Bonus List: Silent Films I've Seen

This is, by far, the most wonderfully amazing experiments with a camera for creating art. This is just perfect, creative, and so innovative. The first sci-fi/fantasy movie ever created.

100/100

This is one of the first American movies ever made, and definitely the must-see enterntaining Western classic that everybody should see. Although the plot is simple, it is one of the finest Westerns out there still nowadays. Fun at its best.

92/100

One of the most legendary, controversial and famous sociopolitical conflicts, put wonderfully to screen by silent American master D.W. Griffith. An essential must-see in the history of cinema. Masterpiece indeed. Perfect coreography and effects. Well defined characters.

90/100

"The fragrant mystery of your body is greater than the mystery of life."

INTOLERANCE: LOVE'S STRUGGLE THROUGHOUT THE AGES (1916)

Director: D.W. Griffith
Country: United States of America
Genre: Drama / Romance
Length: 197 minutes



Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages... Oh, what a glorious and tear-inducing cinematographic creation was born almost a century ago. Oh, what a compelling and self-reflexive drama of epic proportions gave cinema an outstanding respect. Oh, what a sophisticated and groundbreaking epitome of the strong emotional connection existent between love and several forms of intolerance Griffith attempted to create. Oh, what a faithful representation of different eras of human history making love until the cataclysmic final explosion ensues an inevitable, yet truthful conclusion about the decaying of the human race due to its imaginary vainglory. Oh, what an audacious depiction of violence contrasted with evil intentions and the lack of love towards our brothers, sons of God, has conquered the big screens around the world despite the constant criticism and false prejudices against Griffith's "apology for the racism he applied in Birth of a Nation" (1915). There are few moments in the history of cinema where cinematic projects that jump high in the sky in order to reach a colossal status of nearly imperial worshipping establish the very foundations of filmmaking for future decades to come. Griffith's towering achievement is considered as one of the most ambitious epic films ever created through the lens of a master's genius. Its power and glory are utterly unprecedented, but few are the times when specific directors have a much deeper purpose than just creating a masterpiece. This is a gift to the world so it can be admired, applauded and taken as a direct reference so modern society can nostalgically appreciate and remember the purest and truest definition of cinema. No matter how blasphemous a filmic project may be considered under determined social standards. Cinema is an art form no matter from which particular perspective is seen, and that is a fact. It can also be a depiction of the grimmest characteristics of reality and, most of the times, it is the most meaningful primary source for timeless and critically acclaimed auteurs throughout history. In the case of Griffith's best film, it is its sincerity and multiphacetic brilliance.

Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages presents a premise that had never been shown before. Ironically, its size is so huge that it was never remade. It has not yet. The easiest and perhaps the most obvious treatment its plot would obtain was a spoof, a fact that actually happened thanks to Buster Keaton's Three Ages (1923). Griffith's masterpiece is set on four different historical periods. On one hand, the downfall of ancient Babylon is caused by those who rejected a religious sectarianism due to different Babylonian gods and ended up betraying the king in the year of 539 B.C. On the other hand, we have key moments in the life of Jesus Christ including the sentence He had by the hands of the Pharisees circa 27 B.C., culminating in his crucifixion. On one arm, we are compelled to hold the story of the events that led to the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in the times of King Charles the IX during the French Renaissance of 1572, including the failure of the Edict of Toleration. Finally, we are asked to hold with the remaining arm a story set in modern America (1914) that deals with a young boy and her mother whose lives are attempted to be destroyed by social reformers when he is wrongly convicted of the murder of a comrade and is sentenced to execution. The film was shown out of competition at the 1982 Cannes Film Festival.

Instead of resorting to a linear and conventional narrative structure, Griffith's masterfulness relies on his extraordinary and possibly unparalleled ability of intertwining the four different stories into one single film, consequently creating a suspenseful crosscutting that causes the sensation of satisfactory thrilling sequences and building emotional connections between characters from different eras. As implied in the title, intolerance and its consequent demonstrations, such as hatred, racism and moral indifference, destroy love, a human emotion that is magically transformed in a suffering, implicit character. It was intolerance towards different religious devotees that caused the fall of ancient Babylon. It was intolerance the source of hatred and the catastrophic St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre because of the rejection of an edict which purpose is to stop and prevent the persecution of members of any particular religion that willingly execute the customs and habits that such religion demands. It was intolerance that governed the minds of the skeptical Pharisees that led Jesus Christ to his historical crucifixion despite Him being the son of God who died for the Eternal Salvation of humankind, despite being God's will in the first place. It was intolerance the cause of crime, capitalist conflicts and Puritanism that have led to the deterioration of the American lifestyle, an event that can be immediately contrasted with several wars of the actuality world that are caused by similar reasons related to the aforementioned topics. Was justice served' For appropriately giving a possible answer of such eternally debated question, one must comprehend the strong Catholic influence that D.W. Griffith had through the process of the making of this legendary epic.

God is both an implicit and an explicit character through the depiction of the life of Jesus Christ. Every single historical period shown in Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages clearly demonstrates how God has several purposes for the human race through the execution of his superior will. His omnipotence, omnipresence and wisdom use the most degrading characteristics of the human soul as a motor for unleashing an intentional chain reaction of events that nowadays form the bases of human history. The extraordinary editing, a technical aspect that evidently influenced the perfection that Sergei M. Eisenstein could finally reach several years later, magically transports us from one massive, beautifully decorated and masterfully developed and filmed scenario to another. The art direction is the best that has ever been planned in the gracious history of the motion picture, not to mention the spellbinding design of Babylon. The tension it finally creates is a marvelous achievement of massively majestic amazement and cinema being taken to artistic heights that could have never be dreamed of. A most breathtaking aspect that still was in the process of filmic development is the camera work, a camera that has ambitious angles, a balance to equalize the magnitude of the images and landscapes portrayed throughout, and a perspective that lets us fly like an eagle just to land to a wonderfully orchestrated Babylonian dance sequence. What is the result? The result is a heart-racing, quickly-edited, explosive ending sequence where the climax and conclusion of every story is alternately shown in nonstop suspense!

The eternal hand that rocks the cradle is juxtaposed with the inevitable passing of time. Time is made of time and that's it. It may be taken as gold. It may be used in the most productive way. A balance between productiveness and leisure time may be applied. The truth is that our lifetime is formed by the free will and consequent decisions that God has given to us, that undeniable and very present substance that give man the ability to change the course of history through the power and influence of God in our lives. God exists, and His existence makes skeptical and atheist people to question where God is. "If God exists and is a loving God, why does He permit all of these events to occur?" is the strongest question that will never be answered to them because of their constant rejection of the truth, because of their agnosticism. Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages is the personal answer of Griffith towards this issue, and I mostly concord. It is not God; it is man who decides to create social classes, to support poverty, to create stereotypes, to have racist beliefs, to create an anarchic lifestyle and to believe in false philosophies and other nonexistent gods, including the idolization of political figures that create mindless dictatorships just because of the intelligence they possessed. Open your eyes, believe the truth, accept God in your heart, stop repeating the false statement of Griffith being a racist since his past film just because it is the universal cinematic opinion, read the Holy Bible and see this film. It features one of the best directions ever and, even nowadays, the baby inside the cradle rocked by God hasn't fully matured. It is time to learn.

100/100

A powerful social commentary, as well as a shocking character study about the influence of our behavior with the world, and the motines that drove us to them. Good Griffith work.

84/100

"I must know everything. I must penetrate the heart of his secret! I must become Caligari!"

DAS CABINET DES DR. CALIGARI. (1920)

Director: Robert Wiene
Country: Germany
Genre: Horror / Thriller
Length: 71 minutes



During the decade of the 20's, one of the most relevant, expressionistic, artistic, dark, visionary and influential cinematic movements was born, emphasizing Germany as an artistically prolific country. The name of this movement is German Expressionism, and its main topics are the subjectivity of the mind, inner demons, psychological horror and the impact of surrounding events and influences on a society as a whole. Robert Wiene not only directed his best film in the year of 1920, but also created one of the most legendary and memorable horror masterpieces ever committed to celluloid. Its ambition surpassed any possible human expectation, considering that cinema was barely two decades old. The strong influence of its visual style and its plot is still felt today, especially with talented directors like Tim Burton (Beetle Juice [1988], Edward Scissorhands [1990]). Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. is remembered today as the birth of the horror genre along the German silent films Der Student von Prag (1913), directed by Stellan Rye and Paul Wegener, and Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922), directed by F.W. Murnau. As a referential source of deep and multilayered expressionism, it is also a landmark piece of silent filmmaking. Besides being one of the first horror films in existence, it goes beyond the definition of the genre itself, taking into consideration the modern standards and the blasphemous way such genre has been completely degraded. Easily found in a superior category of cinema, its impact in cinema history and its narrative brilliance make it one of the best films ever made.

Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. opens with Francis, a man who relates the story about how he met his fiancée Jane along with his best friend Alan. His tale begins with the traveling of him and Alan until they reach a fair, where they meet an older mountebank who calls himself Dr. Caligari and invites them to his tent so they can see his amazing somnambulist Cesare. Caligari explains that Cesare has been asleep for 25 years and is about to be awaken under Caligari's commands. When several people enter the tent to meet Cesare, they are told that he is able to predict the future and is willing to answer any question of the public. Alan, out of curiosity, asks Cesare how long he has to live, to which Cesare replies that he will die before the dawn of the next day. From this moment, a series of horrifying and disturbing events take place, being strongly illustrated by a vast variety of delusions and symbolisms.

German Expressionism always had an extraordinary and macabre visual style, and Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. is no exception. Technical perfection and an unparalleled art direction are the biggest highlights of the film. The way the plot is handled creates an almost implausible state of suspense and tension, naturally originating unforgettable moments and sequences of idiosyncratic brilliance and psychological horror, consequently surpassing most of the horror films that have been created so far. Accompany this grim depiction of reality with a multiphacetic soundtrack and the result is an ultimate journey of terror and paranoia. This cinematic project was about to have Fritz Lang as its director, but he made the right decision of working in the making of another film. He wasn't ready to achieve the proportions and unique genius of such a horror masterpiece... yet. Robert Wiene is a name that will eternally be remembered and worshipped thanks to Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.

The film has a considerable amount of theatrical performances, simulating one of the highest art forms. It tried to reach a colossal and artistic predominant style, a very complicated task that it achieved with no forced elements and without an overabundant pretentiousness. Robert Wiene also attempted to create an intelligent and multilayered psychological character study, surrounding the main protagonists with elements and objects that would function as a mirror of their constant decaying of sanity. The twisted houses, the unreal corridors, the fast pace and the twisted landscapes portrayed through a disturbingly distorted lens play an implicit character that seems to conquer the weakness of the mankind's mental state. Logic is challenged and reality is shattered into pieces. The remaining task is to put those pieces together and try to form a logical explanation. Will it be a humanly possible task? The film also poses questions about the relativity of the mind and how memory can be subjective, sometimes originating new memories and imaginations so mind holes can be filled, perhaps with the seemingly innocent, yet undeniably dangerous objective of telling a linear story falsely based on knowledge. That is the main source of an intrinsic terror.

Given the aforementioned details, the movie takes a big part of its talent and its resulting shock value from a terrifying conclusion, an unexpected ending that is ultimately one of the best twist endings ever filmed. The protagonists and the antagonists are destroyed concepts and the viewer is offered, perhaps for the first time, to come up with a personal conclusion, an explanation that may seem solid for some and weak for others. However, the purpose of the film is left to unbiased statements and to the reaction of an audience, especially the reactions that the audience of the 20's could have presented. The characters of Caligari and Cesare are already cinema icons for the horror genre. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. is already a piece of filmmaking that promoted the creativity of the filmmakers and the deep meanings that particular plots and contexts can contain, either graphically or in an implicit form.

Surprisingly enough, German Expressionism was barely starting. The film left several timeless masterworks throughout its developmental peak and Robert Wiene's masterpiece is not an exception by any means. It is an unprecedented work of a visionary artist, or perhaps the nightmare of a passionate poet. Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. is the kind of films that give a full and significant meaning to cinema as an artistic form of expression and as a multitalented result of a crew with a single purpose working together. The film itself is a highly challenging experience, mainly composed by those good-tasting and aromatic spices that dreams are made of. Do not say "Caligari" in front of the mirror five times...

100/100

Fantastic silent. Good and well-made horror.

78/100

It has very scary effects and a decent make-up. Spellbinding testament of obsession and paranoia. Admirable German silent movie.

85/100

The cuttest and simplest Chaplin film, but a gem for the whole family.

90/100

"Is this your wife? What a lovely throat."

NOSFERATU, EINE SYMPHONIE DES GRAUENS (1922)

Director: F.W. Murnau
Country: Germany
Genre: Horror
Length: 94 minutes



Cinema giant F.W. Murnau directed, in 1922, one of the most passionate, expressionistic and symbolic stories of romance that have ever conquered the screen... with a horror twist. Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens belongs to any list of the top horror films ever made in the history of the motion picture. Its power, glory, dedication and visual style, characteristics that directly belong to the cinematic movement called German Expressionism, are unprecedented talents that put its name in a constantly referenced form of cinematic expression thanks to the poetically literary boundaries this film imposed in the art of filmmaking, boundaries that had never been established before. That is the main source of its audacity and ambition, signs of the work of a genius that attempted to create one of the scariest and darkest tales of its time. Following the tradition of the already mentioned German Expressionism, the film ventures into the vast and deep realm of the human mind and deals with the dangerous inner demons that tend to haunt the soul. This time, this demon is real. This time, it is depicted as a breathing being. During this process, Murnau unbelievably perfects the direction style and technical ambition that Robert Wiene's eternal masterpiece Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. (1920) possessed. This film and its influence will last for an eternity, highlighting the art of the movie making process and strengthening the bizarre and paranoid journey the premise of the film originally attempted to offer.

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens is based on the story of Dracula and focuses on the character of Count Orlok, a vampire who is believed to have brought the plague to Bremen around the year of 1838 and who has recently shown interest in a residence located in Transylvania. Much to the newlyweds' sadness and discomfort, Hutter is forced to leave her wife Ellen for a wife since he is hired by his employer to arrange the Count's purchase of the aforementioned house. When the Count finds out about the beauty of her newlywed, he attacks Hutter and immediately moves into the house across from the Hutters'. Will Hutter be able to arrive soon to save her beloved fiancée, or will she be subject to a bizarre passion and to a terrible fate?

F.W. Murnau's approach to both the genre and the plot results in an authentic and memorable symphony of horror. It gently reaches the mysterious realm where reality and the dream world collide, performing a beautiful orchestra concert. It also may be called as a precursor of the film-noir genre since the film demanded a visually captivating and effective use of a creepy mix of light and darkness, the darkness that separated Count Orlok and his macabre environment from a German society that supposedly was meant to represent a helpless, agnostic and degraded flock of possible victims. Horror is depicted in the scariest and darkest way possible, bringing along the arguably scariest scenes ever filmed. Although the film has been subject to several tinted versions throughout its worldwide editions and release dates, its auteur signature has caused to keep its original psychological horror and its iconic images.

The typical theatrical performances are still present in the film. Deviating from the elegant, discreet and stereotypically handsome Hollywood portrayal of the character Dracula, immediately causing the audience to remind the performance of Bela Lugosi in Tod Browning's 1931 version, Max Schreck is the vampire Count Orlok. He became a cinema icon that has established a numerously referenced character. Murnau attempted and achieve to show Dracula in its scariest and most unpleasant form, giving him an unforgettably disgusting physical appearance, an appearance highlighted by its effective makeup and custom design that would cause to positively aggravate the horror involved in the story. His mere presence imposes an authoritarian terror to the screen. Murnau also divided both the feature film and the human mind into layers, taking the strength of the human relationships, love, passion, evil, obsession and heroism. Latterly, he put together both types of layers like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. These pieces were combined with a surreal and noticeably religious perspective, but not necessarily adapting a specific religion in particular. It lets the aesthetics of this gorgeous piece of art to flow smoothly and to discreetly play the role. The environment has the modest function of enlightening these emotions, a fact that would obviously coincide with a necessary climatic ending sequence that resorted to the most famous myths of vampires. The castle, the necks, a pair of long, hungry teeth, the crosses, the solitude and darkness of the night and the illuminating sunlight gently entering through a window with a view of the city until reaching a fervent heat and color are present elements that allowed the pace of the film to reach a marvelous level of amazement.

