Reviews

The original "Perry Mason" TV show was one of the classics of its time. Running for nine years from 1957-1966, the series had everything going for it: good writing, great music, exceptional acting, and all the rest of it. Raymond Burr played Perry Mason so well that it became difficult to see anyone else playing him; likewise, the rest of the cast, including Barbara Hale as Della Street and William Hopper as Paul Drake, fit their roles so well that any attempts at using other actors would hardly be acceptable to viewers.

But, TV producers being the way they are, there was of course an attempt to reboot the show in the 1970s, because they just couldn't stand the idea of not piggybacking off of an iconic show after running out of other ideas. Enter "The New Perry Mason", a short-lived series that made it only a half season before being cancelled. While this series certainly isn't terrible, there's no reason to rate it particularly high in view of the fact that this same idea had already been done before in a much better way - that of course being in the original series itself. Nothing that made the original so good is present in this reboot - at best, everything is mediocre. It's understandable why this show flopped, even if it wasn't the worst - it couldn't live up to the original, and there was really no point trying to make it do that considering they couldn't even use the same actors as before.

To start off, there's the theme song. "Park Avenue Beat" from the original is replaced with a semi-memorable fanfare that hardly captures the tone of what the series is really about. While not bad, this theme song hardly lives up to the original theme by Fred Steiner and already makes it incredibly difficult for one to give the series a chance after years of the old show. They certainly weren't giving it their best effort - something which can be said for the entirety of the show.

As for acting, there's very little to write home about here as well. Monte Markham is cast in the role of Perry Mason, but of course he's no Raymond Burr. While Markham does carry himself well onscreen, that's about all that can be said for his performance - otherwise, he clearly lacks the presence that Burr brought to the role which makes it a tough sell. Sharon Acker is unexceptional as Della Street and looks like some 70s fashion model - and there's hardly any screen chemistry between her and Markham like Burr and Barbara Hale had. The same can be said about Albert Stratton's performance as Paul Drake: bland, nothing special, and certainly not living up to William Hopper. All in all, the trio in this series doesn't at all fit together well like the original trio did, and if the producers wanted to keep the show, that would have to be the first thing to fix.

Harry Guardino, likewise, doesn't really bring anything new to the role of Hamilton Burger. To be honest, his physical appearance reminds me more of someone who should be playing some pipe-smoking sherlock more than someone who should be playing a District Attorney. The biggest injustice, however, is Dane Clark as Lieutenant Tragg, who has no smug manner about him like Ray Collins, nor any trace of humor (for example, the writers literally gave him a great opportunity to be just like the original Lieutenant Tragg when they wrote in the part about his "sensitive instrument" - but when Clark says it, he's completely humorless).

When it comes to the writing, there's nothing too bad to be said, although the writers certainly could have written in some things that would give the cast a better chemistry. The stories are as creative as ever, which is perhaps the best thing to be said about the show, but without the proper cast to carry them out, they don't really have the same feel as the original.

To conclude, "The New Perry Mason" reeks of mediocrity - from music to acting, there is nothing that makes this show special. It's not bad, but it's not very good, and to be honest, I see no reason to watch it as a casual observer considering a far better show was already made (that being the original Perry Mason). The only people I can truly recommend this to are diehard Perry Mason fans who want to watch everything Perry Mason - and even then, I doubt they'd be impressed with it after becoming so used to the old show.

In terms of innovative cinematography that would later become D. W. Griffith's trademark, there isn't much here. The story of "The Redman's View" is told just like any other - in long shots - making it difficult for the viewer to really catch the emotion of the sensitive subject matter and embellish what is happening beyond the level that a long shot can do. Still, the film is well made for the time period and one can only speculate how much better it could have looked had it been made around 1912 or so, when Griffith's shorts were much more skillfully made.

