hood (1922)
Oliver Twist (1922)
Nosferatu (1922)
The Ten Commandments (1923)
Safety Last (1923)
Our Hospitality (1923)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

Lost Films or Films Not on DVD
(these are movies that are on my list, but I can't watch because they have not made it to DVD yet, or they have been lost)

Within Our Gates (1920)
The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse (1921)
Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)
Scarmouche (1923)
La Roue (1923)

Yay, thanks for keeping this going, it's a very entertaining read. Glad to see you enjoyed Der Golem, too!

Thank you! Look forward to your review.

This is like reliving the film history class I took in college about 5 years ago. We watched (at least pieces of) many of these films, and I thought it was fascinating. Is The Battleship Potemkin on your list? That film is worth watching for the Odessa Steps scene alone.

Also, I'm interested in your upcoming review of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. I thought that it was rather interesting, although I found it to be difficult to follow at times. I can't wait to see what someone else thinks of it.

Yes, Battleship Potemkin is on the list as is Strike, Sergei Eisenstein's first movie.

The Mark Of Zorro (1920)
Directed By: Fred Niblo
Starring: Douglas Fairbanks, Marguerite De La Motte, Noah Beery
Length: 90 min

Honors
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Thrills"

It didn't take long for Zorro to be made for film. Based on the 1919 story, "The Curse of Capistrano", The Mark of Zorro is the tale of corruption in Mexico-owned California in the early 19th century and a masked hero who shows up to save the people.

Fairbanks plays Don Diego, the son of a wealthy land owner, but in a mask, he goes by the name of Zorro. The film starts off with, what I consider, the best scene. In a tavern, Captain Juan Ramon speaks of wanting to meet Zorro when Don Diego shows up. Ramon continues grandstanding while Diego just sits backs. He leaves, and a minute later, Zorro shows up and makes a fool of Ramon. As they fight, Zorro is just playing with him and I even laughed at some of the stunts Zorro pulls on Ramon.

Back to civilian life, Don Diego's parents try to set him up with a woman (Lolita) but he's clumsy, doesn't know what to say and makes me seem like Don Juan. But, when he shows up as Zorro, he completely wins her over with his confidence and romantic talk. Uh oh, Captain Juan Ramon has his eyes set on Lolita as well.

Zorro wins over some of the soldiers, and when Lolita's family is jailed, they resque them. Zorro takes a different route (heads back to his home) to throw off the pursuit. Ramon shows up at Diego's house, but they find Lolita there. Knowing the ruse is up, Diego pulls out his sword and fights. Everyone knows he is Zorro by the way he fights. He wins, of course, and all is right with the world. Well, California at least.

Fairbanks does a good job as the flashy swashbuckler, and he started the swashbuckler adventure genre of movies. However, by todays standards...well, he kind of looks like Bob Newhart. Can you imagine Bob Newhart playing the role of Zorro? I can, now. Other than Fairbanks not looking the part (by today's standards), it was a pretty entertaining adventure movie. Very high historic marks for being the movie that launches Fairbanks career as one of the film stars in history that would become synomonous with swashbuckler adventures, and for launching, in general, a genre that was almost completely dead in American entertainment. But, a few marks against it as it doesn't seem to be remembered as well as some of Fairbank's other swashbuckler movies.

For entertainment, it hurts because the fighting scenes almost look chaotic. Fairbanks was an accomplished fencer, and the fights probably were choreographed, but they looked neither choreographed, or worse, real. It reminded me of when I was a kid and me and my friends would pretend to swordfight. The action sequences really just don't hold up. Unfortunately, not much from this era really does hold up after almost a century, but action sequences seem to be the worse. But there is one thing that does hold up, though. Comedy is comedy, and as I said before, some of the comedic stunts that Zorro pulls on his opponents did get a few laughs out of me.

Historical Rating: 7/10
Entertainment Rating: 6/10

Hollywood Historical Notes:

Douglas Fairbanks met Mary Pickford in 1916 and began an affair with her (they were both married). Mary Pickford was a famous actress who we have not seen on my journey, unfortunately, due to The Poor Little Rich Girl not being on DVD. In 1919, Fairbanks was divorced by his wife. But his career was taking off and he, Pickford and Charlie Chaplin formed United Artist so that they could control their work instead of the studios. In March 1920, Pickford divorced her first husband and quickly married Fairbanks. They were nervous about the public's reation, but it was positive. The public loved that the hero married the sweethart and they were the first "Hollywood Marriage" (and like the modern Hollywood marriage, it didn't last, although it did last a bit longer than the normal modern Hollywood couple). Later that year, The Mark Of Zorro was one of United Artist's first releases.

Way Down East (1920)
Directed By: D.W. Griffith
Starring: Lillian Gish, Richard Barthelmess, Lowell Sherman, Burr McIntosh
Length: 145 min

Honors
#71 - AFI's "100 Years...100 Passions"
Nominated AFI's "100 Years...100 Thrills"

I wonder if Griffith ever put Lillian Gish into a role where her character doesn't suffer through much of the film. It always seems like she's crying or running for her life.

Gish plays Anna, a naive country girl that goes to the city to be with her wealthy aunt. While there, she meets Lennox Sanderson, a womanizer. He convinces Anna to marry him and keep it a secret. She heads back home and her secret meetings happen less and less. When she becomes pregnent, he tells her that they weren't actually married, that he had tricked her, and he left. Anna's mother dies soon after, and Anna moves into a room at an inn. While there, she gives birth and cares for her baby, but it becomes sick and dies. The woman running the inn finds out that she doesn't have a husband and kicks her out.

Anna finds her way to a farm and, after some hesitation, they take her and give her work to do (The farm is owned by Squire Bartlett). As it happens, a boy on the farm falls for Anna when he sees her, but he (David) is already arranged to be married to a woman named Kate. Kate draws the attraction of a scientist and her neighbor. Who is her neighbor? Why, it's Lennox of course! One day Lennox and Anna cross paths at he tells her that she has to leave but she refuses. Lennox reminds her that once they find out about her past, they will kick her out.

Well, what do you know! One of Squire Bartlett's children is in town one day when she runs into the woman innkeeper that booted Anna. She sees Anna outside of a window and tells the Bartlett child about her past. She informs Squire Bartlett of what happened. After some investigating, Squire Bartlett finds out the truth about Anna

During the middle of winter, during a terrible blizzard at night, Bartlett does what anyone would do. He kicked out of the house right then and there. But, before Anna goes running off, she reveals that Lennox tricked her and that he was the father of the baby. All hell breaks loose as Anna runs off and David runs off after her.

Where it gets the AFI nomination for Thrills is the scene that follows. She passes out on some ice that happens to be on a river. The ice breaks loose and she is sent down the river while David jumps between large pieces of ice on the river to make a daring rescue right before she was about to go down a waterfall. I was actually quite impressed with this scene. Even though during this time there was still a lot of inconsistency between shots, I was impressed that it tooked as good as it did (even though in some shots, you could easily tell the waterfall was only a few feet high.)

In the end, everything is forgiven, David marries Anna, Kate marries her scientist, and in the comedic relief portion, the Bartlett child that ratted Anna out marries some dead beat from the town. At this point, one of the first man on man kisses to be on screen happened (for a completely comedic purpose). The dead beat goes to kiss his wife, but she is distracted, bends down and he kisses another dude.

The film would become one of the most popular silent films made, taking in over five million dollars at the box office.

I have noticed that something that has become all too common in silent films is not common in a D.W. Griffith film. The pace of some of these silent films are really slow, to the point of painful boredom, and I'm talking about movies that are only 90 minutes or less. However, Griffith shows why he is considered the best silent film director in these movies. This movie was nearly two and half hours, yet it never dragged down. It kept a nice, steady pace throughout the movie. But, one thing I am getting a bit tired of is seeing Lillian Gish play the same basic character. The damsel in distress, the depressed, wounded girl. This was the third time where I see her play this through the entire film. However, looking at my list, we will get to see miss Lillian Gish with director D.W. Griffth one more time.