Naturally, it may not scare as it used to do. However, some audiences may feel particularly surprised after witnessing the level of brilliance and cinematic originality it reached because of its own merits. The modern archetype of the vampire figure has been inevitably degraded to a shocking degree, portraying the elegant antagonist in a monstrous form, from Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula (1992) to the mindless Underworld (2003) franchise. Nosferatu, eine Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens is a reminder of the magical originality that was originated from the correct and accurate adaptation by F.W. Murnau and writer Henrik Galeen of Bram Stoker's novel, a gorgeous sample of literary poetry at its purest form. Ultimately, it is one of the strongest candidates for the best film ever made and quite possible the best silent film of German Expressionism. Before reaching new heights through the direction and unprecedented ambition of Fritz Lang (Metropolis [1927], Frau im Mond [1929]) regarding the science-fiction genre, Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens is a deliciously satisfying experience full of talents that make it a morbid view towards the beauty of life and the obsession of disproportionate human emotions, carrying along tragic consequences, those typical of a Greek tale. It is horror in its purest and most fascinating depiction, not to mention a feast for the senses and a distorted portrayal of grim reality.

100/100

Extremelly scary, dark, diabolic and admirable semi-documentary. Arguably the best documentary of the 20's, if Nanook of the North didn't exist.

97/100

NANOOK OF THE NORTH (1922)

Director: Robert J. Flaherty
Country: United States of America / France
Genre: Documentary
Length: 79 minutes



Nanook of the North is the second and last documentary that can be found on my favorite movies' list. There are several reasons why Nanook of the North became one of my favorite movies ever, making emphasis on the fact that I have already mentioned the differences of my evaluation standards for both feature films and documentaries before. Without a doubt, Nanook of the North is officially considered as one of the best documentaries ever made in cinema history, and it is definitely the best classic documentary I have seen with the length of a normal movie. Whereas giant cinema icons such as F.W. Murnau, D.W. Griffith and Sergei M. Eisenstein were establishing themselves as memorable legends of silent classic cinema mainly through their work, Robert J. Flaherty was one of the first and most important filmmakers that understood that movies could provide much more than just a story of fiction, and that it could portray a portion of an existent and actual reality of any part of the world, in this case the North Pole. It was precisely Nanook of the North the first anthropological documentary with the length of a feature film that was released in the history of cinema... ever.

Nanook of the North tells the real story of Eskimo Nanook and his family and documents it for a whole year, including the way of life they had for hunting, searching for food and preparing it, and the migrations they made to other places in the area, considerably far away from a world governed by modern technology. The igloo in which they lived is also shown here.

The project was sponsored by the French fur company Revillon Freres, which provided around 50,000 dollars to the filming crew and to the director so the making of the documentary could be possible, including the fact that they had to organize an expedition to the North Pole that would last approximately 16 months. They resorted to those means because they naturally didn't have the required amount of budget which would be mostly earmarked for the journey itself. Once that the documentary about Nanook and a sample of his way of life was completed, it was rejected by five different distributors, but due to the huge success it had in Paris and Berlin when it was first released, the film went to New York City movie theaters as well, gathering around 40,000 dollars in its first week, which already made evident that the amount of used budget would be promptly gotten back.

Independently of the reasons that general audiences and film critics may have for considering Nanook of the North one of the best documentaries ever made in cinema history, my reasons are the following. Nanook of the North was the first project that actually ambitioned to show a part of the world from a different perspective, this means, not portraying it through a fictional story or through a plot adapted from literature, but from real life. This was a concept that, besides having an enormous influence in modern filmmakers and directors, created new genre itself which can be completely separated from the definition of cinema. Nanook of the North has most of the elements that a documentary possesses even nowadays. From the moment that Robert popularized the genre through his projects such as Nanook of the North, which was the first documentary he ever directed, and the least popular but also influencing Man of Aran (1934) and Louisiana Story (1948), movie for which he got an Oscar nomination along with his brother for Best Writing, Motion Picture Story, a new form of narrating a story through films had been born.

However, there is a lot of controversy in whether if Nanook of the North is really a documentary or not. The idea of making such a filmic project came originally from Robert's brother, Frances H. Flaherty, and it was Robert who elaborated the script. Why did he have to elaborate a script if we are talking about a documentary in the first place? He did it because although Nanook of the North gave birth to a new genre, it wasn't really a documentary per se. Each and every one of the scenes were staged and simulated, and the way of life of Nanook that was portrayed in here wasn't accurate at all. The igloo isn't the original one he lived in. Robert wanted the half of an igloo of 25 feet in diameter to be built because the crew found several difficulties while filming some scenes caused by lightning problems, so the igloo was constructed so the actions that took place inside it looked more believable and had natural light.

Despite the details mentioned above, Nanook of the North effectively works as a documentary that depicts the way of life that Inuits have even nowadays. One sad aspect of it is that Nanook died of starvation months after the film was completed. Nanook of the North is also one of the most critically acclaimed and respected documentaries and in 2002 it was considered as the 6th best documentary ever made, just after Bowling for Columbine (2002), The Thin Blue Line (1988), Roger & Me (1989), Hoop Dreams (1994) and Salesman (1968). The seventh spot is proudly occupied by masterpiece Nuit et Brouillard (1955).

Nanook of the North may not completely belong to the genre, but it undoubtedly created it, and if it hadn't been because of Robert J. Flaherty the documentary genre wouldn't have been created in the same way it was or perhaps it would have been born much more lately. Moreover, many documentaries that nowadays exist would have never been created in the first place. Nanook of the North is a gorgeous piece of art with a perfectly adequate length, detail, depth, some extraordinary cinematographic shots throughout and it is pretty much accessible and easy to watch. It is also very informative, not only with the Inuit way of life, but also with the fauna that inhabit the North Pole. It may also serve well for educational purposes. That is why we owe total credit to this documentary, because besides being one of the most influencing feature films ever created by mankind, it is an invaluable treasure that even nowadays is still seen and worshipped.

100/100

Amazing and spellbinding Fritz Lang giant epic and a scary plot and atmosphere. May be 300 minutes long, but each minute is worth watching entirely.

80/100

Perhaps the most elegant and beautiful version of the legendary hero, although not as good as the 1938 version with Errol Flynn, which is the best for me. Very cute and amazing.

77/100

"Get out of here! Don't you know the dog might fall?"

Safety Last! (1923)

Director: Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor
Country: United States of America
Genre: Action / Comedy / Romance
Length: 73 minutes



Safety Last! is one of the most recognized and worldwidely legendary classic comical masterpieces ever made, and with several good reasons. I finally had the golden opportunity of seeing this film and it is definitely one of the funniest and most genius films in cinema history. It has successfully endured the test of time, because despite it is a silent film that is more than 85 years old now, it hasn't got really old, and the gags seem very fresh.

This hilarious and very simple story deals with a man who travels to the city in search of a successful life and finds a job in a deparment store. When the store isn't capable of bringing a decent number of clients into it, the manager offers $1000 to anyone who comes up with a decent idea for fixing the problem and attracting more customers, so, as expected, the boy (Lloyd) suggests that an unknown man may climb a 12 story building, since he had previously convinced her girlfriend that he has a "wonderful" position at the store. Obviously, chaos later ensues as he is forced to pretend that he is the mysterious man who will do the job.

"Creativity" and "hyperactivity" are two very adequate terms that can describe this film perfectly. It is one of the very first films ever made that had the right combination of comedy, suspense and a romantic touch, a formula that would be immediately adopted by Chaplin later on in famous films of his such as The Circus (1928), City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936), despite the different plots. Even Buster Keaton himself hadn't made The General (1926) yet, a film that had that kind of genre combinations. Although Our Hospitality (1923) had a man falling for a young woman, the story focused more on the comedy and on the hilariousness of common human cruel intentions. This is the best film Harold Lloyd ever starred in, and obviously comedy legends like Chaplin and Keaton are far superior than him, specially because of the fact that both used to be actors, directors, producers and writers of their own films. Chaplin was sometimes even the composer of his movies.

Lloyd was a genius in this film and the role he had suited him perfectly, mostly because of his physical appearance. He had talent as a comediant. Unfortunately, he made few watchable films, such as The Freshman (1925) and The Kid Brother (1927). Anyone who is a good lover of slapstic humor and comedy masters, Safety Last! is a must-see, not only because of its tremendous creativity, but also because of its cinematic influence.