"The Redman's View" deals with a subject that was common at that point in American history: Indian displacement. In the film, a pair of Indian lovers are separated due to the arrival of the white men who order the Indians to find a new home. The girl however is forced to stay with the white men, and is unable to help her ailing father who dies along the way in search of a new homeland. It's a relatively simple story that is easy to follow and the commentary, while not as strong as it could have been, is on point the entire time. It becomes clear watching it who Griffith favors in the film, and the title even indicates this further. A well-made little piece of commentary of a historical premise.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" is an incredible novel. In 1,000 pages the reader is introduced to a man who is wrongly condemned, and proceeds to show the way he excruciatingly manages to get his revenge on every one of those who destroyed the wonderful life he was all set to live. It's a slow moving story and is supposed to be - highlighting the slow and deliberate process he puts his enemies through to make them suffer as much as possible. Alexander Dumas was a brilliant writer and the novel is, in my opinion, a stronger one in terms of plot than his more well-known "The Three Musketeers" which is faster-paced.

The film, on the other hand, does not do Dumas justice, and obviously, some of this is expected. The book is so lengthy that it is impossible to condense it into a two-hour movie without leaving out certain details of the man's revenge. This in turn makes the revenge a more cut and dried job on the part of Edmond Dantes than a slow and deliberate trap he works upon his enemies. As stated before, this is understandable but not necessarily excusable - if necessary, another hour of film could have been added on just to make the story play out in greater detail. What we have is good, and there is plenty of great action to be seen all around, including some great and realistic sword fighting not seen in the book (if I remember correctly), but all the same, Dumas's novel seems to provide a much more focused version of the tale than any movie could ever do (unless the movie ran more like five hours).

The main complaint I have, other than the fact the story is extremely condensed, is that throughout the entire movie the audience is entirely aware of who the Count of Monte Cristo is. In the novel, it's left up to the reader to figure out he is Edmond Dantes, and there is a certain ambiguity to who this foreigner who has such large amounts of money truly is. It's this ambiguity that makes the book so interesting, whereas in the movie it's obvious what is going on, there's no shift at all whatsoever and in doing so the film robs the audience of one of the most engaging aspects of the story.

All this, of course, does not take away from the incredible photography, action, etc. That this movie provides. Technically, it is a very well made film that most audiences would have no problem with, assuming they hadn't already read the book. It is because of this that I would suggest that if one absolutely wants to see this, they skip the book until after having seen it. This will allow an appreciation of the movie at a level I myself will probably never achieve due to having already ruined it for myself by having read the book. Then, after having seen the movie, reading the book will help one appreciate the story better without starting to have prejudice for what is mostly a good film. I wouldn't normally recommend doing this, but in this case it's practically unavoidable due to how different the two of them are. As it is, "The Count of Monte Cristo" is a pretty decent film that is mostly imperfect when one looks at it from a perspective of already having read the novel ahead of time.

"The Black Viper" was one of the first films of D. W. Griffith and for an attempt at an early drama it actually isn't that bad. To be sure, the film lacks the excitement and intensity of later films ("The Girl and Her Trust" is a great example) because of how straightforwardly shot it is, but the story is milked for what it's worth and there are some excellent action scenes for the time. Also apparent in watching the short is already some emerging technique, impressive considering this was such an early effort and proof that Griffith was already at work revolutionizing film as it was then known.

The short deals with a thug who attacks a woman who is rescued by another man. The thug vows revenge and kidnaps the man, and so begins a chase sequence that ends in a burning building. (Admittedly, I was somewhat confused initially seeing this likely because I wasn't paying enough attention, but looking back the story was pretty straightforward and I must not have been paying attention). There are some great fight scenes including one on a roof and the part that really stood out was the cross-cutting in the scene where the thugs throw rocks down upon their pursuers as they are chased up a cliff. The cutting consistently between the top and bottom of the cliff as the stones are thrown down is skillfully done and as a whole the film does a good job telling its story. A remarkable early effort from Griffith.

"A Corner in Wheat" is perhaps the most known among the early D. W. Griffith Biograph shorts, for whatever reason. In many ways it appears to be an attempt at social commentary that was pulled off quite well thanks to some deliberate but not extreme messaging that is pulled off quite simplistically. Cinematically it has little to offer - there isn't any cross-cutting between scenes to my memory nor are shots any closer to the actors than in years past - but for what it does it succeeds at.

The film is about a greedy man who corners the wheat market with great success, allowing him to achieve dominance and cause prices to skyrocket, which in turn hurts the lower class. It's not an especially noteworthy story, but succeeds at successfully bringing across a message without going to far - although arguably, the ending could be considered a little over the top with what happens to the tycoon. Still, a well-crafted film and a good morality tale.