For historical rating, it's rated high. Voted as one of the top romantic movies in cinema history, an impressive chase/rescue scene at the end and the 5th biggest grossing silent movie.

For entertainment, well, it is a romance movie. And a long one, too. While the pace was good, the story was mildly interesting, it was filled with too many coincidences for my tastes. Coincidences just don't sit well with me. The Bartlett's neighbor just happens to be Lennox Sanderson. The woman innkeeper just happens to go to that town, on that day, and see Anna for that minute, and..and...and it just keeps going on. I don't like stories that rely too much on extreme coincidences, and this one did.

Historical Rating: 8/10
Entertainment Rating: 4/10

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
Directed By: Robert Wiene
Starring: Lil Dagover, Werner Krauss, Conrad Veidt, Fredrich Feher
Length: 71 min

A twist ending! I love it!

The movie starts off with a man named Francis (Fredrich Feher) telling another person how he and his wife had gotten engaged.

Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss) shows up at a carnival to display is somnabulist (sleepwalker), Cesare (Conrad Veidt). Cesare has been sleeping for 24 years and awakens at the command of Dr. Caligari to answer questions about anything. One person, a friend of Francis' and a "competitor" to win the hand of the one they both love, asks when will he die, and Cesare answers, in a horror-like fashion, that the man will ide at dawn tomorrow. And then it happens.

The police suspect Dr. Caligari, but he escapes when the police are inspecting the cabinet that Cesare live in, basically, and find a dummy. Cesare was not in the box, as he was trying to murder the woman Francis was in love with. The attempted murder is foiled. Francis goes to a hospital to ask if any of them know a Dr. Caligari, and finds out that Dr. Caligari is the head of the hospital! Francis, along with several employees of the hospital, break into his office one night and find his journal, proving that he is the man who was at the carnival. They capture him, put him in a straightjacket.

Then it cuts back to Francis telling the man about his wife, and we find out that Francis is actually locked away in the insane asylum, along with is "wife", Cesare, and other people who appeared in his story. Dr. Caligari is still the head of the hospital and is attacked by Francis. They lock Francis away as the movie ends. But as the movie fades out, Dr. Caligari puts on his glasses and looks the way he did in Francis' story. We are left not knowing if any part of Francis' story was true, but in what will become tradition for horror mivies, we get a "The End?" ending instead of a "The End." ending.

A very satisfying twist ending that didn't feel cheap at all. The opening of the movie gives hints at the twist ending to come, as the characters say wierd things and act unusual.

The German Expressionism in this film is far more noticable than in Der Golem. Every set was twisted and surreal. It's clear that this film influenced Tim Burton not only in set design, but Edward Scissorhands has a bit more than a passing similarity in appearance to Caligari's somnabulist Cesare, and for that same movie, the structure is the same. Start off with the main protagonist telling a story to someone else, playing out the story, and then coming back at the end.

For historical rating, this film is mentioned far more than Der Golem, and is talked about as the beginning of the horror genre. I'm not even sure if you could overstate the amount of influence this movie had over the entire genre (as well as other genres) for the entire history of film. It even influenced music artists like Rob Zombie (the music video for "Living Dead Girl") and the Red Hot Chili Peppers (the music video for "Otherside"). Somone even adapted the movie as an opera.

As far as entertainment goes, this is so far my favorite silent film. It was suspenseful, the pace was good, it was unpredictable and smart. I don't think I ever thought "Now, why the hell are you doing that!? You idiot!!" during the movie, like I do in a lot of horror movies. I enjoyed this one a lot and it will probably make it onto my list of DVDs to buy.

Historical Rating: 9/10
Entertainment Rating: 8/10

Excellent writeups on the last two despite being challenging.

I also loved The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. I watched it for a class on the Weimar Republic.

An updated List of movies to 1923 as I've added 4 more.

Upcoming Movies

The Last of the Mohicans (1920)*
The Sheik (1921)
Little Lord Fauntleroy (1921)**
Orphans of the Storm (1921)***
The Kid (1921)
Through The Back Door (1921) **
The Three Musketeers (1921)
Shadows (1922)
Robin Hood (1922)
Oliver Twist (1922)
Tess of the Storm Country (1922)**
Nosferatu (1922)
The Ten Commandments (1923)
Safety Last (1923)
Our Hospitality (1923)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

* - I've actually watched this one already. Look for the review tomorrow!

** - Added because I wanted to throw some Mary Pickford movies into it, seeing as how she was a big star and one of her movies, aside from one not on DVD, doesn't appear on my list until 1926.

*** - Added because I've become a fan of Lillian Gish, and this was the last movie she did with director D.W. Griffith

Lost Films or Films Not on DVD
(these are movies that are on my list, but I can't watch because they have not made it to DVD yet, or they have been lost)

Within Our Gates (1920)
The Four Horsemen Of The Apocalypse (1921)
Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)
Scarmouche (1923)
La Roue (1923)

The Last of the Mohicans (1920)
Directed By: Maurice Tourneur, Clarence Brown
Starring: Wallace Beery, Barbera Bedford, Alan Roscoe, Lillian Hall
Length: 73 min.

It's not going to be easy for a movie to follow up a great movie like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. This film is regarded well, but I did not like it much and it may have to do with it being watched after watching a movie I loved.

The Monro sisters, along with Major Duncan Heyward and psalmist David Gamut, are being led to Fort William Henry by an indian guide, Magua. They get lost and Magua disappears when they come across a scout named Hawkeye and his indian friends, Uncas and Chingackgook. Cora Monro is immediately drawn towards Uncas.

Magua was setting up an ambush but coming across Hawkeye and his Mohican friends ruined it. However, they are still in trouble as they seek a cave for hiding. Magua and his party end up fidning them and taking the Munros, Heyward and Gamut prisoner. Another battle ensues as Hawkeye and the Mohicans try to free them.

They eventually end up in a "trial"-like situation where the cheif sets the young, blonde haired Monro free, but the dark-haired Cora Monro is sent off with Magua. Uncas follows them. Cora finds an edge of a cliff and threatens to jump if Magua does not let her go, so they play the waiting game as Magua sits and waits for Cora to fall asleep. A long time passes, and just as Uncas reaches them, Cora wakes up as Magua tries to grab her and jumps. Magua and Uncas fight, and Magua wins by killing Uncas. Hawkeye returns the favor, and shoots Magua dead. After this, a long funeral scene ends the movie.

The film was, in a word, boring. There's not much more to say than that. The acting was bad, the directing was decent, however. The ending just didn't make much sense. Uncas says he's going to follow them to Magua and Cora as they are leaving the village, yet she still jumps instead of waiting for rescue. And the funeral scene...just end the damn movie already!

Historically it's rated decent. It's preserved in the Library of Congress, and is one of the more highly regarded adaptations of the book. Having not read the book, I do not know how faithful the adaptation was.

Entertainment, again, boring. I just couldn't really get into the movie. Some of the fighting scenes were hard to follow. The pace was up and down like crazy. Sometimes it would go a long time before anything really happened, and then you're smacked with a lot of hard to follow action. A bad rating on this type of movie is pretty bad coming from me, as this is one of the types of movies I generally enjoy.

Historical Rating: 5/10
Entertainment Rating: 3/10

The Sheik (1921)
Directed By: George Melford
Starring: Rudolph Valentino, Agnes Ayres, Adolphe Menjou
Length: 80 Min.

Honors
#80 - AFI's "100 Years...100 Passions"

A romance movie........anyway....

