I am so glad that I'm reviewing a horror film again. It's been so long since then, but it is nice to be back in the chair, in my room, and on this blog. "The Lost World," made in 1925, utilized the ability of stop-motion animation to bring the these behemoths of lizards back from extinction, and onto the big screen. It was the first adaptation of the book written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who actually stars in the film as himself (no doubt raising his ego by 30%)! But could these prehistorical skyscrapers, these magnificently towering lifeforms, these...dinosaurs...alone support an entire film? let's find out in my review of, "The Lost world!"
Oh, Lost World, what secrets do you hold? A garden of Eden, unharmed by the destructive nature of time? A prehistoric paradise with convincingly tall rocky formations? Well, whatever it was, it did generate a profitable amount of buzz. See real live dinosaurs, interact with humans! Travelers, exploring dangers unknown! It was every adventurers dream come true, right up on the big screen. Because now, after reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel about dinosaurs from the Jurassic age, they got to see everything come to life for the first time! I'm sure that It blew everyone's mind (all over the theater too)! The effects must have been stunning then, and to be honest, it's still pretty okay even for today. But, the question that has been waiting quietly in the margins of the review is, "how does everything else hold up?" I'll be the man to take that plunge.
Well, the first thing we find is that the SAME EXACT music is recycled from, "The Phantom of the Opera." Don't get me wrong, it's great music; in fact, it's symphony's has been etched into my mind as classic. There's only one problem. It doesn't work in this movie, and I'll tell you why. With these two films, we have two different locations. One is in a jungle, and another is in an opera house. The music, in, "Phantom of the Opera" succeeded in immersing you even further into the film with the gloomy atmosphere, and characters. It fit perfectly. THIS film.....doesn't work with this kind of music. I would have preferred something along the lines of the music from a film like, "The Ape," or "The Ape Man." They weren't as good pieces, but at least it would have fit the mood of the film.
I feel as though this film is reminiscent to, "King Kong," how several explorers venture out to a, "lost land" teeming with prehistoric life. However the many differences that these two films face is that one film keeps the main characters as the humans and the monsters as an amusing spectacle. The other film the switches the roles and, the monster becomes the focus of the film. This film takes the easy way out. You don't have to send a message, just through a bunch of dinosaurs into the plot to make it edgy! What a lousy bunch a' mediocrity! I don't care if you take the time to bring the monsters to life, because you don't give them any place in the film other than something really cool to look at. You know what it's like? It's like if you've ever been to a float parade. The main reason the things are built is to look pretty, and to give the spectators something to look at. Those dinosaurs were tools to enhance the experience of being marooned and to heighten the tension of the film, but you turned them into PRETTY PARADE FLOATS!!! But, I digress.
During our first moments in the jungle we get to look at as many animals as the film's budget could muster. However, our explorers aren't frightened in the slightest as they come across these animals one by one. In fact they go right up to two bear cubs who are fighting for food! I'm sorry, let me rephrase that, "they go up to a pair of hungry bears like they're in a zoo!" Although I'm sure a zoo wouldn't be too much different, because these animals don't seem to have an ounce of dignity left inside their shipped-out hides! But I digress.
But the animals of the present would later be cast aside by our main attraction; dinosaurs! These lumbering Goliath's are brought to life by stop-motion animation. This form of film is achieved by the film maker moving an object however far he it believes an object to actually move during the duration of one frame. You start the camera, pause it, rinse and repeat. The effect works well, but the fluency of movement could have been a whole lot better.
Alright, I'm done kicking this film in the face. Now lets talk about what made this film so good. The scenery is very nice, and my favorite shot is of the two cliffs in the distance. The rocky formations are very distinct and I enjoy the notion that they took the time to make or to find this shot. However, the closer shots throughout the film are very dark, lighting wise. It is interesting, but it also makes everything much harder to see. I will say this though: It was very ambitious of the director to create such an environment, realistic for its time.
The best way that I can describe this film is that its head is in the right place, but whatever it did to emulate that idea, was not...done...too...well. The reason that I'm saying this is because I have found a pattern within the film. It goes like this: Dialog, Shot of scenery, Dinosaur fight! That's why it gets boring! That's why it's predictable, and that's why this film barely passes my rating system. It's amusing, I'll put it like that. However, you want to watch something within the monster arena, I would recommend...my new future series. But, I will be doing other reviews before then.
When someone hears the name, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," they are probably reminded of the animated film made by Disney. This is not that film. If you have a mind similar to a vault of film archives, you may not have trouble remembering this, so-called, "cinematic classic," and if you don't know of it, well, that's where I come in. Carl Laemmle directed this picture, and he would later move onto directing such films as "The Invisible Man,""The Phantom of the Opera,""Dracula," and "Frankenstein." Wow. I had no idea that I reviewed three of his films already! check those out by clicking on the names of the films. Or, don't, and just read this one. Enjoy.
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" was certainly a classic, but it could never have achieved that title without Lon Chaney. It takes great skill to act a character with only three lines, and still have the audience notice you. The physical job of Lon Chaney's acting was incredible. He had it down! Everything, from the jumping up and down frantically, to the sharp toothed scowl as he perched on the walls of the cathedral, pointing and shaking his fist accusingly. It was all there, and with all of that it still didn't seem as though he was the main character. The film plays out from different points of views. You have the cathedral's point of view, which includes Quasimodo and Dom Claude , the peasants point of view, which includes Clopin and Esmeralda, and finally the (Government's?) point of view, which includes the court, Phoebus, and (sort of) Esmeralda. During the climax, all of these story lines collide. It's a very effective technique to telling a story.
It doesn't focus too much on the Hunchback character, so much as the struggle of Paris society itself. People are hanged, there isn't too tight a grasp on the populous, and it's a bit too chaotic. As we begin to learn more about each of the characters, so does Quasimodo's hatred begin to divide into certain areas of the society, instead of the society itself. The music plays a part in the story telling as well, where the music gradually fits to the emotions of Quasimoto and less onto the rest of the population, as we begin to see that he isn't as evil as he looks. It is the less disfigured people that seem more dangerous.
Speaking of, "dangerous" and, "evil," lets talk about Jehan. This guy is the meanest @#!*% ever! He frames Quasimodo for a crime he was being forced to commit, he stabs Phoebus and thus frames Esmerelda for stabbing him in the back (literally), tries to get the court to, "ask the question," which I'll get into later, and finally kidnaps her to, "have his way with her!" Now that is pretty mean! I mean, look at him! He's right there, circled in red, with the red cape. Y'know how there are films that point out the villain almost instantly? That one guy, that's hidden under a thick layer of good guys? The one that's always telling the king what to do? The one wearing black and red.....the colors of EVIL? THAT is who this guy is!
He's always lurking in the shadows, waiting to strike. Waiting in an alley, for the precise moment where he can trip an old lady holding her groceries, or throw an angry cat on a priest, or slap Lon Chaney around. He would do it! An everything so stupid, so revoltingly jerk-like, so backhandedly backstabbing, and so purely evil could not be place next to how humanly evil this one man is!!! ...Nawww! I'm just kidding! The best villain ever is probably the devil from, "A Night on Bald Mountain." But, I'm getting off track here.
Lets now talk about, "The Question." This is the act of forcing a victim to confess to his/her crimes in a court of law...to put it lightly! What it basically is, is this: "Did you steal my chocolate, Bobby?" "Why no, Billy! I would never take someone's chocolate, you know that!" "Alright then, Bobby...I'm going to have to whip you until you confess the way that I want you to, okay?" "Sounds fair to me...OUCH!" WHY MIDDLE AGES?! WHY?! "The Question" is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of! "The act of forcing someone to confess in a court of law?!" What about evidence given to prove someone right or wrong? Doesn't that seem a little less...stupid?! I mean man! People in the middle ages were IDIOTS!
In conclusion, anyone in their right mind who has seen this film, probably already considers this a classic. It's all really great stuff, and Lon Chaney is more than just icing on the film flavored cake. I'm sure that the film wouldn't get the same credit that it does today, if Lon Chaney was not in this film. I'm sure it would still be good, but he makes it so much better. This is a very sad film, and ends on a bittersweet note. It has a, "Phantom of the Opera" feel, where the disfigured are hated and the people on the ground make a mockery of the filth below them. These two films are absolutely neck and neck when it comes to not only Lon Chaney's performance, but film itself. I don't know, but when it comes to playing a disfigured, mistreated person that hides in huge places like a cathedral, or an opera house, Lon Chaney is the man.
In 1984 a man namedRobert Louis Stevenson wrote a novel that would later become a legend in literary work. The story was about a doctor that attempts to concoct a formula to unleash the dark side of a human being. The doctor tries it on himself, thus transforming him into the doctor's killer within, Mr. Hyde. I have not yet read the novel, or seen any remake of this film. But, with that said, I will have a fresh look on the first adapted film of this so-called, "literary genius ." Welcome to my review of, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" from 1920!
<This is an advertisement>
Have you ever found yourself wishing you could do something else with your time? Do you lie awake at night, wishing for a better you? Or even perhaps, a different you? Have gone through countless prescriptions, trying to turn yourself into a different human being, but only gaining the symptoms of sweaty palms, dry eyes, loss of balance, chronic flatulence, and/or loss of depth perception? Well look no further, because any more of those symptoms and the only person you'll become is a patient checked into urgent care. I give you, "Dr. Jekyll's Super Secret Sinful Serum!" Not only will you experience the growing desire to destroy every living creature that lies in your path, but you will attain a wide variety of grotesque facial features to choose from! Be reckless! Be terrifying! Be a pimp! Become the villain you've always dreamed of becoming, for only $24.99 for 6 months.
Note: pimp sauce sold separately
"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," is an intricate tale of a man torn between oppressive order and chaotic freedom. Dr. Henry Jekyll was a man who wanted more after being tempted by his fiance's father. So, basically Henry has chosen the path of the Disney princess, where their care-free life is interrupted by wanting only one thing: more! And so, the doctor concocts a drug which fully exposes the evil side of a human being. And, he actually likes it! There's no denying anything readers. There has to be one point in your existence where you have wanted to be pure evil for one day....no? But, what if you could get away with it? ...That's what I thought...
There is allot of dialog for this film, especially since this was made in 1920! I think that they might have been taking some of the dialog from the novel. I suppose this was a good idea, but this film might have emulated the novel a bit too well. The main reason that a book is turned into a film is usually because they want to tell the story in their own way. I think that they did this, but the fact that the dialog might have been taken directly from the novel is simply a minor flaw.
Now, in every Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde film there is always a transformation scene. In the more popular film from 1931 starring Frederic March as both Jekyll and Hyde, they had extra makeup on March's face that would only show up in shadows. So, there were almost no cuts when the changes to his face were taking place. It was a really great idea, but this film had a different one. They used a number of dissolves and and clever movements to conceal each makeup change. This was also a good idea and, in the finished project, it worked really well. However, Hyde looks a bit strange, but it's really refreshing to see a different visualization of how Hyde might have looked then.
Something that was really surprising to look at was Hyde's sensual nature. I know that this was just one of the qualities that Hyde has, but to see something like this in a film made in the 20's is a little abnormal. Don't get me wrong, it's nothing to give an R-rating for, and the film does get a whole lot better when Hyde becomes more aggressive, it's just a bit strange that you would see something like this in a film this old. But, to be honest, I kind of like it. I gives this film allot of differences when compared to other films that came around during that time. It truly makes this movie a special one.
If you watch this film, you might get a little bored with not seeing Hyde to much in the beginning. But if you wait a little longer, the chaos simply grows from the very moment Jekyll becomes Hyde. That's what I enjoyed most about this movie: the momentum. From no action whatsoever during the start, there is so much chaos in the end. You need something like that with a Jekyll and Hyde film. Jekyll, who was quite content with discussing various topics with Miriam's father in the beginning, ends with Hyde killing him. And, to be honest, I didn't see it coming. It isn't every day that you witness a deranged psycho biting a mans neck, tackling him and beating him to death, all while classical music plays.
You know, I think I might have figured out something about this film that's actually worth writing about. Chilling organ music is played around Dr. Jekyll, but when Mr. Hyde is on the screen, calm classical music is played. IT ALL FITS TOGETHER NOW! After being classified as a good natured human by one of the characters, Jekyll falls into a Disney princes faze, "of wanting so much more" and creates, "Dr. Jekyll's Super Secret Sinful Serum."He enjoys being evil. He likes to set off chaos! The madness is the one thing that, "calms the shakes." But you know all too well that whatever it is that does that, is a drug! (BUM BUM BUMMMM!) Jekyll becomes addicted to his serum, and in a wonderfully ironic twist he transforms into a giant robot as a side effect of withdrawal from the drug, and begins to fire lasers from his eyes, thus destroying the home he grew to cherish.I'm sorry,that information should not have been given. You may need to watch the film to find out the ending. But, seriously, this film was fantastic! With chilling organ music, frightening facial features and crazy, perverted antics, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" was truly sublime! Check it out at the bottom of this review, and thanks for reading!
The Golem is a creature created from Jewish folklore. This story tells of a Rabbi who, after seeing an omen the stars one night, builds a creature out of clay to protect his people. He uses his, "Jew-voo-doo" to bring the clay model to life. The monster rebels, and this is where things get good. The Golem, is played by Paul Wegener, who also directed the film. It's interesting to find a German film, re-enacting Jewish folklore. If it were about two decades later, making something like this, would have been unheard of! Anyway here is my review of, "The Golem: How he came into this world."
Wow. The Golem. You know, that's all you really need in your city. Just a huge, lumbering guy who will do whatever you write on paper and give to him, and protect your town from certain doom. To @#!*% with the national guard! Just get a Rabbi to go ahead and build one for you! But little did the people know that a beast like The Golem, would be very hard to tame. But how could a servant be difficult to keep under control, when his main purpose is to protect the very city he was built in! Well, that's what you find out in this film.
Even though this is a movie that has a subtle, architecturally expressionistic feel to it, I would still put it up against films like, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." When something like that expresses more through all of the mediums of film, this film focuses purely on the characters, and I believe that doing something like that is a bold move. German expressionism was a form of film that was on a terrifically extreme side of film making. It wasn't about how much you could explain with dialog, rather how much you could emphasize in a few seconds of movement. It truly was the extreme art form of the 20's and 30's.
Both the lighting and sound are stupendous, especially for a film that is this old. There are certain qualities that a German expressionist film must require to meet this genre's standards, and good lighting is one of them. It is very important to cast shadows or create a bright entrance in some areas, even if it is realistically impossible. The lighting is symbolic to the mood the atmosphere is trying to conduct. The sound is not that special, and its only for orchestral purposes, but nonetheless, it is a very high quality.
This movie has a very real, and gritty look to everything around it. The textures to everything are very interesting to look at, which is something that I don't find too common in films this old. And I know that The Golem's hair to the right of me --> doesn't look too real, but that's because he was constructed of clay. Well, that's one way to take the easy way out with costume design, but I suppose I buy it. For 1920, this design is pretty convincing, especially coupled with the rest of his body, which is shown in the previous picture.
"The Golem" is a very good film. There is allot of suspense as well as some interesting visuals. I would rather watch films like Nosferatu or Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, but if those were the first two places in a contest, I would give this film to the third. "The Golem" is an interesting movie for one simple reason. This was a German film made to depict Jewish folklore. That seems really fascinating to me that something like that can exist. To the best of my knowledge, this is correct, with a few minor flaws, but nothing strays from the point. I think I would have liked it better if he had a love interest instead of two other people having this whole Romeo and Juliet thing. You know, both from different sides of conflict, but sharing a forbidden love. But I suppose having the monster have a love interest would be too much like the Frankenstein monster's case. These two stories are very different, and judging by the fact that I haven't yet seen, "Frankenstein": 1931 (GASP) it will be hard to decide which one is better. But don't worry, I'm saving that one up for next Halloween! Good-night everybody!
I'm sorry, I really am. But I can't do it. I can't review another Science fiction film. I found the whole task of reviewing, "Phantom from Space" to be a pain. I know a critic isn't supposed to have favorite genres, but mine is horror. And while I still feel safe confined to this one genre, I'm going to keep it that way. I'm sticking purely to horror films from now on.
If you want to, you can look at my last review as a bonus review. I apologize for the delay with this review coming out as well, because for five days I was messing with the site, and trying different themes and gadgets out. It all became a mess and I spent the remainder of the four days cleaning up the site. Anyway, I'm hoping to publish this review the first of the month and I hope you enjoy my review of, "The Phantom of the Opera".
The Phantom of the Opera was made in 1925, and was directed by Rupert Julian, Lon Chaney, Edward Sedgwick, and Carl Laemmle. Though the last three are not credited in the film, Lon Chaney does have one of the lead roles. To inform those who do not know, Lon Chaney was an actor who made his career during the age of silent films. He became known as, "The man with a thousand faces" after his success in such films as, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", and the film I am about to review today, "The Phantom of the Opera", because of his acting ability coupled with his makeup expertise.
This is Lon Chaney without any makeup
This is Lon Chaney in, "The Phantom of the Opera"
Our film opens inside of an opera house after we find out that places like this (or any other high class place of business) towers high over the torture chambers and hidden dungeons. This is extremely symbolic and I'm so glad that this is written because it perfectly explained life in Paris at the time in one sentence. It was written, "Sanctuary of song lovers, The Paris Opera House rising nobly over medieval torture chambers, hidden dungeons, long forgotten." It describes the hierarchic put into play during the time period this movie takes place. It's incredible how this sentence fills you in on everything before the film even begins.
So while the performance is continuing, we find that a shady deal is being proposed. After the deed I sold (of which I believe is for the Opera house) the sellers start discussing an urban legend: The the deed was haunted by a phantom! Now I'm not a sales man, nor do I know much about business, but to sell a deed and then to say that it’s haunted by a phantom isn't too smart of a move. So, the people that were told of the phantom go searching for him within the opera house. They find him in theater box five after asking a maid for directions. They peer into the room to find the silhouette of whom of which they believe belongs to the phantom. The men flee from the room, regain composure, and re-enter to find that the phantom had vanished.
This establishes the phantoms character. We now know that he wants to be alone (or is forced to be) and the fact that he chooses to be in a theater box and not a normal seat emphasizes that trait. We cut to the conclusion of the ballet, while one of the workers (who appear to be working backstage) has a black cat cross his path. Although a foreboding occurrence, he shakes it off disbelievingly. I’ve noticed a reoccurring character persona with the people in 1920's horror films, that disbelieve the horrifying (or not) main attraction. The ballerinas all gather backstage, but later run away from, who we assume is the Phantom. They go to tell one of the people in the theater. Then one of the ballerina's said that he had no nose, but another one interrupts to say that he did, and that it was enormous. It just strikes me as odd to say those things and I don't know why.
The next scene hypes up the Phantom more, but not allot of horror is implemented. We do have one man who has seen the Phantom describe him to us, but there is one thing wrong with the scene. The music! The music sets the tone of the film and what I got wasn't horror! At least not in this scene. The music is very important and I'm not set to believe that they didn't want us to be frightened during the Phantoms description.
We are then introduced to a new character: Carlotta, and her mother. We are told by her mother, that Carlotta had been insulted by the Phantom, and she hands the men who own the Opera House the letter that was proof of the insult. The only problem is that I can't read the letter, but if you can, tell me in the comments section below. So anyway, it seems as though that the Phantom is terrorizing Carlotta. We find out later that Carlotta became ill on the day of her performance, and to replace her was a woman named Christine Daae. Later a shadow speaks to Christine, telling her that he has, "imparted the full measure of my art to you". We also find out that the Phantom asked for Carlotta to be ill, because he fears a great misfortune will turn to face her. Okay I'm still waiting for horror to show itself, and it still hasn't. Nothing is frightening in the least at this point, and it appears to be playing on like a soap opera.....and just because the film takes place in an opera house doesn't give this film permission to have this tone.