Among the many shorts released by Biograph under the direction of D. W. Griffith in the year 1909 was this brief film that is a mix of a historical drama and a love story: historical in the sense that it takes place presumably in the past based off of the clothing and story, and romantic in its plot. It's an unusual film for Griffith because of this, as many of his works even during this time appear to be largely set in a contemporary time period. Despite this, in the scheme of things the film is not especially noteworthy - from my memory there isn't any cross-cutting or closeups, just the usual long shots that make it come off as little more than a filmed stage play to the audience.

What actually occurs in the film is semi-confusing to some, and the plot is not always clear at times. Apparently, the film is about a couple of violin makers who both want the prettiest girl in town, but one of them is badly deformed and decides to sacrifice all hopes of winning her hand in marriage via the violin making competition and give his violin to the other maker. What is most confusing here is that, try as I might, I don't remember any of the characters being disfigured in the slightest, which leads me to believe the acting clearly wasn't enough to convey this crucial aspect to the audience. It then becomes unclear as to why the contest is shifted in the other violin maker's favor, etc., all because this detail is unclear. A short that needed some more work.

This was the second of two morality tales about alcoholism that D. W. Griffith produced in 1909; "A Drunkard's Reformation" is the other. Between the two, there's really no comparison. "What Drink Did" is a far more powerful story for how it presents a strong if extreme reason for why one shouldn't drink. Whereas "A Drunkard's Reformation" is about the path of the drunkard on his way to quitting drinking, "What Drink Did" provides a reason why to do so. It may seem like an extreme example, but it is effective enough at making its point so that the film becomes a powerful morality story.

"What Drink Did" centers around a father who succumbs to peer pressure and decides to drink alcohol with his friends in the workplace. After failing to come home one day, his daughter is sent out to find him and under the influence of alcohol, the father becomes abusive towards her efforts to bring him home. What ensues is quite effective, and outside of the plot hole of sending a little girl out alone to look for her dad in a bar, the film is a fairly decent attempt at a morality play. It also includes early attempts at cross-cutting, as another reviewer has pointed out, showing Griffith slowly building his craft that would later result in masterful films like "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance". A rather interesting little feature.

The story of the angry drunkard returning home to frighten his wife and kids was a frequent idea explored throughout the early days of cinema. Out of the many early films I've seen, the main one that comes to mind is Robert W. Paul's "Buy Your Own Cherries" from 1904, which dealt with the exact same message as well as a very similar story. The main difference between that and D. W. Griffith's "A Drunkard's Reformation" is the means by which the drunkard is reformed. Paul's film has less development to the reformation, while Griffith uses a key device to bring about the change: that is, the morality play. In that sense, Griffith's short is far more innovative in how it tells its story, although when it comes to hitting home the message, his other work of the same year, "What Drink Did", is far more powerful.

The film begins with the drunkard returning home and abusing his wife before reluctantly taking his daughter to a play. Unbeknownst to him, the play is a morality-based story that manages to convince him into reforming. As far as D. W. Griffith's early films go, there is little evidence of emerging camera technique in this one; the main development in "A Drunkard's Reformation" is when the camera cross-cuts between the reaction of the father in the audience and the action onstage, which Griffith would later perfect to build suspense masterfully. Otherwise, the film uses the typical long shots of the actors that were common at the time, showing how far the director had to go in his technique. As it is, an interesting and worthwhile short film for silent film fanatics.

By 1909, D. W. Griffith had only been going at filmmaking for less than two years, and just like 1908, his films lacked the complexity and innovative qualities his later ones would feature. "The Cord of Life" is no different, and unlike others like "Betrayed by a Handprint" (1908) there isn't even a trace of the type of film grammar Griffith would later develop during the 1910s. That being said, one can't necessarily dock the man for having neglected techniques that were already used rarely anyway - and regardless, the film is an interesting one with a plot that I have to give credit for being original despite how weird it is.

"The Cord of Life", which is already a weird title, involves a man who is refused a handout (though you wouldn't know this by watching the film) and seeks revenge by dangling the baby of the folks who refused him money outside the window by a cord. That way, when the window is opened, the baby will be killed without it technically having been murder on the part of the man. That's a pretty weird scenario, but at least it's original enough to where one can entertain the idea. Obviously, with Griffith's limited techniques, the suspense that could have been built as the man runs home to stop the window from being opened isn't really there, but the film manages to at least somewhat work. A rather strange drama from an early master.

