Q: I was given the opportunity to see this 1926 film in a magnificently restored theater that was once part of the extensive Paramount chain of vaudeville houses. This Paramount has a 'Mighty Wurlitzer' organ also magnificently restored -- that was used to accompany the silent films of the day.

We were fortunate enough to have Dennis James, a key figure in the international revival of silent films at the Mighty Wurlitzer playing appropriate music and thematic compositions fitting to the action on the film. The print was a nearly perfect digital copy of the rapidly decaying nitrate negative and the entire experience was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see a silent film as it was meant to be seen.

This was Greta Garbo's first American film. She was only 20 years old but already had 6 Swedish films in her repertoire.

It is somewhat ironic that this is a silent film about an opera star; even though the Mighty Wurlitzer added immensely to the mise-en-scene, it was necessary to leave much to the imagination.

Modern audiences, for the most part, do not understand silent films Acting was different then, with expansive gestures and broad facial expressions. Therefore audiences laugh at inappropriate times the acting is seen as 'hammy' and over-done but it was simply the style of the period.

Garbo, with all her subtlety, did much to usher in the new age of acting: she could say more with a half-closed eye and volumes could be read into a downward glance or a simple shrug. She exemplifies the truism that 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'

Even though this is Garbo's first American film it is pretty obvious the studio knew what they had on their hands: This was MGM filmmaking at its best. The sets and costumes were magnificent. The special effects which by today's standards are pretty feeble were still electrifying and amazing.

The script by Vicente Blasco Ibanez (from the novel by Entre Naranjos) would seem to be tailor made for Garbo; it showcases her strengths, magnifies her assets and there is no pesky language problem to deal with: a Swedish actress can play a Spanish temptress with no suspension of disbelief on our part.

Her co-star was MGM's answer to Rudolph Valentino: Ricardo Cortez. He does an admirable job and did something that few romantic stars of the day ever would have done in a film: allow himself to look unnactractive, appear foolish and to grow old ungracefully.

There are some fairly good character parts that are more than adequately acted especially when you consider the powerhouse that was Garbo. Notable among them are Lucien Littlefield as 'Cupido' and Martha Mattox as 'Dona Bernarda Brull.'

This is when the extraordinary cinematographer, William H. Daniels, met Garbo they went on to make 20 films together. (He was the cinematographer on 157 films and his career spanned five decades!) He was able to capture her ethereal beauty and it was his photography that was primarily responsible for the moniker by which she became known: The Divine Garbo. Without his magnificent abilities she would not have been the success that she was.

Seeing this film is an all-too-rare opportunity: if you ever have the chance, do not miss it. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Doctor Feinstone is a dentist.He has a beautiful wife and a huge house with a pool.Suddenly he discovers that his wife is making out with the pool attendant-he realises that behind everything clean,there is decay.He starts to torture his patients...Corbin Bernsen is brilliant as the deranged dentist-he is completely believable.There is surprisingly little gore but the scenes of dental torture are quite nasty and grotesque.Highly recommended."The Dentist 2" is also worth checking out! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: If you've read Mother Night and enjoyed it so much (as I did) that you just have to see the movie, understand that you have to understand a fundamental element of Vonngut's writing - that beyond his story lies Vonnegut himself, and that you can't put a human mind on the screen. His whit and humor just cannot be transcribed by a screenplay or even the best acting performance. I believe that this movie exceeds in asking the key questions that Vonnegut poses in his book, but those frequent cynical moments of satire found on the page are not found on the screen. Does this mean that the movie misses the mark? Of course not. In my opinion, the movie succeeds because it does not try to recreate the experience of reading the book (this is not a medium for those too lazy to turn a page). It succeeds because it takes the fundamental elements of a story created by one of America's true artistic treasures and presents it in a a framework without pretense. I've seen other movie versions of Vonnegut books where the director obviously tries to channel Vonnegut's genius and loses grip on his own craft. I would not place this movie as one of the best I've seen, but it stands on its own legs as one well worth watching. By taking Vonnegut's "voice" out of the movie's narration or trying to insert it however it can, Mother Night tells his story brilliantly, and preserves the story's fundamental lessons without confusion, distraction, or disappointment. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I don't remember when I first heard about this movie, but I rented it about six years ago, and it still remains one of my favorite comedies. I will admit, you probably will despise this movie if you know nothing about rap music. But if you are a rap fan, even a casual one, you will love the inside jokes and references. One of the best lines in the movie is about the difference between a b**** and a h**; I still use this line today and get lots of laughs with it. One of the best performances comes from Larry Scott, who played nerd Lamar in 'Revenge of the Nerds'. It is unfortunate that this movie will likely never get a DVD release. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive