As ground-breaking and genre-defining as Metropolis may have been, I can't say it's my favorite movie. On the positive side we have amazing imagery, both of the city and the people, a beautiful score, and some pretty respectable acting. The city itself was really something to behold. I can't imagine how someone in 1927 could have dreamed this one. The cinematography took advantage of the sets and matte paintings, creating a stunning vision of the future. The score was moving and appropriate. While it didn't have any themes that stand out in my memory, like Star Wars of Jaws (or any John Williams score...), it was perfect for what it was. The acting was exaggerated as it was in all silent films of the time, but the characters were well portrayed and their emotions came across very well. If Metropolis was the first sci-fi movie, then it may also have included the first portrayal of a robot. Either way, Briggite Helm's acting was quite exceptional, all things considered. To be able to play a "machine-man" with only the slightest clue as to what a robot would be like is impressive by itself. The manner in which she brought the robot to life is nothing shy of perfect. But, the film also had its bad side. I thought the pacing wasn't quite optimal. I found my mind wandering during the first act of the film. This slow pace was nowhere to be found in the third act, but I definitely felt it at the beginning. I felt like the story wasn't quite in depth enough for a two hour movie. Really, the plot was quite simple, even though it had many layers. Regardless, the film felt long, and that's never a good thing. As much as there is to like about Metropolis, I can't recommend it to just anyone. Unless you have an interest in silent cinema or classic films, you may want to pass on this one. On the other hand, if you want to see one of the most influential films ever made, Metropolis is for you.

What did you think about this review?

Thank you for voting.

Like Dislike

Abuse report sent

Report abuse