1908 was D. W. Griffith's first year in directing film, and he had a long way to go before he would begin revolutionizing film grammar. His films this early on generally looked no different than those of other filmmakers, with most of them including the same typical long shots with no cuts to closeups varying the structure and making the film more engaging. However, "Betrayed by a Handprint" is somehow a more advanced early piece by Griffith, which comes as a surprise due to the year in which it was made. While it's true the film does make use of long shots extensively throughout, there is one closeup that is used to clarify what is going on - a rarity that was still relatively unseen around 1908.

The plot is a simple drama which, granted, one won't understand the details of completely without reading the IMDb summary, but is still focused enough to where one can make out the basic story line. In short, the film is about a woman who is broke and manages to steal another woman's necklace, hiding it in a bar of soap. To make the latter action clear, Griffith does in fact use the aforementioned closeup to show the necklace being hidden in the soap, which is sealed up. It's not revolutionary (closeups had been done before way earlier than this) but does hint at the skill with the camera Griffith would later do with such epics as "Birth of a Nation". A decent relic of Griffith's early years at Biograph.

It's pretty rare to find anyone who praises D. W. Griffith for his comedies. Most people who know Griffith today for his wrongly interpreted "Birth of a Nation" and its exciting action scenes and suspense probably don't know that he was also the filmmaker of some rather quaint short comedies back in the day. "Getting Even" falls in this category, and like many other shorts of Griffith this early on (which in fact constitute the majority of the number of films he produced) it's somewhat strange to see Griffith go along with the standard drawn out long shots that marked pretty much every film in the day. But this is indeed most of what Griffith did before he became a master of some of the finest filmmaking techniques, and "Getting Even", being before 1912, is no exception.

The film is a simple revenge tale basically, about a guy who is humiliated by other men as he tries to talk to a woman (who, according to the full summary, is apparently the object of everyone's affections). To get revenge, he dresses up as a woman and goes to a local dance where the same men are, and they all begin falling in love with the guy without realizing they just got pranked. It's definitely an odd story for Griffith to be telling, but one can't complain as the comedy is fairly good for its time and the film is short enough to where it's no waste of time. Mainly worth seeing to see a Griffith comedy if nothing else, even though it's not as well known as the most widely viewed comedy of his, "Those Awful Hats" (from the same year).

The found footage genre is one that I acknowledge to be largely underappreciated, especially after having seen this film. In many ways, creating something like this is far more realistic and works far better than anything Hollywood could come up with. Of course, I understand the jerky camerawork and the unpolished feel of the found footage film is not for everyone, but it can and does work particularly in the case of "The Blair Witch Project".

The film starts off like someone's home movie, which is basically what it is. What follows is what appears to be a very realistic story of three student filmmakers who go into a forest in Maryland to investigate the local Blair Witch legend, who overtime find themselves completely lost and by the end, desperate to escape. If you're used to seeing slasher films that are there purposefully to stay with you the rest of your life, this film won't deliver that but it will do something that is arguably better: scare by the power of suggestion. After the film ends, you know just enough to be able to imagine what really happened but not enough to spoil the possible speculation. Which is really what carries the film, as with no special effects whatsoever, there is no other plausible way to frighten the audience.

That aside, there are many other things that carry this film, most prominently the acting, which is brilliant. The film literally feels unscripted, with the interruption, carelessness, etc. Of real life dialogue. All of it really does help convey the hopelessness of being lost in the woods, and it really is as though you're watching a trio of filmmakers slowly losing it as they become more and more lost.

In conclusion, I can't call "The Blair Witch Project" a "scary" film per se, except by the power of suggestion. If you have a background on witchcraft and understand the implications of the found footage, this could absolutely be terrifying. I personally found it mildly frightening for a horror film and recommend it for its realism and suggestive qualities rather than its shock value. Definitely not a conventional horror film but a classic one nonetheless that holds up today despite not necessarily being a "true" horror.