The main characters and their respective jobs contrast brilliantly with the already noisy, crowded and industralized city that is portrayed here. The hunger and lack of money some of them occassionally had where not portrayed in a pitiful way, but in a moving one, thanks to the non-stop present comedy and unique gags, and the romance involved between two of the main characters, who had a beautiful chemistry between them on screen. I might also say not only that this film has a tremendous camera work and some extraordinary shots, but also one of the most remembered and inventive scenes in the history of cinema, which can be seen in the cover of the film and in several film stills. It became an icon, and it is certainly the oldest scene out of the best scenes I have ever seen, proudly this one included, the oldest and classic nail-bitter sequence.

Bottom line is, while I was expecting a fun slapstick film to see just to check out why this movie made Harold Lloyd so famous, I got a huge surprise when I found out that this comedy was way ahead of its time and I was pretty unaware of its cinematic influence, specially for silent romantic comedies. Indeed, a cinematic treasure, and unforgettable filmmaking.

93/100

A classic Keaton film with a very solid and original plot. Perhaps among his most decent efforts. Not necessarily the film to start with... but definitely a must-see of his.

85/100

Lon Chaney shines and gives away a heartwarming performance. Excellent horror drama.

82/100

So much creativity, action and humor for your eyes geniously brough by the comedy master, and yet such a simple and cute masterpiece. Don't miss this, whether you're a Buster Keaton fan or not.

92/100

Douglas Fairbanks was the best for the role. This family oriented classic fantasy tale considers every essential element in storytelling for the big screen. A classic and tender gem with lots of fantasy and romance.

80/100

"Will they... open fire? --- Brothers!"

BRONENOSETS POTYOMKIN (1925)

Director: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Country: Soviet Union
Genre: Drama / War
Length: 75 minutes



Besides being officially and several times declared as the best movie of all time, Bronenosets Potyomkin is probably one of the most important movies ever created in the history of humanity. Sergei M. Eisenstein became one of the best geniuses of cinema for those times along with giant cinema icons such as F.W. Murnau and D.W. Griffith. Also, Eisenstein transmitted highly controversial, catastrophic and totally revolutionary ideas for those times, like if he stood for the population of the Soviet Union in its totality trying to speak out loud. With a movie like Bronenosets Potyomkin he didn't only create a masterpiece establishing his own filmic style which would be recognized for several decades to come, but he also was one of the few directors that actually understood the meaning of the terms "cinema" and "filmmaking" completely, as well as all of the elements that conform cinema. The technical aspect that distinguishes most of his films is, without a doubt, the editing. That's the magic word when talking about Eisenstien: editing. Thanks to his first patriotic gem Bronenosets Potyomkin, he became one of the most important and influential filmmakers that cinema could ever had given birth to.

The story is set on the year of 1905 in the Battleship Potemkin, where the unbearable life conditions the sailors are exposed to by the officers of the ship, including rotten meat declared "safe to eat" by the ship's doctor, caused that the crewmembers started to buy provisions at the canteen in a show of protest. Once that the Admiral finds out about it, he organizes a reunion for both the crewmembers and the officers of the battleship, and tests everybody's loyalty. A riot is originated aboard the ship, generating several victims, including sailor Grigory Vakulinchuk. When the body of Vakulinchuk is placed on the docks in the Odessa harbor as a symbol of revolution holding a sign that reads "For a spoonful of soup", the population of Odessa is deeply shaken by the news, and a massacre from Cossak soldiers takes place, who mercilessly slaughter the helpless citizens in one of the most famous scenes in cinema history. The guns of the ship are used in reply to the massacre.

Bronenosets Potyomkin is one of the most influential historical films for cinema. The vision and genius of Eisenstein can be appreciated in this intense and revolutionary epic from beginning to end. Within his own filmmaking style, he created and popularized the use of several filming techniques, like shooting any scene in particular and repeating it from different angles in order to obviously increase dramatic quality. He was probably the first director that ever used this technique, and it was obviously employed and copied by several directors afterwards. Nowadays, many filmmakers and cinematographers owe full credit to Eisenstein. On the other hand, he established the idea that one of the most important elements for adding intensity, rhythm and life to a feature film is the good use of a brilliant editing. While the attack of the battleship towards the Odessa Theater is being portrayed, a lion statue is shown through a very unique edition, making it seem that the lion itself reacts to the catastrophe that is taking place at the moment. In fact, his next film called Oktyabr (1928) contains the best editing worldwide masses could ever witness in a film, and deals with a very similar historical subject matter than the one shown in Bronenosets Potyomkin in documentary form.

The directing is extraordinary. As it has been already mentioned, thanks to Bronenosets Potyomkin Eisenstein became a legend and an incredible cinematographic inspiration. One of the most famous scenes ever filmed consists in a baby carriage dramatically falling throughout the staircase of Odessa while several victims suffer their deaths in the hands of the Cossaks. Such event is preceded by a boy who is brutally crushed and stepped on by the panicked crowd. The boy's mother, scandalized, carries her son between her arms and cries out for mercy while walking towards the soldiers. As expected, the mother ends up being the first victim along with her dead son, and total hysteria ensues. Several reasons exist so that such scene can be considered among the best scenes ever filmed, besides being a cinema icon itself. First of all, the editing adds an impressive dramatic quality. Each angle and shot is extremely well-planned, considering the fact that it is a very delicate scene. The way Eisenstein wanted to show the horrors of war contrasted with such an innocent, pure and beautiful symbol (the baby) is very powerful. When the film was completed back in the 20's, it was banned because of its "excess of inhumanity" and was heavily censored in some other countries. This scene has been referenced and paid homage to in numerous films, being the most famous and remarkable example The Untouchables (1987), by Brian de Palma.

The movie has some extraordinary shots of cinematography and a revolutionary and innovative camera work. The panoramas shown both on the sea and on earth, such as the docks and the staircase, are vast and beautifully captured. Despite the fact that the acting is an element which can't be fully analyzed in silent films as well as it can be in modern films nowadays, the power of the scenes completely transmit the emotions of the characters, such as sadness, anger, deception, tragedy, cruelty, pain and desperation. The spectator feels like he/she was aboard the battleship itself, and/or running quickly down the Odessa staircase.

That is why Bronenosets Potyomkin is one of the best foreign films ever directed, arguably the best war film ever committed to celluloid, and one of the best movies with a historical subject matter after Andrey Rublyov (1966) and Le Passion de Jeanne d'Arc (1928), which are biopics. The way it was done and directed makes it an epic film. Eisenstein was very careful with the details and although its length could have been longer considering its plot and genre, it doesn't disappoint in any way, not even in the entertainment value. Its importance has reached such a high level for both film critics and film students that some still images of Bronenosets Potyomkin have appeared in History text books that talk about the Russian Revolution and the creation of the USSR. There are no heroes in the film; it simply shows the atrocities of the events that ended up causing the Russian Revolution of 1917. Although Eisenstein directed several remarkable masterpieces afterwards such as Oktyabr (1928), Ivan Groznyy I (1944) and Ivan Groznyy II: Boyarsky Zagovor (1958), Bronenosets Potyomkin is his best and most representative masterwork, and a legacy that will last until the wonderful art of movie creation perishes.

100/100

Wonderful and hilarious introduction to Buster Keaton's legacy to the comedy genre.

86/100

Glorious and majestic, but somehow, it is tender. This grabs your attention in a great way, with all of those lovely puppets. You can clearly see the influence this caused over Hollywood. Without this, there wouldn't have been a King Kong, or at least, King Kong wouldn't have been the same. Worth a look because of what it is.

82/100

Considered as one of the greatest films ever made, The Gold Rush proves Chaplin's creativity and genius. Full of memorable moments and sequences, if you let this classic comedy go away then you won't be able to die happy. U-N-I-Q-U-E

95/100

FAUST - EINE DEUTSCHE VOLKSSAGE (1926)

Director: F.W. Murnau
Country: Germany
Genre: Fantasy / Horror
Length: 116 minutes



F.W. Murnau is officially one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and is one of the directors that majestically created and popularized the horror genre in German filmmaking just after the films Des Student von Prag (1913), Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (1919) and Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) were created, giving birth to the beautiful and extraordinarily artistic German Expressionism. Murnau directed this astonishingly unique feast to the senses just after he had incredible cinematographic success with one of the greatest dramas ever made: Der Letzte Mann (1924). However, not even the artistry and supernatural mastery that German auteurs had implemented through the films by that time prepared the early cinematic audiences for such religiously apocalyptic manifesto. Few magnum opuses have established a difference in landmark filmmaking and, undoubtedly, Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage still stands out not only because of its revolutionary special effects and its controversial subject matter, but because of its parallelism with the ambitions of a modern society. With an impeccable style, a predominant gloominess and an unparalleled direction, it is one of the best films ever made and, objectively speaking, one of the most important.

This supernatural story of giant proportions tells the remarkable and divine story of the war held between God and Satan for ruling over Earth. Both decide to wager on the soul of an alchemist named Faust. After Faust burns his books out of desperation and disappointment for being unable to stop death during a plague, Satan sends the clever Mephisto to tempt Faust in many ways, including an insight into treating the plague and offering him 24 hours of youth. However, Mephisto intelligently times this one-day period while he embraces the beautiful Duchess of Parma. Finally, Faust decides to trade his soul for youth and, later on, falls in love with the gorgeous and innocent Gretchen. Nonetheless, when he starts to face the consequences of his equivocate decision through a terrible series of events, he is subject to emotional suffering, bringing dishonor to her new lover. Who won the wager? Will Satan rule over Earth?

Many unbelievable and surprising events take place throughout, but the most outstanding aspects of the film are its visual style and its direction. Contrary to the popular opinion and expectations, a silent horror film adopts for the first time an audacious approach towards religion. The physical forms of God and Satan are actually displayed during the first 10 minutes of the film, leaving me speechless. Naturally, that kind of decision may seem inappropriate for some viewers, but in the end, it must be directly interpreted as a metaphorical definitive showdown between good and evil. Thanks to the vision of genius F.W. Murnau, this scope reaches unparalleled measures of baroque artistry and a breathtaking cinematography. Moreover, every single special effect achieved to create a particularly scary imagery of a divine and superior-to-man nature and terrifying sequences heavy in visual elements, which is certainly a spectacular concept for the time and truthfully lives up to the genre of horror.

The performances were theatrically impressive, and who else could have brilliantly portray the character of Mephisto if not Emil Jannings, one of the most respected and recognized actors in classic silent cinema? The character of Faust is the living representation of the struggle that even non-religious people have to face everyday. Life in the actuality consists of constant decisions, most of them involving a particular moral degree. He also represents what the heart desires, like physical youth in a failed and unsuccessful old alchemist, and love, and how the mind can rule over our emotions in a cruel way. It is true that emotions should not govern over reason, but our conscience constantly tries to act as a benign mediator according to some decisions made by our mind, and that is where ethics come to play. All of these elements make of Faust a very complete and interesting character. The pace of the film is fantastically accurate and the film intrinsically keeps the viewer guessing constantly what will be the conclusion of the film, especially considering the take of Murnau towards the human condition in his past projects. Can Good really triumph over Evil, or will obtaining redemption be an impossible task to achieve already because of an erroneous and ultimately catastrophic decision by the primitively ambitious protagonist?

Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage is a brilliant essay on faith and religion. Regardless of the particular religious beliefs one may have regarding the existence and influence of God and Satan on Earth and the existence of Heaven and Hell, this silent masterpiece has the capacity of blowing worldwide audiences away in several ways, since the symbolic representation of good and evil does not loses its nature. Topics like temptation, love, life and death are also treated, assuming the roles of machinists of extremities and superficial exaggerations. From the longing of youth in order to be corresponded with love to earthly blessings and riches, the original morality of man and his intentions are immediately questioned. Materialism is attacked and the futile goals and life objectives a person has are diminished in importance. However, more than representing the balance that exists in the cycle of life, the main purpose of the film (despite it not being emphasized) is the true authenticity behind our decisions and to perform an analytical reflection of the true motivations behind them.

Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage has definitely stood the test of time and keeps leaving several critics of several generations astonished and excited. F.W. Murnau's second best feature film is an attack to the senses and the essence of the spirit, perhaps even modifying skeptical perspectives held by several people. With several effective musical scores abounding in different versions of the film and an exquisite camerawork, this is a filmmaking successful achievement in both cinematographic and technical aspects. A gem that must be seen before dying (in case we are not offered the opportunity to see it in the afterlife) and a giant German treasure, Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage is a visual achievement of glorious proportions and a giant ambition; it is a symbolic spectacle to watch, not mentioning a masterpiece in its genre. Because of its groundbreaking greatness, it is an ultimate experience that demands to be seen in a big screen with a live orchestra. It is an earthly experience out of this world. Goethe must have been proud.

100/100

A decent Buster Keaton feature with still the same comic and romantic touches mixed perfectly into a film.

77/100

"If you lose this war don't blame me."

THE GENERAL (1926)

Director: Clyde Bruckman & Buster Keaton
Country: United States of America
Genre: Comedy / Romance / War / Action
Length: 75 minutes



Comedy is subjective. Specifically talking about the art of cinema, the very first face that comedy adopted is the slapstick subgenre. What are the main characteristics of slapstick comedy? Intelligent gags, violence-oriented hyperactivity, action humor, exaggerated facial expressions, comical characters and hilarious, nonsense dialogues. Most of the times, however, especially during the silent era, such stories were addressed with romance. Romance served the purpose of appealing peaceful audiences and, most of the times, for strengthening the audaciousness and characteristic motivations of the main character, decisions that would lead him to a memorable climax and a demanding happy ending. Charles Chaplin understood it; Harold Lloyd and his several directors applied the aforementioned concepts; the Marx Brothers took those measures to an extreme. Buster Keaton's The General shared all of these characteristics and added one more: his definitive and now legendary masterpiece constituted a direct criticism towards the futility and ultimate senselessness of war. However, this plot-wise courageousness was addressed, precisely, with the slapstick subgenre, being a landmark comedy film rather than a controversial one.

The General is the famously humorous story of Johnnie Gray who has two great loves: his girl named Annabelle Lee and his Confederate train named "The General". When the Civil War begins, he is unable to enlist in the Confederate army since his officer considers him more valuable for the South as an engineer. After Annabelle considers him as a coward for not enlisting, the Union steals The General in order to supply Unionists in a sneak attack against the Confederates. Unbeknownst to them, they stole the train while Annabelle Lee was on board. Now, it is up to Johnnie Gray to rescue the two great loves of his life and, latterly, warn the Confederates. The film was awarded the National Film Registry at the National Film Preservation Board, USA in 1989.

The General has several remarkable talents: it is intelligent, humorous, creative and hyperactive. Johnnie Gray, hilariously interpreted by the comedy genius Buster Keaton, represents the patriotic American that the standard citizen would yearn for becoming. Once again, we are introduced to a character that is involuntarily drawn into an unbelievable and involuntarily funny series of events, thus emphasizing the purposelessness of a devastating event such as a war. His beloved girl, perhaps the most tender and lovably dumb woman in cinema history, contrary to the past's popular opinion, does not degrade women. She is naive, weak and careless, but dedicated, loyal and romantically submissive. If we put a duo of such caliber together, the result is an insane ride full of positivism, endless fun and perfectly planned gags.

There are several sequences that make of this film an antiwar statement, most of them represented through the character of the never-smiling Keaton. The motivations behind his persona that urge him to enlist are not related to his peaceful and undeniably careless personality. He is just seeking for the attention of Annabelle and for obtaining a patriotic status, perhaps for the sake of happiness and self-esteem. Also, at some point, the character coincidentally finds a house, breaks into it in order to find food, and finds out that the house is being used by Unionists as a base of operations. This makes Johnnie Gray to hide under the table, learning the details about the next plot they are planning against the Confederates. Quite obviously, the nature of the film demanded a character that sought for good once he has involved in the army in a way he had never anticipated. Along with Annabelle, they start a new mission. Most of the comedy can be found in the fact that the film employs most of the time in showing Johnnie protecting Annabelle from any possible harm. The genius of Keaton (and Chaplin) always applied a certain danger degree to the most innocuous and inoffensive objects possible, almost transforming a seemingly peaceful surrounding into, ironically, a war zone.

The editing is very smart and precise, calculating the best possible angles for transporting us into the middle of the action, making us board The General and inviting us to an action-oriented journey of Unionist and Confederate lunacy. Performing incredible and nearly-impossible stunts throughout, the story culminates in one of the most memorable climatic war sequences. We are not compelled to sympathize with the characters; such effect is incredibly accomplished with the pace alone. Also, the genius concept of constructing and latterly unfolding a precise character development with a slapstick environment enhances the film's talent. It is not until the protagonists encounter a ferociously dangerous situation when we get the opportunity to build a schematic map of their personalities through the analysis of their hilarious and intentionally unrealistic reactions. The musical score and the cinematography achieved a very satisfying audible and visual balance, since The General also required a high attention to detail and very elaborate, single shots.

