Reviews

The plot is already familiar, and so are the characters. I can see 100 years ago this must have been something to enjoy very much, so I can appreciate it that much.

The language used and the actions made are very straightforward, and no surprise, was quite political as a driving force to support the lower class and give them a hero to stand for them. Which was not new at the time, but on film must have been quite the experience.

I adore the sets, the costumes, the performances hammed up with over exaggerated motion and dialogue that seems a bit dulled down for any viewer to admire.

Not the best movie, but not terrible. A good watch. 6/10.

Im a fan of silent films, classics, etc. And I still do not like Lloyd's work.

It's like the three stooges. I appreciate what they do, I appreciate the time when it was released that it was comical and entertaining. However, when films released a decade prior are more innovative, influential and are even timeless. This didn't age well, and I can't say it's my type of film to watch. It was a chore to get through 1 Hour before I skipped to the end. It's not for me. If it's for you, go for it. I can understand how it is enjoyable, like how I enjoy the mission impossible series, but I know a lot of people who don't. All subjective. 3/10.

I found this from a roger ebert review. And I after the first few paragraphs, I had to check it out. So I was sort of blind of what it would be like.

For a period piece of film made 110 years ago, this is astounding the things the accomplished. An historical epic. With the expertly crafted sets, the costumes, the stunts and every single individual, that has passed now, was immortalized in such an important piece of cinema.

A few parts even made me feel a visceral reaction from the images showing. For cinema that is in its infancy, this one is one of the dozen films that ages well, and I would say is timeless.

Check it out. I do not want to spoil anything.

It's a enjoyable short film that at the time when released was a magical and heart pounding story. It's the origin of thrill and action. Just a wonderful piece of film history.

It's fun to imagine the production and all these individuals having a blast at discovering what they could do with the newly found form of storytelling. It must have been discovering fire. Or dreaming to go to the Moon. Which A Trip To the Moon came out a year prior in 1902.

It's already been admired for all the technical advancements it made and influencing films from then on to adapt to have a story structure. So check it out. No longer than 10 minutes.

The quality in the dialogue, performances, effects, and pacing varies scene to scene.

The chemistry between the characters is not natural. The history is insisted by forced delivery. Shauna and Jeff have the worst chemistry. It's difficult to say these actors/actresses are terrible. Because without a proper script, and proper direction, performances will vary. Making the pacing stilted.

The pacing suffers most from the writing. The flow in story is jarring flashing back from past to future. And there are many examples of television and film doing this properly. But this show suffers greatly from the ebb and flow of drama, humor, shock gore, etc. And the pattern in which these change affects the tone; so when something dark happens, it is followed by an inappropriate "light-hearted" moment. And then switches back to a serious ominous tone which unintentionally ruins that moment, making it either feel out of place or inappropriate. Characters are irritating, and don't act like human beings. They make decisions that feel like they are only doing it for the convenience of the plot, and not because they are doing it out of the reaction of the environment they are living.

Maybe worst of all, there is very little redeeming qualities I can list. It's very stale and uninspired. A waste of time in my opinion.

The evolution of this show has been a force leading against mainstream media, and holding those accountable with the responsibility of informing and influencing the masses.

The 10 rating is my bias. Any talk show is never perfect. There are always flaws. But Louder With Crowder at least has made the attempt to correct themselves when wrong. And the foundation of the shows beliefs and professional approach has taken new form over the years, as if it were a slab of marble with awkward shape, but over time chiseled away the imperfections it has had, and still has today.

Steven started when he was young, very young for a man to host his own show and more impressive how much impact it has had; questioning everything that has not been questioned or truth covered with a lie to spin a different narrative.

The biggest flaws are human errs. No one can do this perfectly, it's not a show to take every word to heart. Take it with a grain of salt, and do your own research, which the show promotes.

Although I have moments where I question the characters of each individual on the show, it's earlier years were much more rougher, but it has a great track record of keeping up to date with facts from previous recent history events and applying them as lessons or corrections for today's topics, issues, debates, news (media), etc.

I love it. It has its funny moments, it has its awkward showboat mannerisms that are objectively unprofessional, but it's a man still learning his ways, and not many other twenty, thirty, fourty-year-olds can accomplish and for what it is; still, one of the best sources you can gather from, and encourages you to question them.

To imagine being in a theater for the very first showing of this film, and be wowed and amazed at the magic of cinema.

Buster applies techniques that pioneered an editing style, and no surprise, the practical effects used trickery of the eye and splicing of film that creates an illusion, which is exactly what films are. And this film demonstrates the purpose of cinema to the full extent.

Entertaining, thrilling, funny, and death defying as usual with Buster Keaton risking his life almost everytime for a film he made.

Watch it, watch it again, watch it with friends and family. It's a great work of art.

9/10.

To say this is a miracle movie, is an undertaking. The stunts were death defying. The risk was as high as you can get for a film production. This is Busters best work.

The accomplishments are mountains. Whilst telling an enthralling tale of the hero finding himself against an army to save his love; the stunts just make your jaw drop. So much more impressive than any computer generated effect of the 21st century. It just cannot be beat.

I cannot recommend this film enough. It's one of the few silent films that I would show to anyone who isn't a fan of the silent era, or has never seen a silent film.

Fantastic! 10/10.

If you're a fan of Keaton and Chaplin; then you might find this movie to be underwhelming or overwhelming in the manner that Keaton and Chaplin expertly crafted the style of visual gags and more importantly, being able to convey a performance that is a nice addition to the jokes or drama.

I just can't get behind the Lloyd crowd. I find his work insufferable and been there, done that; except I've seen it done better. By Keaton and Chaplin.

The attempt is there. But the execution makes the laughs lost in translation. Funny face, overly exaggerated exasperation of body language; did Lloyd know what subtle meant?

5/10.

This is a difficult film to decide on whether I liked it or not.

The technical aspect and the fairly abstract narrative are something to appreciate. It's not a standard silent film, in fact it may be the first film to do a fourth wall break as a darker twisted sense of humor, which might have gotten a great reaction from the audience way back when 100 years ago. Or perhaps not and could have seen it as pretentious or even a bore.

It's pacing might be its biggest flaw. I appreciate the score and visuals. But sometimes it's too much and overbearing that it becomes a distraction.

Watch it if you'd like, I won't again.

5/10.

I have discovered I'm not a Harold Lloyd fan at all. I find his style to be over the top, desperate at times, to be funny. I'm sure 100 years ago this was a laugh riot. I can't say the same for today.

While I see how it can be entertaining and an achievement in cinema for keeping in mind this was the age where cinema was still a toddler, I cannot give it too much credit, since there are dozens of silent films that have aged spectacularly, and some better than the average film made in the 21st century. Cannot say the same for Lloyd though!

If you're a fan, enjoy.

But I wouldn't watch this again or recommend it.

A generous 4/10.

I didn't enjoy this very much. I couldn't help but see Harold as a try hard. Attempting to live up to the reputation of Chaplin and Keaton, but failing in what possibly is one of the most cringes silent film I've ever seen.

Harold is way overactive, and what he lacks is subtlety. There is very little to no subtlety in this film.

I respect the craft, and being 100 years old, I won't take away the fact that this was a huge effort to create. But it didn't age well.

It's not for me. If it is for you, more power to you. But I won't be watching this again, and I can't see any reason to recommend it to anyone.

3/10.

It's a clever short in one of Buster Keatons earlier films. The gags are his trademark and they are still impressive with how slick and seemingly effortless he pulls them off. Which showcases the talent Buster had which would establish his name in cinema.

Really no complaints for a film of its time. I wouldn't criticize a 100 year old film for being flawed in design. It's actually quite astounding to watch practical stunts being executed for what would be a challenge today.

I rate this a 7/10 based on my own preferences, enjoyment, and standard I hold from countless other films made after this short and what they achieved.

Still, it's a fun watch.

It cannot be more emphasized how impressive this film is. The technical accomplishments are so grandiose that pulling them off today is a special challenge.

If you look at this film in comparison with the rest of the history of cinema, you'll find a further appreciation for how unique and groundbreaking it is, especially for its time.

To be in the shoes of someone in the late 20s and seeing this... awe.

Cannot recommend enough, especially cinephiles! It is one of my favorite films, and one of the best! And I'll argue that until the end of time, because this film is timeless in its impact of cinema.

I understand I'm early to declare the title 100 years. But close enough!