A second letter is sneaked into the room.....and I still can't read it! Again, if you can read this other letter please let me know what it reads in the comments section below. The lack of legibility with the letters in this film is extremely frustrating. What’s more is that I hope I can catch on later what the letters are saying, because they seem important. As far as I can tell the phantom wants Christine Daae to sing, "Marguerite", instead of Carlotta. However, the next evening Carlotta appeared as, “Marguerite", after being convinced by her mother.
The notes just keep coming!! It doesn't matter how close the letter is or how long it stays to be read... I just can't read it! And this is important because half of the story is told through this fashion. It certainly doesn't help that this is a silent film either! So the lights start to flicker during the performance, and everybody has this open mouthed expression that you see in every silent horror movie. The Phantom's shadow appears and threatens to drop the chandelier, which is exactly what happens. I know that I should be happy that some action has risen out of this film, but it’s a little depressing. I've waited a half an hour to see a chandelier drop. And it’s not like I'm expecting any flashy effects, I'm just looking for something to speed up the mystery.
It's confining to be stuck in this Opera House, although the isolation is effective. You do get a greater feeling from the film when you want to get out of the opera house just as much as the people getting terrorized by the Phantom do. It's nice to have complete consistency, but there's a point in the film where too much of the same thing can leave you unsatisfied above all emotions, and it leaves you craving for something new. So chaos ensues, but you’re displaced from the feeling that everyone else is left with in the film, because the music hasn't changed since! The pattern is horrendous! There is so much done wrong because of the music! In order for an emotion to come from the audience correctly, they must first connect with the disaster. If you have happy music playing during a sad moment, the audience doesn't know what to think, and neither do I.
So, Christine goes down to the cellar, to meet the shadow that was talking to her. AND......FINALLY.....AFTER 33 MINUETS.......WE SEE THE PHANTOM! OH, JOY!!! He looks how the Phantom of the opera would look. He has the half mask over his face, and everything! And even after the main attraction shows him.....the music still doesn't change! But finally, after taking Christine down the stairs, the music does change, somewhat. But it doesn't last very long, while the Phantom is leading her out towards a black lake. Well, maybe things will seem grimmer, by comparison because of all the non-frightening moments, and I guess it works a little in its favor.
Here is when things seem to start to get good. We have finally changed location to a darker place. I believe it was mentioned at the beginning of this review about the torture chambers lurking below the higher classed establishments. I really like how there incorporating this with the story now. And I also don't care that there still isn't a change in music, because at this point I'm just glad to be moving on with the film. So, after bringing Christine five cellars underground, the Phantom confess his love for her. It would almost portray Romeo and Juliet if this guy didn't look so...creepy.
However Lon Chaney does do a very good job at seeming calm and normal, because he is playing two roles. One of which is the Phantom, and the other is the monster behind the mask. But after all of this, Christine says this, "You-you are the Phantom!"......wow...... It took you that long to figure that out? Anyone else would have made a more alert Christine. We find out that The Phantom's real name is Erik, and I believe he's presenting to her a more human side of his being. Up above, the Chandelier incident makes the papers, as well as the disappearance of Christine.
Down below, the kidnapped Christine wakes to find that Erik (The Phantom) has showered her with shoes and clothes. She finds a note (again of which I can't read), and stumbles upon Erik playing Don Juan Triumphant on the piano. Erik explains that the music reminds him of her, but while turning to continue the song Christine unmasks Erik to find the horrible beast cowering behind it. This might be one of the most famous scenes in the whole film, and after this, Lon Chaney really picks up the film and puts it in its place for being so mellow before. This is what I like about his role. He can play two people and yet, he still knows that he needs to top his first performance with his second. And this is when his character really shines. The Phantom is ugly, and we can all see that. However The Phantom tries to hide; to be more than a man because acting human isn't an option in his eyes. When Erik is unmasked his persona is broken and so is his belief that he can be someone else. So, Erik embraces his fate, and instead of being the human that he was all along, he is transformed into the monster that the public makes him out to be.