The Sheik Ahmed Ben Hassan (Rudolph Valentino) meets a white woman, Lady Diana Mayo (Agnes Ayres) and is attracted to her. So when she leaves the safety of the city by herself, he kidnaps her and takes her as his wife. She fights him at first, but over time she ends up falling in love with him.

However, she hides it. The Sheik decides to free her after his friend, Raoul St. Hubert (Adolphe Menjou) talks him into letting her go. Before that can happen, Lady Diana is kidnapped by a rival sheik. Ahmed rescues her, but is critically injured. As Diani is nursing Ahmed back to health, she learns from Hubert that the Sheik is actually European and was adopted by the former sheik. When the Sheik had recovered, Lady Diana stays with him.

The film got mixed reviews from critics. It also changed things up from the novel it was based on. For instance, in the novel Lady Diana is raped by the Sheik, but they left that out of the movie entirely.

The movie did do extremely well with the female audience, and as a result, Valentino became one of film's first sex symbol. Obviously, the film is historically important as it spawned several spoofs and launched Valentino's career. Entertainment....well, I don't like romance movies very much, and I didn't really like this one either.

Historical Rating: 6/10
Entertainment Rating: 2/10

I didn't get much movie watching done in the last month. I have watched 5 more and need to write those up.

Liitle Lord Fauntleroy (1921)
Directed By: Alfred E. Green
Starring: Mary Pickford, Claude Gillingwater, Joseph J. Dowling
Length: 112 min.

Mary Pickford, a 29 year old woman, plays a boy, as in a child.

This movie seems to sum up everything that Pickford hated about her image. She got stuck playing children characters, and her image was so cemented in the role of "America's Sweetheart" that the public responded very negatively anytime she would play a part that was adult or sexual in any way.

In Little Lord Fauntleroy, The son of the Earl of Dorincourt (Claude Gillingwater) marries a commoner, and the Earl believes his son's wife was just marring him for his money. They have a child, Cedric (Mary Pickford). Cedric's father dies shortly after he is born and the Earl cuts off all contact until the Earl's other son dies, leaving Cedric as the only heir.

Cedric and his mother (also played by Mary Pickford) are invited to the Earl's estate as the Earl tries and gets to know his grandson. As the relationship grows, a woman shows up with a children claiming it to be the rightful heir. Their deception is exposed and the Earl, Cedric and Cedric's mother all become one big happy family.

Aside from watching Mary Pickford play the role of a boy, the movie itself wasn't really all that good, and it hardly ever gets referenced aside her other movies.

Entertainment Rating: 3/10
Historical Rating: 2/10

The Kid (1921)
Directed By: Charlie Chaplan
Starring: Charlie Chaplan, Edna Purviance, Jackie Coogan
Length: 68 min

Honors
AFI's "100 Years...100 Movies" Nominee
AFI's "100 Years...100 Laughs" Nominee

Chaplan directs and stars, as always, as The Tramp. In this movie, The Tramp finds an abandoned child in an alley. After a few comical tries to leave the baby with someone else, he ends up keeping the child and raising him. 5 years later, the kid (played by Jackie Coogan) is The Tramp's partner in crime. The Tramp is a winder replacer/fixer (it would seem) and Coogan goes around smashing windows so they have to get their windows fixed.

One day the kid gets sick and a doctor is called. The doctor finds out that the kid isn't actuall The Tramp's child, so the police come to take him away. The Tramp chases after and is able to rescue the kid, but it's only temporary. The kid is reunited with his birth mother, a woman who has made it big as an actress since abandoning her child. The movie ends happily as the woman reunites the kid with The Tramp at her house.

The movie itself was good, but I guess I was expecting a bit more, considering Chaplan's reputation and fame. This film lauched Jackie Coogan's career as Hollywood's first child actor at the age of 7. Coogan's finanaces from being a child actor star was the inspiration behind the California Child Actor's Bill, a Bill that stated parents of child actors must put 15% of the actor's income into a trust. Coogan's mother and step-father took Coogan's estimated $4 million that he earned. Coogan sued, but only received $126,000.

Entertainment Rating: 7/10
Historical Rating: 8/10

Good to see this back!

I'm a little confused about the Mary Pickford roles. She plays a child - was it trick photography? If she also played the mother, was split screens used?

From the screenshot it looks like she might be standing in front of a screen with the mother footage on it, ala Journey to the Center of the Earth and countless other old sci fi movies that involved massive monsters.

Back then, they way they did effects along these lines was through double/multiple exposure of the film. They would film the actor doing one thing, rewind the film, and then rerecord over the film.

I found this on imdb's site:

• In scene in which Little Lord Fauntleroy meets Dearest (both parts being played by Mary Pickford) the kiss-on-the-cheek cut took 15 hours to film and lasts 3 seconds on-screen due to the complexity of the multiple exposures. To ensure stability between takes, the camera used by cinematographer Charles Rosher was weighted down to the tune of close to a ton.

As for when she was on screen with other actors, a lot of the time, it was close enough to only see from the waist up. I'd imagine that she was standing on a lower platform than everyone else. Just speculation though, since the DVD didn't have a "Making Of" featurette on the DVD. :)

I think I saw that TCM had Scaramouche on the other day. Idon't know what year that version was, but you might want to see if TCM will be showing it.

I guess it was the 1952 version. never mind :)

The Three Musketeers (1921)
Directed By: Fred Niblo
Starring: Douglad Fairbanks, Leon Bary, George Siegmann, Eugene Pilete
Length: 119 min.

I'm sure everyone knows the story of The Three Musketeers, so I won't bore with a retelling of that story. Quick plot summery: D'Artagnan (Douglad Fairbanks) travels to Paris to join the Musketeers. He's refused, but taken under the wings of Artho (Leon Bary), Pathos (George Siegmann) and Aramis (Eugene Pilete). Much action ensues.

The film is very action packed, with D'Artagnan picking fights with just about anyone. The stunts are pretty impressive, and the stunt where Fairbanks handsprings with one hand with a sword in the other is considered one of the best stunts of the silent film era.

Where the film fails, for me, is the character of D'Artagnan himself. The Three Musketeers is one of the many books I wish I had read, would like to read, but have not gotten around to it. I can't speak as to whether or not the character is a faithful interpretation. What I can say is that the D'Artagnan in this film is whiney and childish. I just could not, for the life of me, cheer on this character. The character simply wasn't likeable at all.

While the film had some nice fight scenes, I just could not get into it.

For the stunts and fight scenes that are ranked very high for the silent film era, it gets a decent Historical Rating, but as far as Entertainment Rating goes, it gets hurt a lot by the frequently annoying personality of many of the characters.

Entertainment Rating: 4/10
Historical Rating: 6/10

Through The Back Door (1921)
Directed By: Alfred E. Green
Starring: Mary Pickford, Gertrude Astor, Wilfred Lucas, Helen Raymond
Length: 89 min.

Jeanne (Mary Pickford) is left with a maid as a child when her mother marries a wealthy man. Years pass before her mother shows up to get her, but the maid had grown so attached to the little girl that she tells the mother that the child had recently died.

When the child becomes a teenager, Germany invades her country, and the maid sends her off to America to find her real mother. When she gets there, with 2 orphan Belgian children, her mother lives in a mansion with many servents. She is repeatedly denied access to her mother, and is hired as a maid, claiming the orphans as her own.

As time goes on, and her chances at teller her mother who she is are thwarted, she learns of a plot against her mother and step-father.

I found the movie to be much better than the previous Pickford movie I had seen (Little Lord Fauntleroy). First off, Pickford actually plays a woman (teenage girl) in this film. I found the plot to be a little quicker and more involved than in Fauntleroy. There's just more going on and it doesn't drag.

