The folk-mythic 19th century runs smack into the workers' techno-21st in this remarkable classic film. Often looking both forward and back simultaneously: in its odd old acting style (c. 1925) but theatrical semi-abstract innovations;...
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
- Democritus rated this movie
 9/10Amazing
The folk-mythic 19th century runs smack into the workers' techno-21st in this remarkable classic film. Often looking both forward and back simultaneously: in its odd old acting style (c. 1925) but theatrical semi-abstract innovations; its late-Victorian sentimentality but firm social protest; its slight didactic tendencies but its thrillingly visual innovations and verve, whose imprint is still on us. You will be surprised by how many stock images---downtrodden marching, over-sized machinery, robot-man, electricity on the loose, crowds constrained and out of control --- of our visual culture derive from this movie. If nothing else, the remarkable imagining of the heaven-hell of the uber-industrial future metropolis is worth the price of admission many times over for its remarkable style and great technical prowess. Yes, there are sort of weird little elements like the City in the Sky playground for the sons of the rich that no doubt inspired the crazy urban plans of the past-young Hitler (and Speer, and Riefenstahl), who saw and liked this movie, but it is too reductive to draw a direct line between the world of Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" and the insane society created later by Hitler. Historically and socially, the movie is a little wobbly, but not totally off-target in its Expressionistic, extreme, abstracted, renderings of worker regimentation and exhaustion, or the extreme class differences that are overlooked in modern society. (I am probably not the first to suggest that actors in silent movies were often more like dancers and opera singers than anything else. Douglas Fairbanks is a Baryshhnikov in 1924's "The Thief of Bagdad.") It lacks the sardonic, worldly bite of "Citizen Kane," but if you were to say one of them was the greatest film of all time, I am sure you would find strong supporters irrespective of which you chose. (With "I'm A Fugitive From a Chain Gang" and "Children of Paradise" as my personal runners-up.) Strongly recommended. 5.09
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
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...
- 09.October.2009
- |
- by: Ethan Clapham
- Ethan Clapham rated this movie0/10
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.
- 09.October.2009
- |
- by: Ethan Clapham
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
silent with great music
no cheesy ragtime piano here... actors move in rhythm to an evocative symphonic score.
- 30.March.2009
- |
- by: lyndonwong
- lyndonwong rated this movie9/10Amazing
silent with great music
no cheesy ragtime piano here... actors move in rhythm to an evocative symphonic score.
- 30.March.2009
- |
- by: lyndonwong
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
Mood:
Plot:
Genres:
Time/Period:
Place:
Praise:
Based on:
Attitudes:
Look:
Does this gene fit Metropolis?
