criterionforum.org

Amazon customer wrote:My husband, who is a Movie Buff, thought this was just too old a version. We are returning it.

Feego wrote:On The Thief of Bagdad (1924):

Amazon customer wrote:My husband, who is an illiterate Movie Buff, couldn't read the release date and didn't know who the hell Douglas Fairbanks was. We are returning it.

Feego wrote:On The Thief of Bagdad (1924):

Amazon customer wrote:My husband, who is a Movie Buff, thought this was just too old a version. We are returning it.

Author: JohnHowardReid

A very odd film indeed, which completely mystified me on the first run. I couldn't make sense of the story at all, let alone follow the complicated plot. It wasn't until a second viewing that it all came together. The reason, of course, is that it's edited in a very peculiar manner. This is not your standard Hollywood grammar of 1922 at all. It's the editorial grammar of "Caligari" and other German expressionist films of the period. Mind you, this is pretty identical to the editorial grammar in use in 2008—which is one reason I don't watch contemporary movies. I can't follow them. When I see a close-up, for example, I immediately conclude the director is going to special pains to draw this particular character to my attention, so in my mind I file away this player for further reference. Five minutes and fifteen close-ups later, I'm totally lost.

When "Grand Hotel" received its New York premiere, many critics (including Mordaunt Hall of The New York Times) walked out, claiming that director Goulding had used so many close-ups, they couldn't follow the story. But "Grand Hotel" is poverty indeed compared to the plethora of odd close-ups in "The Man from Beyond". True, it makes sense the second time through, but who wants to watch a melodrama like this twice? Even to see Houdini brave the rapids of Niagara Falls, "Niagara" fashion? And even to eye Nita Naldi at her slinkiest?

Mind you, the tinted print offered by Kino in their "Houdini" box is much easier on the eyes than both the black-and-white DVD versions available from Alpha and Grapevine. This said, however, I cannot recommend the Kino print unreservedly as it is missing the key sequence of Houdini's first recorded glimpse of his savior's home. This sequence features the most effective close-up in the whole movie.

On the other hand ...

Barbara wrote:It was one of the worst films I've ever watched. Not because the story wasn't interesting nor because the actors weren't good. The whole shaking the camera around to add realism to the whole thing was very annoying. The first 20 minutes they are just filming Natalie Portman's face, while she sobs. The last 20 are about this stupid argument two of the characters are having in a car and they're just repeating the same things; both of the scenes are accompanied by a very annoying song. Overall, there's NO conclusion to the film. They just wander around the middle east trying to find something they don't. You don't even get to see much of the beauty of the place. Just the chaos and a few touchy speeches about life there. To be honest, it was so difficult to watch, I didn't even pay attention to much of it to write in any more detail.

"Earthquake hit while I was watching the Kraken scene in TITANS. For a second there, I thought the movie was getting good."

swo17 wrote:A basic science lesson for everyone: Just because your chair moved while you were watching a 3D movie does not mean you experienced the fourth dimension.

Ugh. You just know in a few years they're actually going to start marketing films this way too. ](*,)

An Amazon reviewer, apparently unimpressed after unearthing 2 hours of unknown additional missing footage, wrote:Yeah, unbelievably 5 hours of this stuff! Yes, it's historical for being done in 1915 when there's no other film done at that time to compare it to. Obviously Mr. Griffith had lots of spare time on his hands to muster up a cast of thousands, plus a couple hundred Klansmen to boot. I gave it 3-stars (thats' a stretch) because of it's time period, but if you don't have the time for it-- skip it!

Another Amazon reviewer, understandably disappointed, wrote:didnt know it was a silence version would have love to have a talkin version.

Brian C wrote:Don't anyone else's ears ever get tired? Sometimes when I watch a movie, I don't want to have to work to hear stuff or figure out what I'm hearing. I just want to kick back and turn my ears off.

Duncan Hopper wrote:Some insightful reviews of 'Close Up' from LOVEFiLM.

"What a waste of time! We persevered for quite while with this film in the hope that it would improve from the very poor start but, if anythng, it went even further downhill as it progressed. This must be a top contender for the worst film ever made. I can honestly think of nothing remotely good to say about it."

"boring, very slow, not particularly interesting, the only good bit was the first ten minutes"

"Garbage. This is the worst film ive ever seen and really boring ,i fell asleep"

I love this last one.

"This film was a waste of time and thinking effort. i don't mind subtitle films but this was rubbish."

2.0 out of 5 stars Not the whole story!, April 5, 2010
By R. Lapin "diztreker" (California) - See all my reviews

Having taken a day trip to Nevada City, Ca., I was surprised to learn that Lola Montez had lived there and the house is still standing. There are also a couple of plaques in the town commemorating her living and entertaining there. Since I was pretty fascinated about her life and ended up reading alot about her life. Unfortunately the movie does not show her life at all in California and only mentions it. This was the main reason I rented it on Netflix but was very disappointed with it. I think someone out there could do a much better job. I realize this was in France in the 50's but it was done way too artsy and symbolic.

Duncan Hopper wrote:Some insightful reviews of 'Close Up' from LOVEFiLM.

"What a waste of time! We persevered for quite while with this film in the hope that it would improve from the very poor start but, if anythng, it went even further downhill as it progressed. This must be a top contender for the worst film ever made. I can honestly think of nothing remotely good to say about it."

"boring, very slow, not particularly interesting, the only good bit was the first ten minutes"

"Garbage. This is the worst film ive ever seen and really boring ,i fell asleep"

I love this last one.

"This film was a waste of time and thinking effort. i don't mind subtitle films but this was rubbish."