Still, the movie's drawback for me is one of personal preference. I find plots that rely on repeated occurances to be annoying. I mean, she's trying to hand her mother a letter this whole time, and then she tries and leave it for her on her nightstand, the mother accidently knocks it on the floor. There's just too many coincidences going on. Pickford's character is not assertive at all in trying to get her mother the information that shows her who she is. That causes a lot of these situations and I found myself rolling my eyes a few times.

Annoying plot devises aside, it was a pretty decent movie. Low Historical Rating since, much like Little Lord Fauntleroy, the movie isn't referenced much at all. (Also, for the image above, I could not find a pic of the movie, so I had to go with movie poster.)

Entertainment Rating: 5/10
Historical Rating: 3/10

I hated The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to be perfectly honest. It was one of the most boring movies I'd ever watched, but that's just me. I do understand its historical and stylistic significances, though.

Love this dynasty, by the way. :)

Agreed Izulde. This is a great dynasty.

Dr. Caligari is definitely a movie you'll either love or hate. There's not much middle ground to work with. It's kind of like Abstrat Art (which I don't like, btw. :) ), it either connects with the viewer or it doesn't.

It's also a movie where the ending is either a good payoff or it just flops for the viewer (along the same lines as movies like The Sixth Sense, 12 Monkeys or Memento. In those kinds of movies, the ending either lifts the whole movie up or makes it fall flat on its face, depending on the viewer).

Orphans Of The Storm (1921)
Directed By: D.W. Griffith
Starring: Lillian Gish, Dorothy Gish, Joseph Schildkraut, Frank Losee
Length: 150 min

Griffith's last movie starring Lillian Gish (along with her sister, Dorothy Gish)

Henriette (Lillian Gish) and Louise (Dorothy Gish) are orphans who are raised together as sisters. Louise goes blind and Henriette promies to take care of her. They make a trip to Paris in search of a cure for Louise's blindness. Along the way, an aristocrat takes an interest in Henriette, but she refuses. Apon reaching Paris, the aristocrat kidnaps Henriette, leaving Louise alone.

Louise is taken in by a begger, who imprisons her and forces her to beg on the streets. Meanwhile, Henriette is saved by a kind aristocrat named Chevalier de Vaudrey (Joseph Schildkraut). She falls in love with him, and he helps her to find her sister. She says she can not be with him until she finds her sister.

The movie is set in the same time period as the French Revolution, so unlike a movie like Through The Back Door, that has to rely on coincidence, forced situations and weak chacters to keep it moving, this film had a lot of external conflict to keep the sisters apart.

I said in a previous review that it seems like Lillian Gish plays the same part over and over again, and the same thing goes for this film. The tortured woman who expierences bad moment after bad moment, until the end where everything works out. Same exact character here.

While I have appriciated Griffith's movies, one of the reasons I haven't enjoyed them as much is because they seem to follow the same basic formula. Lillian Gish plays a woman with "baggage". In this movie, it's her lost, blind sister. In Way Down East, it was having an illegitimate child. In Broken Blossoms, it was her father. She ends up falling in love, in some form, with a man who, at first, can't or won't accept her baggage (mostly because of social conventions). But, in the end, after the climax that the external force of the movie has built up, all is well.

Each movie puts its own twist on the basic premise. In Broken Blossoms, for instance, it had a trajic ending. In Way Down East, instead of the climatic conflict being between people, it was a person against nature. And in this movie, her baggage is wanted (her blind sister), instead of unwanted.

However, having said all of that, and after seeing the same basic plot a couple of times, I would have to say that this one is my favorite. It had lots of action, a constantly changing backdrop (the French Revolution), and interesting characters. I still wouldn't give this a very high Entertainment Rating, but higher than the previous Griffith/Gish movies. However, its Historical Rating suffers as it is not remembered nearly as well as a movie like Way Down East, or any of Griffith's other masterpieces.

I haven't given many of Griffth's movies high marks, but I'm really appriciative of his work. While I won't feel the urge to watch any of his movies again (maybe the Babylon story in Intolerance), I do admire his work. He was definitely a visionary when it came to directing. He may have been formulatic when it came to writing, but his ability to direct and innovate with camera angles, at the very least, make the films easy to watch.

Entertainment Rating: 6/10
Historical Rating: 5/10

Shadows (1922)
Directed by: Tom Forman
Starring: Harrison Ford, Marguerite De La Motte, Lon Chaney
Length: 70 min.

Unlike Richard Barthelmess's portrayal or a Chinese man in Broken Blossoms, Lon Chaney's use of make up actually makes him look Chinese.

Yen Sin (Lon Chaney) finds himself in a small community, named Urkay, on the beach after a terrible storm destroys his ship. In the same storm, Sympathy Gibbs (Marguerite De La Motte) loses her husband. Yen Sin decides to stay in town, even though he is labeled a heathen by the communtiy.

Shortly after, a new pastor comes to town, John Malden (Harrison Ford). He soon falls in love with Sympathy and they wed. The two become friends with Yen Sin, with the pastor quoting the Bible to Yen Sin in an attempt to convert Yen Sin, none of which succeed. Yen Sin also befreinds some of the children in the community.

Soon after the wedding, while Sympathy was pregnent, John had to leave to attend a conference. He receives a telegram that his wife gave birth, but on the same night, receives a letter from Sympathy's husband, who everyone thought had died. He doesn't want to cause trouble, but the husband will keep quiet only if the pastor pays him off. He does so, but continues to get demands for money from her husband.

This also puts a strain in his marriage. Her husband is still alive, and so he doesn't allow himself to be with Sympathy.

Much like with Outside The Law, it seems like the only reason to mention on watch the film is because it displays the talents of Lon Chaney. It was a more enjoyable movie, even if the "twist" ending was obvious.

Entertainment Rating: 5/10
Historical Rating: 3/10

Robin Hood (1922)
Directed By: Allan Dwan
Starring: Douglas Fairbanks, Enid Bennett, Sam de Grasse, Wallace Beery
Length: 127 min

The first adaptation of Robin Hood.

This film focuses much more on the corruption of Prince John and his followers than the other Robin Hood films I have seen. In fact, "Robin Hood" doesn't show up until more than halfway through the film.

The movie starts off with the Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks) beating Sir Guy of Gisbourne in a joust. King Richard the Lion-Heart (Wallace Beery) is so impressed, he befriends Huntingdon and takes him along as his second in command to fight the crusades. The King leaves his brother, Prince John (Sam de Grasse) to rule his country. He ends up sending the country into poverty because of his power-tripping corruption. He and his followers live it up in the castle while the country starves.

Maid Marian (Enid Bennett) gets word to Huntingdon about the corruption and he plans to leave. However, Richard has him imprisoned for desertion. Huntingdon escapses, returns to England and takes on the name of Robin Hood.

This was the first film that had a Hollywood premiere. It was also one of the most expensive movies made, according to imdb.com it costs $1.5 million to make. They built an entire medieval town for the scenes in Nottingham. Also according to imdb.com, the movie grossed $2.5 million.

In this movie, Robin Hood's antagonist is Prince John, unlike many of the other films, or legends that Robin Hood is based on, where the antagonist is the Sheriff of Nottingham. One thing I didn't like about the film is that, as previously mentioned, "Robin Hood" is in less than half the movie. When I watch a Robin Hood movie, I like watching him fight the Sheriff's men, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, etc. But for the first half of the movie, it was essentially setting up Robin Hood's introduction. It spent way too much time getting Richard out of the country and getting John into power.

Another thing I didn't like was that characters like Friar Tuck and Will Scarlett were nothing more than extras. They were hardly used at all in the story. They were just kind of introduced, and that was it. The only exception was the character of Little John, who was the Earl of Huntingdon's squire before becoming Robin Hood. There was hardly any character developement, outside of Robin Hood. A largely boring film for the first 75-80 minutes, and then it ends just as it's getting good.

