Reviews by johanlefourbe

I have finally started to dig into Buster Keaton’s work only recently but, since then, I have seen my share of movies starring the classic comedian and, by now, I think I have a good understanding of his work. In this case, I think it is the oldest movie I have seen starring the legendary actor and, at first, I was wondering why it was called ‘The Goat’ but I think it was probably some kind of abbreviation of ‘scapegoat’. Anyway, this short apparently does have a solid reputation but, even though I have to admit that it was pretty good, I don’t think it was one of his best shorts though. I don’t know, it felt really random but I have to admit that it is inherent to the genre. The concept was also rather preposterous, the fact that nobody checked who was actually on this picture before printing it out all over the place. Still, Keaton was just a great comedian and, obviously, one of the greatest stuntmen that ever lived so, in spite of its flaws, the damned thing was seriously entertaining. Anyway, to conclude, even though the material was maybe too slight, it was still a really solid silent comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Recently, I have been focusing on older movies and this one is one of the oldest I have seen so far. In fact, the day before, I actually watched ‘Rescued by Rover’ which was also directed by Cecil M. Hepworth and while ‘Rescued by Rover’ surprised me by its simplicity, I was amazed by how complex this movie turned out to be, at least, for a vintage feature made 120 years ago. It is mostly famous for being the very first adaptation of this iconic tale and I was wondering how they could tell this story in less than 10 mins (in fact, there is only one copy left of this movie and it is apparently missing some parts). Well, the end-result turned out to be some kind of supercut, jumping from one famous scene to another. To be honest, the damned thing was actually borderline incomprehensible, especially if you are not familiar with this story, and yet, I thought it was quite fascinating somehow. Indeed, the sheer ambition, especially considering the technical limitations back then, was just so inspiring and most of it was actually visually pretty neat. Anyway, to conclude, I do believe that this movie was quite a milestone and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in film history.

Recently, I have been focusing on older movies and this one is one of the oldest I have seen so far. To be honest, the version I saw on YouTube was pretty nasty but it’s understandable since this movie is now more than 100 years old. Sure, it might all seem quite rudimentary but it was in fact at the time a big box office success and I can understand why. Indeed, it was probably one of the first movies with an actual plot and, in spite of its sheer simplicity or actually because of it, it worked surprisingly well. It’s also important to note that, even though it might look easy when you watch this movie, working with animals is usually considered as one of the hardest things when you make a movie. Anyway, this dog was pretty awesome and you wish they could have developed more the characters involved but, with a running time under 10 mins and no dialogues or title cards, I guess you shouldn’t expect much in this area. Anyway, to conclude, even if it was nothing really mind-blowing, I still think it was pretty neat and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in film history.

Recently, I have been focusing on older movies and this one is one of the oldest I have seen so far. To be honest, I still wonder what this first scene was all about. From a technical point of view, considering how old this movie is, it was pretty neat but I’m not sure what it was supposed to mean after all. Anyway, coming back on the movie itself, the end-result turned out to be some kind of hybrid feature. Indeed, since there was no plot, it wasn’t a fiction but, since everything was staged, I’m not sure if it should be considered as a documentary either (it probably is though). Especially when these firemen went to this house to put out this fire, it looked so fake. It’s too bad they didn’t go for something bigger regarding this fire but you should probably lower your expectations after watching for decades some massive Hollywood blockbusters with complex special effects which obviously didn't exist at the time. It was also rather funny to see a seemingly endless succession of vintage fire trucks driving in the streets when it turned out to be such a small fire after all. Anyway, to conclude, even if it didn’t really impress me, it was still a decent watch and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in film history.

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since it seemed to have a decent reputation (it is included in the ‘The Best 1,000 Movies Ever Made’ list selected by the New York Times, among other things), I thought I might as well check it out. First of all, the historical background around the making-off this movie was quite intriguing. Indeed, it was based on a book written before WWII actually started and even though the action was taking place in Germany and in the UK, it was actually made in the US while the war was raging in Europe. At the time, the US were still isolationist but most Hollywood studios were supporting the involvement of their country in the war resulting in such movies. Well, in spite of all this, to be honest, this movie didn’t really impress me though. I mean, I really enjoyed the first part which was taking place in Germany and during which this man hunt was actually quite thrilling. Unfortunately, as soon as the main character got back to England, it was much less effective though. Indeed, they basically chased the guy all the way to his home country just to have him sign some confession? It did sound rather far-fetched. To make things worse, the whole thing was completely derailed from the moment Thorndike met Jerry Stokes. I don’t blame Joan Bennett, she actually gave a solid performance but it didn’t make sense that her character would tag along for so long with Thorndike who was basically a wanted man. I mean, I understand that they wanted to give the main character some kind of love interest (nothing much happened between them after all though) but it's as if they tried to combine a thriller with a romantic comedy which wasn’t really the greatest idea. At least, I have to admit that Walter Pidgeon who was channeling some kind of combination of James Bond with George Clooney was really good here. Anyway, to conclude, in spite of its flaws, I have to admit that it was still a decent watch though and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.