The General is a timeless masterpiece of the comedy genre. Clyde Bruckman's direction was merged with Keaton's incomparable vision of vertiginous pace and sense of humor, and the result is an unforgettable, rollercoaster ride. The film constituting a social commentary was the main element that influenced legends of comedy to add substance behind their stories. Before this film, the genre focused exclusively on the slapstick humor of the stories and the character development, such as The Kid (1921) and Safety Last! (1923). Later on, films criticized authoritarian figures that caused poverty-stricken life conditions (City Lights [1931]), the shocking impact of the industrialization in the modern age (Modern Times [1936]) and totalitarian control derived from ambitious ideologies (The Great Dictator [1940]). The brilliance and originality of The General have and will remain eternally untouched, symbolizing the birth of a film branch and the inspiration of future filmmakers before resorting to intellectual humor, sexual references and unnecessary, crude sensibilities.

99/100

"There can be no understanding between the hand and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator."

METROPOLIS (1927)

Director: Fritz Lang
Country: Germany
Genre: Action / Adventure / Drama / Fantasy / Romance / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Length: 153 minutes



Metropolis is much more than just a sci-fi film. Certainly, we are talking about the most astonishing project of a German genius named Fritz Lang, who definitely had the guts of experimenting with something different in order to create cinema. What Fritz Lang offered to the world in 1927 became one of the most ambitious and fascinating cinematographic projects in cinema history, not only because of its thematic elements, but because of its visual style. Basically, Metropolis created a whole new world, a world that opened some people's eyes, and inspired other people start to reconstruct the world that existed by then, taking it to a higher industrialization level. The most characteristic aspect about Metropolis is the fact that it was done in a key historical moment of humanity. The First World War had already ended, and since the Industrial Revolution (and even before), the world structure started to divide itself into international great powers (which are nations capable of exerting their influence on a global scale) that sought for competition against the world in order to become the most advanced countries, socially, economically and technologically speaking. What Metropolis achieves towards its audience is to offer a chillingly accurate vision of a director about the path that the actuality (the actuality of the 20's, that is) was following by then. More than a simple sci-fi film, the movie constituted a controversial social commentary towards slavery caused by endless work and the nonsense this work caused in humanity.

Metropolis is set in the year of 2026, in a futuristic city completely ruled by technology, constant work and the colossal influence of industry, and is divided into two main social classes: the city planners, who really don't know how anything works and who live on the surface, and the working class living underground in the machine level, which although it establishes and accomplishes its goals, it doesn't posses a vision, since the very social structure prevents it from doing it. The true plot of the film starts when the son of the city's mastermind visits the underground where the workers toil, and after being astonished by what he sees, falls in love with a working class woman who prophesies the coming of a savior that would act as a mediator between the differences among the social classes.

The movie speaks like a person thinking out loud, like a hair-rising commentary towards modern society. It is curious how elements such as fantasy, society's constant riots and religion come to a point where they form a part of a whole and combine themselves in a very catastrophic way. The scenes including the workers walking together towards the machine level are pretty peculiar. The musical score is very attractive, and somehow represents irony contrasted with harmony. The rhythm in which the working class walks makes it seem like cattle, and like if it were conformed by inferior human beings.

The cinematography alongside with the editing created a world that had never seen before, a world which is not based in real life, but in the possible consequences of the events that took place back in the 20's. That is why I consider Metropolis the mother of sci-fi films, and it is officially one of the first movies that were made concerning that genre. Another giant icon within the sci-fi genre is the short film Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902), directed by George Méliès. Metropolis is brilliant in every single aspect, and both the art direction and set decoration is ultimately unparalleled. In fact, both the art direction and the constructed sets for the film are the most impressive ones I've seen in cinema history. Also, Metropolis was one of the first feature films that handled scenes with great amounts of people in its shots. The movie included 37,000 extras including 25,000 men, 11,000 women, 1,100 bald men, 750 children, 100 dark-skinned people and 25 Asians. These scenes were extraordinarily shot and made. Certainly, Fritz Lang was the best director for the job.

Metropolis also possesses the best special effects I have ever seen. Just like Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902), The Ten Commandments (1956), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Star Wars (1977), Aliens (1986), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), Jurassic Park (1993) and The Matrix (1999) are films that I particularly admire because of their special effects and because they are the best representations of what technology can achieve in movies, Metropolis also has the best visual effects in the history of cinematography, as far as my opinion and taste go. Please consider that the technology that exists nowadays for creating some special effects in particular (such as the overused CGI) didn't exist in those times. We are talking about 1927! Analyze that figure. The most astonishing special effect of the film is some rings spinning around a machine up and down that transformed it into a guise of Maria. Audiences back then were left amazed, and I definitely felt the same way 4 years ago.

As mentioned before, Metropolis is one of the best social criticisms ever made about automation along with Modern Times (1936), by Charles Chaplin. However, while Chaplin used a comical tone accompanied by irony, the purpose of Metropolis scatters terror. It is a very-well structured opinion, but very direct for its audience, especially for the 20's. Probably for those times the message of Metropolis wasn't understood in its totality. It is a film ahead of its time. One interesting trivia about the film is that reportedly it is one of Adolf Hitler's favorite films. Carefully analyzing the subject matter and the narrative structure utilized by the film, it isn't so surprising that one of the cruelest and greatest leaders that humanity ever had in its existence had favorite this film.

Metropolis is, without a doubt, the best film by Fritz Lang for my taste, even better than his next sci-fi film Frau im Mond (1929), Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler - Ein Bild der Zeit (1922), which is the longest movie I have seen so far, M (1931), Le Testament du Dr. Mabuse (1933) and Fury (1936). Metropolis may go beyond our own comprehension; its incomparable dystopian and apocalyptic vision influence several artists and filmmakers in the future, specially within the cyberpunk movement that was highly promoted in Japan, being the best examples Akira (1988) and Kôkaku Kidôtai (1995), which influenced The Matrix (1999). Also, it is one of the first films that masterly established and portrayed the concept of the conflict between men and machines. Too many directors have paid tribute to Fritz Lang and his masterpiece for literally redefining a genre that really isn't so easy of treating. That is why Metropolis, being one of the most ambitious projects in movie history and the best sample of German Expressionism, is one of the best films of all time, and one of the best proofs of how a big budget can be productively used for a movie. The budget was around 5,000,000 marks which, adjusted for nowadays inflation, represents an approximate amount of $200,000,000. Finally, this was the first film (being the second one Los Olvidados [1950]) that was registered in the "Memory of the World-Register" of the UNESCO.

100/100

"For wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city's turmoil or under the open sky on the farm, life is much the same; sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet."

SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS (1927)

Director: F.W. Murnau
Country: United States of America
Genre: Drama / Romance / Crime
Length: 95 minutes



F.W. Murnau's Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans is officially one of the best productions Hollywood ever did during the Golden Age. After establishing his brilliant and visionary reputation through the horror genre, creating timeless and unsurpassable masterpieces such as Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922) and Faust - Eine deutsche Volkssage (1926), he moved to America and tried with a totally different genre. He succeeded. In fact, he had so much success, that Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans won a unique Academy Award. It is one of the best romantic stories ever told in cinema history and one of the most complete films that may ever be seen. It immediately relies its talent, honesty and emotional power on the most beloved, accessible and heartwarming genres of cinema. This project was probably the one that worldwide masses, especially Germany, were expecting to fail. However, Murnau proved to be a multitalented auteur of legendary proportions and transmits, in 94 minutes, extraordinarily compelling emotions that romance films cannot transmit even nowadays in their purest form. It is definitely, a timeless masterpiece and among the director's best.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans deals with a married farmer who soon enough falls for another woman of the city. She convinces him to come to the city with her, but since he asked her if her wife could come with them, the woman suggests him to murder her wife drowning her. He is shocked by her suggestion, but finally goes along with the idea. The rest of the plot is developed thanks to the farmer's consequent decisions. The film received 4 Academy Award nominations for Best Art Direction, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Cinematography and Best Picture, Unique Artistic Production, winning the last three awards. This was the very first and last feature film to be nominated and win the last Oscar because of its artistic value and quality. Wings (1927) won the Oscar for Best Picture, Production that year.

Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans resorts to that irrevocable connection established by human relationships and the everlasting and enduring power of love. Murnau was one of the few filmmakers that understood that cinema is the work of a whole crew. The camera work and the resulting cinematography is an outstanding achievement. Every image is filmed with extreme delicacy, like a moving painting, like the literary pages of a passionate poet. Whereas early directors like D.W. Griffith (Birth of a Nation [1915], Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages [1916]) and Sergei M. Eisenstein (Bronenosets Potyomkin [1925], Oktyabr [1928]) focused on the magical importance of editing and crosscutting, Murnau made emphasis on the visual style that a camera can transmit and the psychology of the characters, inspirationally orchestrating noticeably long takes just to highlight a particular emotion. Therefore, "The Man" and "The Wife" are very complete characters deviating from clichéd archetypes of recent newlyweds. That is what makes this film a very well-made character study, especially for the male protagonist. This is one of the very first films that feature personalities with constant changes of emotions, and the priorities and motivations of "The Man" are very clear to the spectator. He has an epiphany, which will wonderfully lead the rest of the story along with powerful and necessary reflections. The performances were so natural that the whole atmospheric romance throughout the tear-inducing 94 minutes seemed like a documentary and both symbolize justice being served in the most correct way concerning how our prioritized plans can be suddenly changed by an outside factor.

Evil is ultimately represented in a very peculiar way. The person that can be interpreted as the antagonist ends up being a human being as well with particular personal issues. The antagonist could be also fate, or the nature itself, which physically cannot be beaten after all, but confronted. That is a genius concept, but the original intention of the power such concept is supposed to have is a very hard characteristic to portray on screen. Both George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor are extraordinary, and they have perhaps the most powerful couple chemistry in any romantic film that has ever been directed, quite possibly even redefining the term of love in films. It is particularly interesting how Murnau makes a notable difference between the mood and atmosphere of the farm and the city, the last one being represented as crowded streets full of stores, noise and movement. Industrialization and consumerism are, therefore, an influential motor for the couple's rebirth of a love that was about to be lost because of wrongly taken decisions. The pace of the story is quickly effective, and the result was the perfect mix of drama and some humorous moments of comedy that, at the end, are utterly impossible to forget.

This is visually and emotionally one of the most beautiful films ever made. Although it was made by a German master of cinema, this is the kind of films Hollywood should be really proud of. It became an immediate addition for the USA National Film Preservation Board. This is a very artistic and unique triumph and literally transports you back to the 20's, transmitting a very powerful catharsis in a genius and highly effective way. After all, it is up to us to let the sun rise on the horizon. It is up to us to accept one of the most wonderful and extraordinary gifts God decided to give us in this pathetic, existentialist and rotten existence: love. Heaven and Hell collide in a tormenting concert of emotions; nature plays its role, resulting in possibly the tensest sequence of Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans. Two humans realize the inevitable connection they were meant to have, latterly singing to the sky and uniting in heartwarming depictions of love and interest. Character development enriches the flavor of the film and, yet, the movie does not need to show anything more. The dance scene, the attack of Mother Nature, the traffic accident, a kiss... just mere events that were meant to take place for inner correction and to avoid the corruptibility of the soul. It will make rivers of tears to flow, compensating such audience reaction with a very satisfactory sense of hope at the end, not to mention that beautiful and characteristic feeling of inner warmth.

100/100

Cecil B. DeMille may be well known for his all time masterpiece The Ten Commandments. However, it is not his best film.

The King of Kings is the best adaptation of the life of Jesuschrist, his miracles and messages. Finally, a respectable, tolerant and fair adaptation of what He represents in the world and among humanity. Awesome. Excellent silent as well.

95/100

The struggle of socialism over capitalism, the fall of the burgueois power and ten days that shook the world, specially in the Soviet Union. The edition and direction are masterful, the best I've seen in ages, specially in a silent film. Another masterpiece by extremelly patriotic and genious Eisenstein.

97/100

"Will I be with You tonight in Paradise?"

LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC (1928)

Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Country: France
Genre: Biography / Drama
Length: 114 minutes



If any critic, filmmaker or movie lover were ever put in a situation where he/she needs to prove to someone else that cinema was once an art form and that, nowadays, cinema actually ends up being a true art form several times, mostly because of the pretentious and empty garbage that has been made principally for the last two decades which has given the impression that cinema was only created for entertainment purposes, the silent classic that this person needs to show is La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc, from the acclaimed director Carl Theodor Dreyer. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is a classic and a cinematographic legend in absolutely every single aspect. It represents the maximum capacity of perfection that the Seventh Art can really reach. It is not only one of the best movies of all time, but it is also the saddest and most depressing, heartwarming and uplifting (probably spiritual as well) personal experience that cinema could ever offer, belonging to a superior and hardly reachable category of cinema.

Joan of Arc (1412 - 1431) was a French national hero and a Catholic saint. Being a peasant born in eastern France, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, claiming that she had divine guidance. She was also indirectly responsible for the coronation of Charles VII. At the age of 19, Joan of Arc was captured by the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court and burned alive under charges of heresy. Her innocence was later confirmed by the Spanish Pope Callixtus III (Alfonso de Borja), who posthumously reopened her case in 1456 after the death of Nicholas V, officially declaring the jurists that had condemned her as heretics. Finally, Joan of Arc received beatification by the Pope Pius X in 1909, and in 1920 she was canonized (therefore declared saint) by the Pope Benedict XV. La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is set on the trial of 1431, where she was put under a lot of pressure and received constant brutal criticism because of the divine visions that Joan of Arc had.

Carl Theodor Dreyer had a very well established vision before creating this immense golden jewel. Primarily, the grandiosity of Joan of Arc's character, despite the fact that she only lived until the age of 19, is clearly shown through the peculiar handling of an earthly divine cinematography. The image of Joan of Arc that Maria Falconetti accomplishes to bring to the screen is among the most staggering things that human eyes could ever have the pleasure of seeing. The shots, very intelligently taken care of and brilliant planned, clearly film Falconetti from a low angle, like if the spectator was meant to be looking towards the sky, giving us the impression that God was with her the whole time and that we are each time closer to the sky where eternal life awaits her. Moreover, the ecclesiastical court is captured from a high angle, making us feel it is conformed by inferior and inhuman beings ultimately submitted to the will of Satan.

Dreyer didn't only direct this masterpiece, but he was also in charge of the editing with the help of Joseph Delteil and elaborated the screenplay alongside with Marguerite Beaugé. Consequently, the editing is magical. Besides transporting the audience to the 14th Century along with the incredible costume design and the style of the art direction and set decoration, it makes the necessary transitions between the faces of the cruel jurists and Joan of Arc which are powerful enough to make us aware of the colossal amount of humanity that our main character had from beginning to end. This film has arguably the most beautiful musical score ever committed in a silent film as well. It is definitely superior to classics such as Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925), Metropolis (1927) and any Charles Chaplin movie, considering the fact that it was Chaplin himself the one who composed the music of all of his films. Objectively speaking, the musical score of La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is the one created by Ole Schmidt in 1982, which is utterly spectacular. A new score was made two years ago by Jesper Kyd, but missed the predominant spirituality of the film and the influence of Joan of Arc in humankind's history, not to mention the original approach by Dreyer to the plot.

Specifically talking about the acting, the show is completely stolen by Maria Falconetti. There are people who claim that her performance is the best female leading performance in cinema history, and I am proudly included in that majority. The face she possesses is so beautiful, so revealing, so depressing, so divine, so beautiful and so heartbreaking that people who even consider themselves as atheists and agnostic persons cannot find difficulty in admiring this film at least because of its technical aspects, the editing, the cinematography and one of the most wonderful leading performances ever seen. Maria Falconetti was the living proof that an awesome makeup, an elegant and expensive costume design, shouting and exaggerated dramas or endlessly long dialogues aren't required for offering unparalleled performances. Acting involves going deeply into the mind of a particular character, whether it is real or fictitious, dead or alive, and portraying it in the most natural possible way. Maria Falconetti is the only woman that has actually achieved to accomplish such grandiose task.

I differ with the opinion of several film critics that state that La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is not the best film by Dreyer. Several people affirm that Ordet (1955) is his most masterful work, and some others that Vredens Dag (1943) is superior. However, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc is one of the greatest achievements of cinema history technically and artistically speaking. The film was directed before the horror gem filmed in Germany called Vampyr - Der Traum des Allan Grey (1932) was made. Some audiences also prefer Robert Bresson's Procès de Jeanne d'Arc (1962) over Dreyer's version, which reconstructs the whole trial of Joan of Arc, starred by Florence Delay. Even so, Bresson's vision missed to effectively depict the tragic sensation transmitted through the silent classic film and to masterfully contrast such great beauty with powerful brutality. Dreyer's version ends up being far way better in every single aspect. Despite being his most famous and most seen feature film, it is the best movie within his filmography and arguably the best silent film ever made, obviously excluding the extremely blasphemous, action-oriented version of Luc Besson starred by Milla Jovovich.

La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc not only helped masses, myself included, to strengthen their faith in God, to look at life with optimism, to appreciate the beauty of things that life includes and shows everyday and to defend religious ideals, but also helped them, no matter what their ages were, to recognize an artistic and cinematographic masterpiece when it is released, and, on a personal note, it is literally one of the few films that have changed my life. More than admiring Dreyer because of his achievement, more than admiring the film because of its majesty, and more than admiring Falconetti because of her acting, we should be really grateful. It is one of those meaningful epitomes of cinematic perfection.

100/100

More Chaplin masterful comedy with unforgettable moments and gags.

91/100

"Man - puny but irresistible - encroaching forever on Nature's vastnesses, gradually, very gradually wrestling away her strange secrets, subduing her fierce elements - conquers the earth!"

The Wind (1928)

Director: Victor Sjöström
Country: United States of America
Genre: Drama / Western
Length: 79 minutes



The Wind is definitely a very unique film unlike anything I had seen before. I was expecting a Western film with romance, but the film went beyond that. Swedish director Victor Sjöström makes a silent masterpiece which is beautifully crafted. The film is not only beautiful to watch, but it is also deep and symbolic. Its cinematography, visual style and its visual effects are worth-watching technical aspects of the film, which were pretty interesting on their own.

The Wind deals with Letty Mason, a woman who has just moved to West Texas to live with her relatives, but is not welcomed by her cousin who ends up hating her. Mason later marries Lige, a man who "loves" her a little bit too much, but she doesn't. When she says to him that she hates him, he finally agrees to gather money so she can get out of there... but will he?

Lillian Gish is the only shining star of this film. Her performance is outstanding and she was terrifically chosen for her role. The rest of the cast is pretty good as well. This is a wonderful MGM production with great music. The pace of the story is not rushed nor slow, but has some climatic and intense moments. A concept that I liked is that the wind can be interpreted as a symbolic element. Since she moves to her cousin's place, the protagonist realizes of the fact that the wind blows there much harder, like if the wheather itself were a superior entity rejecting her. She's not only afraid of the wind, but also of the consequences of her actions, especially when she realizes that she has nowhere else to go.

The wind is not there by chance. It symbolizes that there is something in the personality of Mason that still has to be fixed and overcome. It is a fear within her that she must beat for her own sake, since it is also a process of self-discovery. I didn't see the ending coming, and whereas some people where dissapointed by it, I really think that it was just genius, and that the story doesn't really end there! Some people didn't really get it. It was just fantastic.

Without arguing, this is a silent masterpiece and one of the greatest and earliest Western films of classic Hollywood. It has a lot of talent and it gave me a totally different feeling to it. Do not miss it, since this was perhaps the last silent masterpiece of the United States without including Chaplin who just wouldn't leave silent filmmaking.

89/100

Bunuel's most amazing and breathtaking piece of film-making changed cinema's direction and raised it to a whole new level full of opened doors to the contrasts between reality, the dreams, the absurde and grotesque, with the impossibe and the "fantastic".

100/100

Good silent with a wonderful accurate setting and action sequences, and an inspiring (non-silent) introduction.

78/100

CHELOVEK S KINO-APPARATOM (1929)

Director: Dziga Vertov
Country: Soviet Union
Genre: Documentary
Length: 68 minutes



This man had a purpose, and a very specific one. Initially, a documentary had the aim of working as a reflection of reality. Dziga Vertov had as a main purpose to create a universal language through cinema that would be capable of connecting the most outstanding and respected art forms created by the human being. Chelovek s Kino-apparatom, a title that was translated as "The Man with a Movie Camera", is officially one of the most influential documentaries within the genre, not only because of the subject matter treated, but also because of its direction and filmmaking style. This is the kind of cinematic treasures I thank humanity for granting them to us during past periods. Certainly, Chelovek s Kino-apparatom is one of the most important feature films in cinema history and, arguably, the father of documentaries if not the best one that has ever been created in the history of mankind.

The first aspect I will highlight about Chelovek s Kino-apparatom is the music that was composed for its usage. There has been controversy regarding which is the most adequate version out of the two most famous ones that were initially composed for the documentary. One version was composed by "The Alloy Orchestra" in 1996, which is based on the notes that were originally thought up by Vertov and ended up being an extremely inventive soundtrack. This was the first version that incorporated sound effects in certain scenes and sequences, such as sirens, the crying of a baby and crowd noises. Nowadays, it still stands as a considerably inspiring masterwork for the human ear and fits perfectly into the nature of the documentary, adding intensity to various emotions transmitted to the audience and to the occasionally accelerated rhythm, so that is why this is, in my opinion, the best version available. As for the second version, the music was provided by "The Cinematic Orchestra" in the year of 2002, which had been originally made for the Porto 2000 Film Festival. The demand of this version has dramatically been accentuated for the past few years, but it wasn't as successful or effective as the original. The soundtrack composed by "The Alloy Orchestra" gives us a strong illusion of watching an epic story when, actually, the modern world (obviously talking about 1929, and that it still concerns nowadays actuality) is being shown to us in the most inspiring, complete and feedbackly constructive form that had ever been made.

Originally, cinema was born in France as little segments with an average length under half a minute that documented real life. It is inadequate to classify documentaries as a genre, since if it hadn't been because of the first still-existent samples of cinema, the cinema industry wouldn't even exist as we know it today. From documentation, fiction was born, cinematically speaking. Afortunately, Vertov kept that important fact in mind and he was basically responsible for the rebirth of a form of expression that, although was in its first stages, wasn't so frequented and was almost officially dead. Using Flaherty's form of directing movies (Nanook of the North [1922]) and Eisenstein's techniques and narrative structure (Bronenosets Potyomkin [1925]) including the editing and camera movement as his main inspiration sources, Vertov completely takes over the filming locations as an omnipresent being, which are basically the most populated and modernized cities of the Soviet Union, such as Moscow, Kiev and Odessa. Since silent films were already coming to an end, Vertov could have probably been one of the biggest inspirations for making movies in a different way. The universal language he clearly tried to create and even establish talks by itself, and the initial purpose it had can be explicitly seen during the first minutes, where it is stated to the audience that the use of intertitles, an acting cast and scenarios hadn't been necessary.

Vertov's ingenuity and filmic style are extraordinary. Genius at work. The initial shot shows a big camera from which a cameraman and a tripod camera of his size emerge. In other shots, the cameraman is shown literally standing above the whole city, an idea that I just find brilliant, since it denotes absolute perspective control. Chelovek s Kino-apparatom does not only portrays the daily life of the residents of the cities already mentioned while traveling from the most relaxing public places to locations that transmit a strong feeling of modern progress and industrialization in a world of constant modifications, but it also introduces a very original concept: the reaction of a particular audience when they see the documentary. Even the same editing of the feature film is documented, without having a reason of embarrassment that could cause the director to avoid showing the process of taking a feature film to the big screen. Chelovek s Kino-apparatom has different cinematic techniques that would be reused 53 years later by Godfrey Reggio in his documentary called Koyaanisqatsi; it also possesses a highly contrasted emphasis that can be found among different life conditions and the difference between social classes which would be reused in the documentary Baraka directed by Ron Fricke 63 years later. The freezing of certain takes, the use of silences, the quick camera and the hyperactive and accelerated edition were implemented by Vertov for the first time, assimilating the style of Eisenstein's Oktyabr (1928).

The importance of Vertov's eternal and influential jewel goes beyond any common rating standards, and its magnificence goes beyond words. It is a totally inspiring and reflexive experience, and that is why Vertov deserves full credit and respect from any filmmaker and documentary director that had existed (and that still exists) in future decades. It was considered as one of the best documentaries of all time according to the International Documentary Association in 2002, occupying the 19th spot. Eternal glory for Dziga Vertov!

100/100

Review coming someday...

99/100

Review coming someday...

99/100