Entertainment Rating: 5/10
Historical Rating: 8/10

Upcoming Movies

Beyond The Rocks (1922) - Romance
Nanook of the North (1922) - Documentary
Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922) - Foreign Documentary (Sweden)
Oliver Twist (1922) - Drama
Tess of the Storm Country (1922) - Drama
Nosferatu (1922) - Foreign Horror (German)
The Shock (1923) - Crime Drama
The Ten Commandments (1923) - Epic Drama
Safety Last (1923) - Comedy
Our Hospitality (1923) - Comedy
The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923) - Drama
The Last Laugh (1924) - Foreign Drama (German)
The Navigator (1924) - Comedy
Thief of Bagdad (1924) - Adventure
Mikael (1924) - Foreign Drama/Romance (German)
Aelita (1924) - Foreign Adventure/Sci-Fi (Russia)
Wizard of Oz (1925) - Fantasy
The Lost World (1925) - Fantasy
Strike (Strachka) (1925) - Foreign Drama (Russia)
Ben-Hur (1925) - Epic Drama
Don Q, Son of Zorro (1925) - Adventure
The Eagle (1925) - Adventure/Romance/Comedy
Seven Chances (1925) - Comedy
The Gold Rush (1925) - Comedy
Battleship Potemkin (1925) - Foreign Drama (Russia)
The Phantom of the Opera (1925) - Horror
The Freshman (1925) - Comedy

Lost Films or Films Not on DVD
(these are movies that are on my list, but I can't watch because they have not made it to DVD yet, or they have been lost)

Dr. Mabuse, Der Spieler (1922)
Scarmouche (1923)
La Roue (1923)
Greed (1924)

Beyond The Rocks (1922)
Directed By: Sam Wood
Starring: Rudolph Valentino, Gloria Swanson
Length: 81 min

This film had been lost until April 2003 when a copy was found in a private collection in the Netherlands.

This romance was based on a 1906 novel written by Elinor Glyn.

The plot has become a well known storyline to me. A poor, attractive girl named Theodora (Gloria Swanson) marries a wealthy man. She does it not out of love, but to help her sick father. He can not afford medical attention, but with the rich man's money, she can help her dad. She basically gets forced into the marriage by her greedy sisters.

On the honeymoon, however, she meets Lord Hector Bracondale (Rudolph Valentino). They fall in love, but do not allow the relationship to flourish. As time goes on, they can not help it. They must see each other, but know it is wrong.

And that's essentially the film. Scene after scene of them being together, but knowing they shouldn't. It was, to me, in a word: boring. Seriously, it was just flat out boring. I usually don't go for romances, but this movie was just a constant flow of scenes where they get close, pull away, get close, pull away, get close, pull away....enough already.

At least it was short...

Entertainment Rating: 2/10
Historical Rating: 5/10

Nanook Of The North (1922)
Directed By: Robert J. Flaherty
Starring: Nanook and his much family
Length: 79 min

Credited as being the first feature length documentary, Flahery's "Nanook Of The North" follows Nanook, an eskimo of the Inuit tribe, and his family as they live their lives. We see Nanook trading, hunting, fishing, building an igloo after a long day's travel, etc.

The film is criticized, however, because many of the scenes, if not all, are staged. TO be honest, I don't see how you could do a documentary any other way back then. It's not like they had cameras and microphones that were easily moved around and could be left recording. They had equipment that required them to set up and shoot for relatively short periods of time. For instance, the interior igloo shots were not actually inside of an igloo. The Inuits built a 3-walled igloo because they had to. The camera was buliky and would not capture any images inside an actual igloo.

Also criticised because Flaherty encouraged Nanook and others to hunt with spears instead of guns (although what they were hunter were actual wild animals). Flaherty wanted to capture what it was like for the Inuits without European influence.

While these actions (staging scenes) have become unethical in documentary work, during his time, with this subject matter, I simply can't see how he could have done it without re-enacting scenes.

Nanook died in 1922 when he was caught in a snowstorm while out hunting. His death was reported in newspapers around the world. The film was a huge success for Flaherty, who went on to make several more documentaries.

Entertainment Rating: 6/10
Historical Rating: 7/10

Keep it up
 

Just started following this dynasty over the holidays. Nice job! Very interesting, please keep it coming.

Thanks. I took a bit of a break (longer than I thought I would) to catch up on more current movies I had wanted to see (plus, you can watch silent movies for only so long before you cry out for someone to actually say something ;). I'll be getting this back on track soon.

Haxan: Witchcraft Through The Ages (1922)
Directed By: Benjamin Christensen
Starring: Meran Pederson, Elith Pio, Clara Pontoppidan, John Anderson
Length: 87 min

Now this was one wierd movie.

This documentary starts off with the director, Benjamin Christensen, showing several illustrations of witchcraft and explaining them (he even points to parts of the illustrations with a pencil). After that introduction, most of the rest of the movie is a dramatization of what happened with a person was accused of witchcraft in medival times.

The film is made to show the absurdity of witchcraft, what witches were accused of doing, and the injustice of the investigations and trials. The end of the documentary describes "hysteria" and how the symtpoms of hysteria are similar to some of the traits of witchcraft. Since then, hysteria has been rejected as a mental condition, but back then it was accepted.

The dramatization of Medival Europe is a weird movie by itself. The scenes and chracters are way, WAY over the top. Certainly done on purpose to add to the absurdity of witchcraft charges and beleifs during the time.

Pretty entertaining, thanks to the over-the-topness of the dramatizations. Historically, it ranks as one of the earliest documentaries films, and it's also thought of as an insiration for horrors movies as well. (see the article in the Jan/Feb issue of Rue Morgue).

Entertainment Rating: 6/10
Historical Rating: 6/10

Oliver Twist (1922)
Directed By: Frank Lloyd
Starring: Jackie Coogan, Lon Chaney, George Seigmann
Length: 74min

A very good movie that showcased Jackie Coogan's acting ability.

Oliver Twist (Jackie Coogan) is born into a workhouse when his mother dies giving birth to him. Oliver is appreticed to an undertaker, but is sent back to the workhouse and eventually ends up in the service of a band of thieves led by Fagin (Lon Cheney).

A pretty short movie, almost too short for an adaptation of Dickens' novel. The movie seems like it fast forwards through the story. Because of that, the movie never gets boring, but sometimes you want at least a bit more out of the scenes.

The acting is top-notch. Jackie Coogan does a great job or portraying Oliver. His acting, both in his body movement and timing, is extremely well done. And of course, Lon Chaney's use of make-up captures the character of Fagin. Chaney's stance, always hunched over, and his movement, both walking and with his arms, brings the creepy character to life.

In most movies I have seen, usually there might be 1 good acting performance surrounded by bad acting, but in this movie even the supporting actors and actresses do a fine job.

I really enjoyed this movie, even though I would have liked several of the scenes to last a bit longer. Needed more Fagin, for one. Historically, it suffers a bit. The AFI didn't even nomiate the movie for its list of the 100 best movies, but it did gross over $2 million and is usually listed as on of Jackie Coogan's best films.

Entertainment Rating: 7/10
Historical Rating: 6/10

Upcoming Movies

These are in no particular order. I'll be watching them in order by year, but I'll watch them in any order within the year.