While D. W. Griffith is known primarily for his lengthy, three-hour films "Birth of a Nation" and its successor, "Intolerance", he's also known for what appears to be his shortest film, created in 1909. "Those Awful Hats" is pretty simple compared to other films of Griffith's, and there is hardly any plot. However, it does contain some well-executed special effects for its time, and as a whole makes the most of a simple situation in less than four minutes.

In "Those Awful Hats", some men are trying to watch a movie in the theater, which is cleverly superimposed on the wall to create a picture-in-picture effect. What happens in the film within the film is hardly the focus of the movie however, as a number of women wearing ridiculously crafted hats enter the theater and proceed to block the view of those behind them. The premise is creative and the film as a whole could be considered an early bit of social commentary cleverly disguised as a comedy, as a title card afterwards states "Ladies, please remove your hats". A fun bit of cinema although nothing compared to the later works of this great director.

It's not anything new to say the early works of D. W. Griffith weren't anything spectacular. In fact, films like "The Adventures of Dollie" are what the majority of his output consists of: short, 10-15 minute film dramas often featuring a simple story that is told through the standard monotonous long shots that each film consisted of back in the day. This early on, there's absolutely no hint whatsoever of the suspenseful sort of storytelling later films, such as the brilliant "Birth of a Nation" and "Intolerance" would feature. However, considering the rest of the movies during this time looked the exact same in technique as this one, there's really no reason to complain.

"The Adventures of Dollie" is about a little girl who is kidnapped by gypsies and ends up going on a crazy ride in a barrel. There's really little else to it than that, although there is some nice cinematography involved and the story works for what it is. That being said, the film is really only worth seeing for historical reasons as it doesn't contain the excitement and buildup of his later material, and it would take until 1912 or so before Griffith would begin shooting more advanced, better crafted shorts.

Before D. W. Griffith revolutionized filmmaking as we know it today, his style was like the rest of them. This film is of course among countless examples of his early work at Biograph studios where we witness the same old type of shooting style that had been used in pretty much every film up until this point: long shots, one after the other, basically turning the film into a stage play. The story - in which a rich son is robbed by his own parents because they don't recognize him - also isn't extremely original, but for twelve minutes it does its job well even if there's not the suspense there that Griffith would later champion.

However, one has to give credit where credit is due, and it is important in the case of this particular film to note the use of closeups in a couple spots, which certainly stick out among the more stagy aspects of the film. Griffith was expanding his vocabulary so to speak, and the closeups, while not anything to write home about, do play a significant role in the plot of the film. As it is, "The Son's Return" should primarily be seen as an example of Griffith's evolution from a run of the mill film director to a brilliant innovator of motion pictures, and fans will certainly find this one worth checking out for that alone.

What Jan Svankmajer was going for when he created "Flora" seems to be largely a mystery. The film is not even a minute (only 30 seconds) has no title card introducing it, but merely consists of an animation of a person made out of fruits and vegetables in the process of decay. The craft seems polished enough, but it still seems that the film is unfinished, a scrap of animation Svankmajer later published by itself that may have been part of a larger project. Either that or it was merely an exercise in timelapse - although a rather solid one at that. Granted, it's hard to really judge something like this, but it is unique and interesting...even if hardly something one would show another as an introduction to the work of this Czech master.

"Darkness/Light/Darkness" is one of the most creative films from Jan Svankmajer, if not exactly his best or most praised work. To be sure, it doesn't carry an underlying meaning as in "Dimensions of Dialogue" and it lacks the story aspect of some of his earlier, less characteristic work, but even despite all of this the short is guaranteed to be perhaps the most memorable one anyone watching Svankmajer's work could imagine. The creativity exercised is remarkable and the craft is brilliant, including the setting and stop motion that is genius and entertaining.

Svankmajer's film basically consists of a body constructing itself from a number of body parts inside what appears to be a doll's house. It's quite enjoyable watching the different parts figure out where they're supposed to go and what the final result looks like. The title seems to be unrelated initially, but thinking about its relative meaning to what's happening in the film, I think it's a reference to the first day in history after God created the heavens and the earth, thus making an allusion to the theme of creation that both the movie and the creation story share. Overall on par with all of Svankmajer's other work and it's no wonder it is so well known.a.

"Powaqqatsi" is the second in Godfrey Reggio's trilogy of experimental movies centering on life using words from the Hopi language, made six years following the original "Koyannisqatsi". In terms of filmmaking technique, it is technically brilliant like its predecessor, through using lengthy shots of varying types to craft the filmic progression that establishes a theme. However, what this theme actually was escaped me as I viewed the entire thing without having read much about it; as a result, the film came across as an extended music video that went on and on without a clear idea cementing everything. On the other hand, "Koyannisqatsi" was perfect for how it clearly progressed through the concept of man vs. Nature and showed the effects of humankind on the natural world, and while the ideas of the two movies are incomparable, the messaging is not nearly as effective here.

Reggio's second installment chronicles the lifestyles of third world countries and their different cultures, and then, according to IMDb's analysis, portrays the Western hemisphere's effects on them. While traces of this are visible throughout, the sequencing really doesn't make the concept clear, and as a result the film comes across as a comparison of different cultures in multiple countries in the world. Philip Glass's music is still good of course, but doesn't come within a mile of the music he composed for "Koyannisqatsi", which is dramatic, epic, and unforgettable. Not to mention that the theme of the first film is a much more engaging, general concept while this one comes down to specifics, making it more repetitive and less overarching.

I understand that "Powaqqatsi" is considered a solid work by many fans of the first and that "Naqoyqatsi" (which I have yet to see) is overall more criticized, but I have to differ here. Reggio's second installment fails to latch on to a clear cut theme which, as an experimental film, it should be doing a great job at with no narrative to distract. It's not bad and remains good in the areas of cinematography and music, but I would by far rewatch "Koyannisqatsi" any day rather than see this a second time.

The above is basically the summary of the inner struggle the filmmaking seemed to be having defining what this film is supposed to be about. "Die neue Wohnung" is one of the least known films by Hans Richter, the German expressionist painter and filmmaker who became one of the more important dadaists of the 1920's and 30's. Understandably, it is one of his least known movies, a fact unsurprising mostly because of how much it deviates from the rest of his output, but also due to the lack of a mainstream English title. The translation of the German is apparently "The New Apartment", but this is neither an adequate nor appropriate way to describe the movie, as it contains far more variety in subject matter than what the title seems to suggest. Simply put, it is a puzzling and slightly enigmatic work that certainly deserves more attention than it has gotten - not a brilliant movie but interesting in its own unique way.

"Die neue Wohnung" seems to be Hans Richter's attempt at making a documentary film, but he seems to have struggled a lot with the concept of a movie that just captures brief moments of life. This is because of the fact that while the twenty-eight minute short begins documenting scenery of a German town, it struggles to remain focused on just this as Richter starts throwing in all manner of abstract effects, such as stop-motion and superimpositions which distract from the main focal point. The man seems to have been unable to resist doing the usual sort of dadaism with what he intended to be a documentary movie, which is rather humorous to see. This is not to say it is a bad thing; in fact, it adds a fairly entertaining element to a film that is otherwise interesting mainly to historians wanting to see German life in the early 30's. Strange, interesting, and certainly worth more recognition than it seems to be getting online.

Hans Richter was not just a skilled artist, he was also a humorist in his own way, as this short "Everything Turns, Everything Revolves" is evidence of. Similar to "Race Symphony" of the previous year, it appears once again to be the filmmaker's take on a documentation of a fairly typical event, in this case a carnival in Berlin. Unlike that film, however, it is more cohesive in some ways, and stylistically uses Richter's frantic editing techniques to a more comedic effect that is more interesting that in previous works.

The premise of "Everything Turns, Everything Revolves" is a number of acrobats at a show in a tent, which quickly gets out of hand. There is some wonderful editing with the head of a man being displaced before rejoining his body, and an interesting juggling scene made abstract in only the way Richter can do. Not a must see but for sure one that serves as one of the better examples of the filmmaker's editing style in films.

By 1928, Hans Richter was by no means past experimentation with the filmic medium; on the contrary, he was only beginning to discover how he could blur the lines between film and painting while using motion pictures to a greater effect than his artwork prior to that. A lot of the time, his work was purely abstract and used that abstraction to convey a main point, but "Race Symphony" is proof he also was interested in creating an abstraction out of pure documentary footage with no other apparent intent. Unlike "Everyday" and "Two Pence Magic", this film does not present itself with any obvious commentary involved, nor any other exterior purpose that might seem to enhance the meaning with the work: it is purely experimental, and one does not need to analyze it further to see it any different.