Physically the film aged poorly, however, put on a pair of eyes from a 1930s perspective, where monsters like these were never seen displayed in a practical way before. It truly is an awesome display of special effects and clearly deserves the credit for being a landmark in cinematic history.

There's nothing I can say to add to what is already a universally well known property. Everyone knows who King Kong is! You know what you're getting yourself into even before watching it for the first time, if this is your first time.

Highly recommend for anybody!

Fun Cheese! It's like a hokey 60s what will the future be like? Kind of movie; when the contrast is turned down to 0 of course.

Enjoy it as entertainment value, and not something to dig deep into or pick apart the film. If you have followed these instructions, you will have a better time. Watching it in color makes it an awkward and laughable watch, but at the film, not with it. Switching to black and white, you enjoy it more for how campy the quality is.

It's something I recommend highly, especially a group watch! Fun schlock and corny one-liners explains what kind of movie you should expect. So if that isn't up your alley I would skip this one.

The opening shows massive potential, and hints of brilliance, but is sullied by poor execution.

This teeter of brilliance goes on throughout the film.

An idea is introduced with clever editing, framing, and lighting. Then it derails, mostly because of the dated writing. But also by the same qualities that make it so great!

The story involves a woman that escapes from an asylum and stops a car on the highway for the driver to pick her up. Then the opening credits roll as you listen to this mysterious woman cry hysterically in the now-driving vehicle.

In theory, that is a very thrilling way to open a film with. But the folly, performance, and editing squander this massive potential, losing that build-up for what is being set up for an intriguing plot to unfold.

Without spoiling too much or anything, the story keeps descending into a very bland mystery/thriller. It suffers mostly from wooden performances and dialogue.

Flip-flopping constantly with awe and bore, my attention was lost and regained, and lost, and regained, and so on. As if watching a director have days where he was doing exactly what he intended to do, then on some days he just couldn't convey his idea properly. And then other flaws of the film seemed to have suffered in post-production.

It's not a terrible movie, but it does have some terrible qualities. Which is very polarizing.

I can't say I'd recommend it to anyone. I won't watch it again. Not bad, but not great.

I see nothing wrong with the story. Nothing wrong with the design, the framing, the direction, etc.

But the execution is flawed. Some scenes suffer from poor cinematography, when the shot goes out of focus, or the screen gets scratched.

It's visually pleasing to the eye when the shot is executed properly. But when it's not, it is a bit distracting. Mainly my issue is with shoddy camerawork, sometimes, I cannot stress that enough.

When it works, it's great, when it doesn't it's face-turning. So would I watch it again? No. Did it impress? At times I saw it in the vain of a Buster Keaton production while having a Caligari terror mixed. But it doesnt hold up for long.

Those who have seen it will no what I mean.

But I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Although films 100+ years old have many groundbreaking precursors to earlier movies created that followed them. This one does nothing special that wows or impresses. It's a simple story with simple movie techniques.

I use simple loosely. Obviously back then filmmaking was an absolute undertaking and required skills that not everyone holds. However skilled the director is, John S Robertson, it still comes off as dull and tedious. Making it a real effort to pay attention and not be bored.

The positives I can list are short. It does have qualities that make it a movie. Great framing in a few scenes that offered an intrigue to the story. But that's where it ends.

Some scenes seem poorly lit, and what is offered visually is mostly uninteresting.

Though technically well written, it doesn't convey as well the emotion and intensity that it implies.

Everyone knows the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. And if you want to see a better version, I recommend the 1931 version over this one.

Not terrible, but not great.

(03/04/23 Edit: I rewatched it in better condition and music. I decided to bump it up from a 5 to 6.

A film that is a testament of time for both cinema, and the imagination of humans to go beyond what they could dream of achieving.

The sets are charming and whimsical. Obviously today seems laughably inaccurate and silly. But to remind oneself of the time this was produced and to put yourself in the shoes of those very first viewers, this was a magical experience.

Nearly every cinephile recognizes the moon with the face. Which, in my view, is a wink from Georges Méliès that this was of a playful approach, nothing to be taken seriously, but a human wonderment of "what is on the moon? "Will we ever reach the moon?" How do we get there?" And so on.

Beautiful filmmaking, nothing to complain about. If it isn't for you, that completely understandable. This is more a film for recognizing cinematic achievement.