1922 (2 Left)
Tess of the Storm Country - Drama
Nosferatu - Horror / German

1923 (8 Movies)
The Shock - Crime Drama
The Ten Commandments - Epic Drama
Safety Last - Comedy
Our Hospitality - Comedy
The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Drama / Horror
Salome - Drama
Why Worry? - Comedy
A Woman of Paris - Drama

1924 (9 Movies)
The Last Laugh - Drama / German
The Navigator - Comedy
Thief of Bagdad - Adventure
Mikael - Drama / Romance / German
Aelita - Adventure / Sci-Fi / Russia
Girl Shy - Comedy
The Last Laugh - Drama / German
The Marriage Circle - Comedy
Sherlock, Jr. - Comedy

1925 (11 Movies)
Tumbleweeds - Western
Wizard of Oz - Fantasy
The Lost World - Fantasy
Strike (Strachka) - Drama / Russia
Ben-Hur - Epic Drama
Don Q, Son of Zorro - Adventure
Seven Chances - Comedy
The Gold Rush - Comedy
Battleship Potemkin - Drama / Russia
The Phantom of the Opera - Drama / Horror
The Freshman - Comedy

1925 was originally up to 15 movies, but I'm making an effort to keep it under 10 movies per year so that it's actually possible to do this. I still may cut another movie or two from 1925 to get it down a bit, but I don't see anymore I can cut. The comedies I have listed are considered classics, Tumbleweeds is, I think, the first Western I've had a chance to see, Wizard of Oz and The Lost World are musts, Strike and Battleship Potemkim are musts, Phantom of the Opera is considered one of Lon Chaney's best pictures, so that's a must, Ben-Hur is considered a classic and is a must. I may chop off Don Q to get it to 10 movies (my soft limit), but that's a bit unique in that's it's, I think, the first sequal I get to watch (after watching the original).

Lost Films, Not on DVD or Cut

1923
The Covered Wagon - No DVD
The Daring Years - No DVD, Lost Film
Souls For Sale - No DVD

The Covered Wagon would have been the first Western I would have seen, but alas, no DVD for that so I'll have to settle for 1925's Tumbleweeds.

1924
Ballet Mécanique - Can't get
Greed - "Lost Film", No DVD
He Who Gets Slapped - No DVD
The Iron Horse - Western - Not on Netflix
Janice Meredith - Romantic Comedy - No DVD
Monsieur Beacaire - Romance - No DVD
Peter Pan - Action / Fantasy - Not on Netflix
The Sea Hawk Swashbuckler - No DVD

A couple of movies here I'm disappointed I can't watch. Greed is considered a lost film, even though there is a version you can watch. It was originally 10 hours long. It was shortened considerably and the cut out portions were destroyed. The final, stripped down version was a flop and was destroyed by critics.

From what I've read about Peter Pan, I'm going to be missing out. Netflix does not have the DVD, but there is a DVD out of the movie (on Amazon for $27). Oh well, nothing I can do about that, except buy it, which I'm not going to do.

1925
The Plastic Age - Romantic Comedy - Cut
Go West - Comedy - Cut
The Eagle - Adventure/Romance/Comedy - Cut
The Unholy Three - Crime / Drama* - Cut

The Big Parade - War / Romance - No DVD
The Heartbreaker - Comedy - No DVD
The Merry Widow - Romance - No DVD
The Monster - Comedy / Horror - No DVD
The Pleasure Garden - Crime Drama - No DVD
Thou Shalt Honor Thy Wife - Comedy / Danish - No DVD
Wolf Blood - Horror - No DVD

Go West is a Buster Keaton comedy. I cut it off the list since I also have Seven Chances for 1925, which is considered a much better Buster Keaton comedy. The Unholy Three is up on YouTube, so when I get to 1925, I might add it back to my list since it would be very easy for me to find the time to watch it (since I could watch it in parts, and not have to worry about Netflix turnaround).

The Big Parade is a highly prasied film, and it's not on DVD. A bit disappointed since it's a movie that takes place during WWI, something I have yet to be able to see.

Wolf Blood and The Monster both sounded like interesting movies. Wolf Blood may have been the first movie to show werewolves.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, The Pleasure Garden was Alfred Hitchcock's first movie that he directed. Shame I don't get to see it. It looks like The Lodger, released in 1927, will be the first Hitchcok movie I will get to see.

Tess of Storm Country (1922)
Directed By: John S. Robertson
Starring: Mary Pickford, Lloyd Hughes, Gloria Hope, Forrest Robinson
Length: 118 Minutes

This movie was a remake of a 1914 movie also starring Mary Pickford and directed by our old friend Edwin S. Porter (which was based on a novel).

The story is of a community of squatters, and in particular a father named Orn Skinner (Forrest Robinson) and his daughter, Tess Skinner (Mary Pickford). A rich family that lives on a hill overlooking a lake owns all of the land. I don't know what "squatter laws" were back then, but he was unable to evict the people, mostly fisherman and their families, off of his land.

The father of the rich family, Elias Graves, on the hill tries to get them evicted, but one of his sons, Frederick Graves (Lloyd Hughes) defends the squatters to the point where his father decides to cut him off. One more problem, Frederick is in love with Tess. However, he's not the only one. Ben Letts, one of the squatters, also fancies Tess.

Elias Graves and his daughter's fiancee come up with a plan. Useing nets to is illegal, even though using nets is the only way for the squatters to fish enough to feed their family and earn money. Elias and the police go through the squatters 'town' and confinscate all of the nets. All of them, except the one Tess manages to hide.

One night, Orn Skinner, Ben Letts and few other squatters take the net to fish. Ben Letts also brings along Orn's rifle. Elias, his daughter's fiancee and the police show up. Ben Letts shoots and kills Elias' soon to be son-in-law. Orn is charged with the crime, since he is the one found near the body and it was Orn's gun. It also presents another problem. Elias' daughter is pregnant. A chld out of wedlock. *gasp*

She has the child, and Tess offers to take the kid, to save Elias' daughter the embarrisment of having a kid out of wedlock. During the climatic ending, Frederick finds the child and is shocked, SHOCKED, to find Tess has a child and doesn't want to have anything to do with her.

I'm trying to figure out something to analogize how out-of-wedlock childbirth is portrayed in movies back then, but I can't think of anything. Maybe it would be like finding out the chick you are in love with is actually a dude. That's how the people react to a character they think had a child out of wedlock.

Anyway, jumping to the end, it has the typical happy ending. The father is found out to be innocent when the police discover it was Ben Letts who committed the murder. Frederick and Tess live happily ever after Why no spoilers for this last part? Because I forgot what happened. I watched this a month ago, and I honestly can't remember exactly how the ending occured, in what ordered, etc. This was a pretty...forgetable movie, although looking at the Mary Pickford movies I've rated in the past, it was a my favorite Mary Pickford movie, but still not all that good.

Not that I'm saying there is something wrong with Mary Pickford herself. She was a very talented actress. I just haven't found much to like about her movies. They all seem to be the same general theme, she plays the same character type....they're just boring.

Entertainment Rating: 5/10
Historical Rating: 5/10

Nosferatu (1922)
Directed By: F.W. Murnau
Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schroder
Length: 94 min

The makers of this film could not get the rights from Bram Stoker's estate (Bram Stoker's widow), so they just changed the names and places and we have outselves a movie.

Count Orlok (Max Schreck) buys a home in a village far away. Hutter (Gustav von Wangenheim) travles to Orlok's home in the Carpathian Mountains. One of the coolest scenes in the movie happens here, when Hutter is dropped off far from his destination by the local "taxi". A mysterious coach rides up to him, lets him board, and then takes off. The coach moves at an unnatural speed and travels through a forrest of white trees (the video's color was inverted).

The first half of the film is based heavily on the novel. Essentially the way they get Orlok to the destination is axactly the same. When he meets Hutter, he sees a picture of his lover and immediately falls for her. She also starts to act really weird.

Count Orlok leavs his castle for the town of Wisborg while Hutter is trapped in the castle. However, Hutter manages to escape through a window, but is hurt when he falls. He wakes up in a hospital and leaves to warn the town.

Meanwhile, a new plague has broken out right after Count Orlok's arrival. Hutter manages to make it back to town and tries to protect his wife, but when he leaves to find help after she faints, Orlok makes his move.

I was very disappointed in the ending. Orlok just simply forgot that the sun was about to rise? He doesn't keep track of the time. Anyway, after he feeds on Hutter's wife, he steps back into the sunlight of the recently risen sun and is destroyed. Hutter's wife is dead (that's kinda cool).

This was the first movie on my list where I have already seen the movie. However, that was over 10 years ago when I watched in a high school German class. I liked it back then, I loved it now (despite the ending, but I've grown used to these "dumb-dumb" endings, where the villian just suddenly acts like a "dumb-dumb" and is defeated.).

I don't think I could describe the creepiness of this movie effectively. Unlike over German movies I have seen to this point (the early German Expressionist films featuring twisted, surreal enviroments), this one goes another direction. It's big. As it, BIG. The doorways are huge, the buildings are huge, the windows are huge. Everything was purposely made large, but it was also shot largely "on location". The castle scenes at Count Orlok's castle were shot at an actual castle , for just one example. The DVD had a slide show of the on location scenes.

And of course, the scenes only showing Orlok's shadow were very nicely done. Almost a testiment about how America was always about mass producing the same cookie-cutter plots while you have to go to the "indie" scene (which was nonexistant in America at the time, and I'm not sure you could call these German films "indie", but I think they had a diffrent business structure from the American studios) to get the real innovation.

Max Schrek made me shiver. Well not shiver, but the before mentioned shiver down my spine was no joke. When Hutter opens a door after suspecting Orlok is a vampire, there is Count Orlok, staring at him.

Entertainment Rating: 8/10
Historical Rating: 9/10

For those wondering why this disapears for bit here and there, here's why. I started the Tess review at 8pm. It's now 10pm. Although I do take a break for a few minutes here and there to check forums and stuff, most of that time is spent finding pix and formatting them, looking up info, writing out the plot, etc. It takes too long. I'm going to have to change how I write them up to make them faster. The reviews lag far behind the movies I watch (I'm halfway through '23 right now).

Movie Rankings

Nothing special, I just multiply the Entertainment Rating by 2, add the Historical Rating, and that's it.

The Shorts Top 5 (1902 - 1913)
1. The Great Train Robbery (1903) - 25
2. A Trip To The Moon (1902) - 24
3. Jack and The Beanstalk (1902) - 15
4. The Battle of Elderbush Gulch (1913) - 15
5. The "Teddy" Bears (1907) - 12

The Early Features Top 5 (1915 - 1919)
1. The Birth of a Nation (1915) - 22
2. Intolerance (1916) - 20
3. Broken Blossoms (1919) - 17
4. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea (1917) - 13
5. The Cheat (1915) - 9

Top 5 Movies of 1920
1. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - 25
2. Der Golem - 20
3. The Mark of Zorro - 19
4. Way Down East - 16
5. Outside The Law - 12

Top 5 Movies of 1921
1. The Kid - 22
2. Orphans of the Storm - 17
3. The Three Musketeers - 14
4. Through The Back Door - 13
5. The Sheik - 10

Top 5 Movies of 1922
1. Nosferatu - 25
2. Oliver Twist - 20
3. Nanook of the North - 19
4. Robin Hood - 18
5. Haxen: Witchcraft Through The Ages - 18

sab, thank you for finally doing Nosferatu. I had been patiently waiting for your review of what I believe is the creepiest movie ever made. Very well done!

Thanks Buc. Sorry for the wait, but yeah, Nosferatu is very creepy. I don't think any American horror movie I've seen really matches that "creepiness" factor.

The Shock (1923)
Directed by: Lambert Hillyer
Starring: Lon Chaney, Virginia Valli, Jack Mower
Length: 96 minutes

A cripple is ordered by his mob boss to go to a quiet town and expose a banker they have been blackmailing. While there, he ends up falling for the banker's daughter, a woman who is already attached to another man.

I usually spend time while writing these up to look up information on the movie, the actors, etc. to see what is worth talking about. With this movie, I'll only say one thing. It had some pretty good scenes involving a collapsing building when a bomb blows up.

Other than that, this movie was bad. I did not like it at all. As Forest Gump says "And that's all I have to say about that."

Entertainment Rating: 2/10
Historical Rating: 1/10

Safety Last! (1923)
Directed By: Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Mildred Davis, Bill Strother
Length: 73 min

Premiere Magazine's 50 Greatest Comedis of All Time List (unranked list)
Nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies
Nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs

A naive boy (Harold Lloyd) moves to the city to make his fortune while leaving his girl (Mildred Davis - also Harold Lloyd's wife in real life) behind. When he gets there, he ends up just working in a department store, barely able to afford rent and food but keeps writing to his girlfriend about how great he is doing. She decides to show up one day and surprise him, and he tries to keep up his act of being successful. Hilarity ensues.

And boy does it. This movie had me laughing almost the entire way through.

The final scene, where Harodl Lloyd climbs up the department store, were inspired by Bill Strother who was a real-life "human-fly" (someone who cimbed buildings). The building he climbs up was un a hill, to exaggerate the height of Lloyd as he hanged from the building, but the danger was there. Lloyd later said that he had matresses below on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor as he went up the building, and he had a stuntman for the long distant shots. Still. had he fall, there was a good chance that even if he survived, his career would be over.

But that was comedy back then. People did their own stunts, and they were dangerous. (For instance, in Our Hospitality (a movie I'll be reviewing soon), Buster Keaton hangs on a branch at the top of a waterfall)

Harold Lloyd is oftan thought of as third after Chaplin and Keaton. That is partly because he was in possession of his films through the decades, and he did not release them. He kept them preserved, but he did not rerelease them like Chaplin's and Keaton's films were. Which makes it all more surprising that the most recognizable image from silent comedy is that of Harold Lloyd hanging from a clock high on top of a building.

Entertainment Rating: 8/10
Historical Rating: 8/10

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)
Directed By: Wallace Worsley
Starring: Lon Chaney, Patsy Ruth Miller, Norman Kerry, Kate Lester
Length: 133 min.

Nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions

This was the first film adaption of Victor Hugo's novel, and was Universal's biggest hit of the silent era, grossing over $3 million. Lon Chaney, once again, demostrates his special ability with make-up and costume as he deforms his face and body into Quasimodo.

I'm sure everyone is quite familiar with the plot. Quasimodo lives inside of Notre Dame and is ordered by Jehen to kidnap the gypsy Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth miller), but she is saved by Captain Phoebus (Norma Kerry). As Quasimodo's punishment is being carried out, Esmeralda shows him pity.

Captain Phoebus then gets attacke dwith Esmeralda being framed. After she is convicted, Quasimodo and Captain Phoebus plan to rescue her, as well as the gypies.

Lon Chaney as Quasimodo was actually quite comical. His bahaivor, especially while he rang the bells of Notre Dame, just looked weird and funny. I've never been a fan of the Hunchback of Notre Dame, as this was kind of a chore to sit through, although the ending was shot pretty well.

Entertainment Rating: 5/10
Historical Rating: 7/10

Why Worry? (1923)

Directed By: Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor
Starring: Harold Lloyd, Jobyna Rolston, John Aasen
Length: 60 min

Nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs

This was the first of Lloyd's to star Jobyna Rolston, who would go on to star with lloyd in several of his movies as a replacement for his former leading lady, Mildred Davis, after she retired when she married Harold Lloyd. Rolston may not be the hottest actress ever, but I'm starting to grow an appreciation for the appearance and mannerisms of women from Bucc's time. She was quite adorable in this movie.

The film is about a wealthy businessman who is a hypocondriac. He travels with is nurse (Jobyna Rolston) to a far off pacific island*. While there, a revolution takes place. At first, Lloyd is oblivious to the revolution, causing several hilarious situation. After helping out a giant (John Aasen), the giant serve Lloyd in helping to end the revolution just so that Lloyd can get some peace and quiet.

