Q: 'The Student of Prague' is an early feature-length horror drama or, rather, it is an "autorenfilm" (i.e. an author's film). This film is a member of a movement of many movements that tried to lend respectability to cinema, or just make a profit, by adapting literature or theatre onto the screen. Fortunately, the story of this book with moving pictures is good. Using Alfred de Musset's poem and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, it centres on the doppelganger theme.

Unfortunately, the most cinematic this film gets is the double exposure effects to make Paul Wegener appear twice within scenes. Guido Seeber was a special effects wizard for his day, but he's not very good at positioning the camera or moving it. Film scholar Leon Hunt (printed in "Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative"), however, has made an interesting analysis on this film using framing to amplify the doubles theme: characters being split by left/right, near/far and frontal/diagonal framing of characters and shots. Regardless, the film mostly consists of extended long shots from a fixed position, which is noticeably primitive. Worse is the lack of editing; there's very little scene dissection and scenes linger. None of this is unusual for 1913, but there were more advanced films in this respect around the same time, including the better parts of 'Atlantis' (August Blom, 1913), 'Twilight of a Woman's Soul' (Yevgeni Bauer, 1913) and the short films of D.W. Griffith.

An expanded universal film vocabulary by 1926 would allow for a vastly superior remake. Furthermore, the remake has a reason for the Lyduschka character, other than being an occasional troublemaker and spectator surrogate. Here, the obtrusively acted gypsy lurks around, seemingly, with a cloak of invisibility. I know their world is silent to me, but I assume, with their lips moving and such, that their world would not be silent to them, so how can Lyduschka leer over others' shoulders and not be noticed?

Nevertheless, this is one of the most interesting early films conceptually. Wegener, who seems to have been the primary mind behind this film, in addition to playing the lead, would later play the title role and co-direct 'The Golem' in 1920--helping to further inaugurate the supernatural thread in German silent cinema.

(Note: The first version I viewed was about an hour long (surely not quite complete) and was in poor condition, with faces bleached at times and such. I'm not sure who was the distributor. I've also since seen the Alpha DVD, which, at 41 minutes, is missing footage present in the aforementioned print and also has fewer and very different title cards, but is visually not as bad. The repetitive score is best muted, though.) OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This is the worst, and I mean THE worst computers based movie I have ever seen. The whole plot is totally unconvincing and full of stupidity.

I mean...

The guy in this movie can actually speak with computer as a real person. Now you probably think this must be some super cool high-tech computer, well , it is, but he does it also with other very poor and weak computer which does not even have graphic interface.

and the main idea how to overload the "super" computer by connecting to it via computer game on the net is really stupid. My mobile phone will shut the lighting down to preserve the energy but apparently this genius computer cant decide whether to use its resources to deal with national security threats or to load computer games.

there are also some other bad things about it but I just don't have time for this.

I just cant believe someone could actually record movie stupid as this OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I don't get this. The movie obviously has a pretty good budget. It has very good cinematography. It has nice pacing, good editing and pretty good directing too. Then WHY OH WHY didn't they hire someone to do a final rewrite of the script so it would not be so damn cheesy and WHY OH WHY did they hire such lousy actors that can't act their way out of a paper bag? This movie could have been good. At most times it LOOKS good and FEELS good but in the end, you realize that the movie was no good at all.

So I would say it's a good production but a bad movie. Too bad actually.

And eels? Come one, really! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I had to walk out of the theater. After an hour, all I was seeing was people cheating on wives, schtupping like dogs in a rut, and using the f-word like a diabetic using Equal.

No thanks.

It was especially frustrating because the movie could have done a lot. Any one of the characters could have been quite interesting if they were given more to do than fornicate, talk about it, and swear at each other.

The few times that it looked as if there were about to be some sort of character development, all that happened was another sex scene. Plot development in the 1st hour can be summarized as 1)several murders occur, 2) Vinnie sees murder scene 3) Vinnie stares moodily across Atlantic/East/Hudson River 4) Vinnie cheats on wife, and 5) Joey (most sympathetic character in the show) gets kicked out of his parents' house. More than that, I didn't wait to see.

The photography and the interplay between the characters were superb, but THERE WAS NOTHING for them to DO. The flood of sex and vulgarity was hardly worth waiting another hour for SOMETHING to happen.

Sorry, Spike. Take some lessons from Notting Hill, or Shawshank Redemption. Either one is a better study in community and interpersonal relationships. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative