I'm not a fan of the silent film. To me, a silent film is a group of photos. This is Alfred Hitchcock's directorial debut. He didn't write or choose this story, but it suits him and his eventual body of work. It's a dark tale of selfishness, greed, compromise, betrayal, addiction, and desperation.
Had Hitchcock controlled this project, the casting would have been better. Two brunettes, same height, same hair style, living together, even sharing a bed... in a silent film... I'm just saying, it's a little difficult to tell them apart sometimes. Hitchcock chose great music, understanding the importance of a good soundtrack to help set the tone of the film. The soundtrack to this movie sucks. Some of the music choices just don't make sense, and I kept imagining the guy that had to play the soundtrack live in the theater. Did people yell at him to stop ruining the film? After a few showings, did good theater organ players improvise to improve the soundtrack?
I shouldn't have to consider all of these things while watching a movie in 2019, and my scale for rating movies was created in 2019. Not only is this not a good movie as I write this review, but I question whether is was a good enough film back in 1925. For what it's worth, the script writers threw the kitchen sink at this film, executing so many twists and turns that it keeps the viewer invested throughout. But, it's not a wise investment. Hitchcock gets better. I will keep this film, despite the low rating, because it's Hitchcock's first and I don't have many silent films. However, 'The Pleasure Garden' (1925) did not provide enough pleasure for me to return for a second viewing any time soon.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1; Casting - 0/1; Directing - 1/1; Story - 0/1; Writing/Screenplay - 0.5/1;
Total Base Score = 2.5
Modifiers (+ or -): Music Score/Soundtrack: -0.5 (The music is too upbeat and mostly inappropriate for the scene placement.);
Importance To Genre: +1 (Hitchcock's First Film.);
Total RealReview Rating: 3
Had Hitchcock controlled this project, the casting would have been better. Two brunettes, same height, same hair style, living together, even sharing a bed... in a silent film... I'm just saying, it's a little difficult to tell them apart sometimes. Hitchcock chose great music, understanding the importance of a good soundtrack to help set the tone of the film. The soundtrack to this movie sucks. Some of the music choices just don't make sense, and I kept imagining the guy that had to play the soundtrack live in the theater. Did people yell at him to stop ruining the film? After a few showings, did good theater organ players improvise to improve the soundtrack?
I shouldn't have to consider all of these things while watching a movie in 2019, and my scale for rating movies was created in 2019. Not only is this not a good movie as I write this review, but I question whether is was a good enough film back in 1925. For what it's worth, the script writers threw the kitchen sink at this film, executing so many twists and turns that it keeps the viewer invested throughout. But, it's not a wise investment. Hitchcock gets better. I will keep this film, despite the low rating, because it's Hitchcock's first and I don't have many silent films. However, 'The Pleasure Garden' (1925) did not provide enough pleasure for me to return for a second viewing any time soon.
RealReview Posting Scoring Criteria: Acting - 1/1; Casting - 0/1; Directing - 1/1; Story - 0/1; Writing/Screenplay - 0.5/1;
Total Base Score = 2.5
Modifiers (+ or -): Music Score/Soundtrack: -0.5 (The music is too upbeat and mostly inappropriate for the scene placement.);
Importance To Genre: +1 (Hitchcock's First Film.);
Total RealReview Rating: 3