A title card explains that one night every year, all of Paris gathers to, well.......party! A costumed figure shows up, dresses as, "The Red Death". Usually things in red are meant to be paid attention to during a film. It seems as though for this part in particular, the film had been colorized. I'm assuming the reason being to show the red of the outfit, or to show contrast between a sad moment and a happy one but I'm not too sure about that last one. We cut to on top of the roof of the Opera, where Raoul and Christine have met in secret, away from Erik. However, The Phantom, in fact, was waiting for them! How he figured out where they were while down stairs is a mystery to me. The film slowly recedes back to black and white after Christine plans for Raoul to take her away after her last performance at the Opera.
We find out later that Erik was born during, "The Boulevard Massacre", was entitled to Devils Island, escaped, and is now at large. (In case you didn't know, "The Boulevard Massacre", was an escape from Devils Island, which at the time housed the criminally insane. Erik was one of the criminally insane, was locked away, but escaped). So, the time has finally come. Christine performs for the last time on stage at the opera. However one of the men backstage finds a man hanged opposite to the staircase. Later, the Phantom steals Christine away, while everyone in the theater begins to search for her.
Raoul and one other man go searching for Christine in a more elaborate way than expected. They find secret passages and trap doors, all leading down into the fifth cellar. We cut to The Phantom with Christine who is already down there. We realize that The Phantom is using the love of Christine as a cure for the ugliness the public has dumped upon him. Raoul and the man accompanying him, fall through a trap door and into an old torture chamber. The Phantom hears them and pursues the voices while Christine runs away to meet with Raoul. Raoul's brother finds the location of the Phantom and plans to avenge him. Obviously he doesn't know what avenged means, because in order to avenge someone, they have to be dead!!! The time has come once again to end the review and start my conclusion.
In Conclusion: There are many things that I’ve been dying to say during this but, unfortunately due to my reviewing style I'm limited to the freedom of where I get to write things, which is why I'm planning on doing something about it. (More information at the end of the conclusion) "The Phantom of the Opera" was a deep film, though it may not seem like it at first glance. It's basically a twist on beauty and the beast. Many films have duplicated this theme, but I can't say the same for this...... because it was a book before it became a film. However, the reason that not many of, "The Phantom of the Opera" remakes are alike, is because film, is an interpretative art. It's personal visual perspective that's shared and entertaining. Some people don't agree with a film adaptation and other's do, and it's one of the reasons that can make an adaptation good or bad. But the sad truth is that no film can please everyone, because it's all comes down to a matter of opinion. The opinion that I had of this film, was that it was very good. There were some moments when something that was already established (i.e. the characters personalities and roles in the film). And I think you can see the way my feelings changed from being bored to understanding the meaning of the film. Most depictions of the Phantom make him seem like too good of a person. You know, he may seem scary but he really isn’t and inside he's a human like you and me. But this film depicted him to have already taken that path. Where he tries to fit in, fails, and therefore is secluded to a life of pain and misery. And just how the public's opinion changes to believing that he is a monster, so does the Phantoms perspective of the world around him. He is forced to live where no one will find him, but he constantly taking revenge on the people that gave him this image (i.e. everyone). He later realizes that if the people around him so desperately want him to be a monster (because a human is afraid of anything it doesn't understand) then The Phantom embraces his new identity and says, "If it's a monster you want, then it's a monster you'll get". In this perspective, the film was made for both the annalistic viewer and the non-annalistic viewer. However at the same time that it pleases those audiences, it excludes many others. So, it's the sad truth that, "The Phantom of the Opera" isn’t for everyone. However, if you like movies made in the 20's, then you'll most likely enjoy this. Lon Chaney is wonderful as the Phantom and continues to haunt us to this day, and not many actors from this far back can captivate you like he has in his role as, "The Phantom". The climax is great and you really should see how the end plays out, so sit back and enjoy the first, "The Phantom of the Opera"!