The film is funny, although not nearly as much as Safety Last!. This was the first film for John Aasen when he was discovered as a replacement for Cardiff Giant who died shortly after filming started for Why Worry?. He would go on to have a small career in Hollywood playing giants.

* - Orignally set in Mexico, the film was accused of unfairly stereotyping Mexicans, so Lloyd changed the location to an island in the Pacific. However, it's quite clear that the movie was meant to be set in Mexico, so much so that is where I thought it was set until I read about it on Wikipedia.

Entertainment Rating: 7/10
Historical Rating: 5/10

Salome (1923)
Directed by: Charles Bryant
Starring: Alla Nazimova, Mitchell Lewis
Length: 74 min.

I only watched the first 20 minutes of this movie, and it was horrible. It's oftan called the first "art film". Minimal sets, over-the-top movements, people just acting flat out weird.

Which i can and have liked in movies before. But after 20 minutes, nothing had happened! Just a few comments about "paying attention" to Salome and that was it. "Nathing had happened" is a phrase people like to throw around when they don't like a plot or find it boring, but I mean it in an absolute literal way. Nothing happened!

After 20 minutes, I turned it off.

Entertainment Rating: 1/10
Historical Rating: 4/10 (Simply for it being the first "art film")

The Ten Commandments (1923)



Directed by: Cecil B. DaMille
Starring: Theodore Roberts, Charles de Rochefort, Richard Dix, Rod La Rocque
Length: 136 min

I had been wanting to see this movie for awhile. The 1956 Charleton Heston "The Ten Commandments" was one of my favorite movies growing up, and it still is. Maybe that's why I was so let down.....no, that wasn't the reason.

The reason was because the Moses story, where the plagues infect Egypt and he leads his people out of slavery to receive the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, all happens in the first 40 minutes of the movie. This wasn't one movie, it was two. For an epic, that's cheating.

The first 40 minutes were fine, but when the film STARTS right after the 9th plague, I got suspicious. And then when Moses parted the Red Sea a half hour into the movie, and was receiving the Ten Commandments at the 35 minute mark while his follows had a massive orgy, I was confused as to how the rest of the 100 minutes of movie would be filled.

That's when a modern times story began, and where the movie started to seriously suck. It was a morality play about the importance of the Ten Commandments in everyone's life. And that would be fine if everyone weren't such an insanely and comically over the top, one-dimension, cardboard cut-out character and the plot wasn't extremely predictable.

Getting back to the biblical story, the effects were nice. As can be seen in the clip above, I was a bit impressed with the parting of the Red Sea, considering it was 1923. Yeah, after the sea is split, it looks like two jello molds with a bit of water pouring over the sides, but like I said, 1923. It wasn't how pretty the effect is, it's about how resourceful it is.

Entertainment Rating: 4/10
Historical Rating: 6/10

Our Hospitality (1923)



Directed by: John G. Blystone, Buster Keaton
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts
Length: 74 min

Nominated for AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs

The first Buster Keaton movie on my journey, and it won't be my last.

Keaton's deadpan expression did not cease to make me laugh throughout the film. Everytime he blankly stared off into space as he was figuring something out, or when he would quickly look out of the corner of his eye, got to me. He pulls that off to perfection.

Our Hospitality is a movie about a rivalry between two families, to the point that they murder each other. Willie McKay (Buster Keaton) is taken by his mother, when he is one, away when her husband dies. He gorws up not knowing about the fued, but when he finds out about land in a far away town, he hops on a train and heads there.

When he arrives, the Canfield family finds him, and they spend the rest of the film trying to kill him, without their sister, Virginia (Natalie Talmadge), finding out since she had befriended Willie.

An absolutely hilarious movie. A bit of a hit to the Historical Rating, however, since it is not one of Keaton's more popular films.

Entertainment Rating: 8/10
Historical Rating: 7/10

A Woman of Paris (1923)



Directed by: Charlie Chaplin
Starring: Edna Purviance, Carl Miller, Adolphe Menjou
Length: 84 min

Kinema Junpo Award for Best Artistic Film (1925)

"What ever happened to that Marie St. Clair?"

Charlie Chaplin's drama about a man and woman who become seperated, only to meet again years later.

I didn't see much that seperated this from most other romantic dramas of the time. It was well acted, and had a good pace, but it was pretty much the typcial romantic drama. One person was poor, the other wasn't, and they wanted to be together but various forces kept them apart, most importantly, another man.

But then the ending happens, and it kind of took me off guard. It didn't have a happy ending. In fact, the ending felt oddly modern. This was one of the first, if not the first, movie I've seen on my journey that didn't have the happy-ending conclusion. The poor man dies. He brought a gun, supposedly to shoot and kill the rich playboy that had his love wrapped around his finger, but then turns the gun on himself and commits suicide right there at the resturant they were at. After that, the woman finally leaves the playboy and ends up spending her time at an orphanage with the poor man's mother.

The ending really did it for me. It took the traditional movie plot for the time and turned it completely on its head.

The public did not receive the film well. They expected to see a Charlie Chaplin comedy, and did not get one (they didn't have TV commercials or movie trailers at the time). Chaplin did his best to make sure people knew this was a drama and he did not appear in the movie, but it turned out to be a flop. It did receive much deserved critical praise, though.

Entertainment Rating: 7/10
Historical Rating: 7/10

And that ends 1923. Let's see how it turned out.

Top 5 Movies of 1923
1. Safety Last! - 24
2. Our Hospitaliry - 23
3. A Woman of Paris - 21
4. Why Worry? - 19
5. The Hunchback of Notre Dame - 17

A pretty good year. First year I've had with 3 20+ rated movies. But it also had 2 of the worst movies on my entire journey (The Shock and Salome). A very up and down year.

Here are the upcoming films for 1924

1924 (8 Movies)
The Last Laugh - Drama / German
The Navigator - Comedy
Thief of Bagdad - Adventure
Mikael - Drama / Romance / German
Aelita - Adventure / Sci-Fi / Russia
Girl Shy - Comedy
The Marriage Circle - Comedy
Sherlock, Jr. - Comedy

Sherlock Jr (1924)



Directed by: Buster Keaton
Starring: Buster Keaton, Kathryn McGuire, Ward Krane
Length: 44 min

#62 on AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs

A really short movie, on the line of being a movie and a "short". But, it's a classic.

In this movie, Keaton plays a movie projectionist that falls for a girl who he does not think he has a chance with. He also thinks of himself as an amatuer detective. He also competes with another man for the woman's love. When the other man sets him up for stealing the woman's father's watch, the family turns him away.

He then goes into a daydream-sequence while at work. In his dream, he is a world class detective called Sherlock Jr.

This movie definetly is a classic and was hilarious. As with Keaton's previous movie, I was laughing almost throughout the enitre movie. I am quickly becoming a huge fan of Buster Keaton.

Entertainment Rating: 8/10
Historical Rating: 8/10

The Last Laugh (1924)



Directed by F.W. Murnau
Starring Emil Jennings, Maly Delschaft, Max Hiller
Length: 77 min.
Genre: Drama

A very interesting film, not for its basic plot, but for the way it was filmed.

In the Last Laugh, an aging hotel doorman get demoted to working in the restroom when the manager sees he can no longer physically do the job of a doorman (carrying heavy suitcases), but he is so ashamed of it that he hides it from his family. He steals a uniform, wears it to and from work while changing before he gets to the hotel and after he leaves.

What's interesting about the film is that it's shot entirely without story cards. Murnau does such a great job of telling the story without the cards that I didn't even realize there weren't any until about 20 minutes into it. About the only part of the film I didn't like was the ending, which was forced on Murnau by the movie studio financing the film. Imagine that....

Entertainment Rating: 7/10
Historical Rating: 7/10