Thank you,
Albert Dubin
P.S: I'm going to spend the next couple of days for coming up with a new style to review films. I'm thinking about using formats where I write a synopsis, then move on to the background, and finally I'll make my conclusion consist of the entire review. Don't hold me to this style yet, because I'm still thinking about how I want to go about reviewing from now on. Please, if you read my reviews, I implore you to give suggestions if you'd like me to review a certain way. I'm open to any idea that comes my way. I'm going for comedic effect in the next review, and thankonce again.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a German Expressionist film made in 1920. It was directed by Robert Wiene from a screenplay by Hans Janowitz and Carl Mayer. I feel as though expressionistic films are very symbolic to how everything is portrayed. Nothing looks how it would if it were really there, so it makes you feel as though your not their either, but that you can make what you want of it. Everything is relatively different depending on the perspective of each person viewing it.
Compared to Nosferatu, there is some variety to the scores placed in the movie, but it also has some familiarity with each score based on each situation, which is how it should be. However, let me be clear about this: you must be in the right mood to watch this, and frankly at the moment, I am not. But aside from that I can argue that this is strange as it is creative, as most expressionist films are. I'm beginning to adore German Expressionist architecture. Everything is really close together and tall, the windows and doors are anything but square, and its kind of like becoming entranced.
Its pure imagination at its finest. The space seems a little restricted sometimes, as if the director had to fit everything in one shot on a stage. There is also a repeated scenario with the somnambulist, Cesare, how a possessed man goes about murdering civilians util he meets a girl.This hasn'tbeen the first time that a damsel has been chased by a beast.(Note: The first Frankenstein film was made in 1910; the scenario has been prone to repetition ever since)
In Conclusion: I only recommend this film to hard-core viewers. This was very strange, but enchanting at the same time. The architecture is fun to look at and the atmosphere is frightening to some extent, but more strange than frightening. However, I didn't enjoy this as much as, "Nosferatu" mostly because that film had a much more clearer story line, and it was easier to make out what was going on. If you want to see this film then take a look at, "Nosferatu" first. If you like, "Nosferatu", then you'll also enjoy, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari". I also heard that there was a 2005 remake of the film, but i don't know anything about that. If you would like to learn more about the 2006 version of, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" click on this link: ima learn more about, "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari": 2005!. If you'd like to watch the original version just click this......Oh! Wait a second! I have the full movie right now! Finally!
For my first review I thought it would be fitting to start off with one of the first vampire films. Nosferatu was made in Germany and was released in 1922 by director F.W. Murnau. The film opens on Jonathan Harker, who was at the time living in the city of Wisborg. His boss Renfield, wants Harker to travel to Transylvania to sell a house to Count Orlok (Dracula). The reason that the characters names were altered was because they couldn't obtain the rights to, Bram Stoker's," Dracula", the novel Nosferatu is based off of.
Now, the music that is played throughout the film is very well done because it(most of the time) accurately sets the tone of every scene, however strange it is. However, sometimes the music playing just sounds like the same pitch of notes being played over and over which can sometimes be annoying. You could actually replace the soundtrack of the film with something whimsical and it would work in its favor. But if we did that nothing would be taken seriously. I've also noticed something that many other people might have noticed if this was also their first silent film which is that many ,if not all, of the actors in Nosferatu have heightened emotional reactions to most everything around them (they overact). However in this case I think that the film needed this because of the lack of actual dialog to express themselves.
I know that the film makers didn't mean for this to be an effect, but the film grain that was created during filming adds an eerie and displacing effect. To add on I also believe that the architectural designs used for Transylvania hold up to this day and can still be quite surreal compared to normal towns. Although Ill have to point out that the overacting can be very funny at times and this does lower the seriousness trying to be placed in every act. In conclusion I recommend this movie to hard-core horror film fanatics as it can be a little boring at times. The atmosphere is quite scary besides that and is very fun to look at. So if you can get past the overplayed characters and the silly facial expressions that are made, you are in for an enjoyable film.
Posts