In this five minute film, Richter simply takes his documentation of a horse race and edits it in unique ways to create a unique variation on the work much in the style of most of his other movies made in the late 1920's. The usual frantic cutting, closeup shots, and superimpositions are all present within the film, which provide a fresh look at something that would be much less exciting within a documentary film. It's not an especially outstanding short by any means, but serves as a decent example of Richter's experimentation as he grew more and more familiar with the medium's potential in art.

While a certain amount of abstraction is to be expected in every film by German filmmaker Hans Richter, "Two Pence Magic" is somewhat of an exception. Instead of using photography to create unique effects and impressions on the audience, Richter's approach here is much more in the manner of the sort of compilation video you'd see on the Internet today, in that it is less about effect and more about blending unrelated clips together to create visual interest. The subtitle itself serves as an indication of what the filmmaker was going for - the phrase "A commercial in picture rhythm" suggests he was focused on creating a rhythm in the various clips of film edited together, and not nearly as much in the way of abstract effects.

"Two Pence Magic" is simply a very brief, two minute collage film that pieces together different segments of media, likely some of it found footage, through blending each clip with the next through the visual continuity they each share. This allows it to cycle through a series of completely unrelated topics while seeming whole and cohesive at the same time, a paradox that is best explained by watching the film itself. At the end, the commercial aspect becomes apparent and adds an extra layer to the movie, although the film is far from being a simple advertisement. Well done for what it's trying to accomplish, although not necessarily the classic type of Richter film most are used to.

It took German filmmaker Hans Richter a number of years to begin to use film as its own medium - and not merely as a continuation of his expressionistic paintings. That's all his first films were, as evidenced by the Rhythmus series that used moving shapes instead of inanimate objects to create abstraction, making them more like cartoons and less like the abstract films later created by the likes of Stan Brakhage. By the time Richter made "Ghosts Before Breakfast", his most famous work, he had really hit his stride and learned all the interesting things he could do with film not applicable to painting. Looking at his later work, one would never guess he had been a painter - this is how much he had deviated from his previous work.

According to some sources, "Ghosts Before Breakfast" is not a complete film today, likely due to the efforts of the Nazis who considered it anti-German art and attempted to destroy every copy. It's hard to imagine exactly what they had in mind by labeling it as such - to everyone else, the film is a six-to-nine minute short (depending on which copy you view) that features inanimate objects rebelling against humans in a rather abstract manner. The title is suggestive of a greater narrative regarding ghosts, but the film has no indication of this as it uses multiple gimmicks including negative photography, stop motion and mirror images to make the abstract events all more chaotic. There is a playful but frantic tone to the imagery on display, with remarkable photography edited the right way to get the desired effect, illustrating the fact that Richter was brilliant both as a painter and a filmmaker.

"The Story of the Kelly Gang" is a little recognized landmark in the history of filmmaking primarily for a single reason: its incomplete status. When initially released, Charles Tait's biographical film portraying the real life exploits of the notorious Kelly gang was seventy minutes in length, an impressive run time for a silent film at this point in history. The infamous features "A Trip to the Moon" and "The Great Train Robbery" were both considered feature length at only 10-15 minutes each, and having been released only a few years prior to this movie, one can only imagine how this film blew audiences away in 1906. Granted, it was not the first film to be considered "feature length" by our standards today (i.e. Over forty-five minutes in length), as this is a tribute that can be paid only to "The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Fight" of 1897, but it is certainly the first known film of such a length to present a narrative (the earlier film was basically a documentation of a full boxing match). Thus, it is rather disappointing that it is less of a landmark today than one might expect, again almost entirely because of being a mostly lost film (as of the time of this writing).

Actually being able to closely follow the narrative of this epic feature film from the remaining fragments is almost impossible, given the lack of continuity and minimal intertitle cards within these twenty minutes. It is hard to dispute, however, the exciting action throughout, with plenty of gunfire, hold ups, etc. That mark a typical western (even though this is technically not a western). Only bits and pieces survive that give the viewer a sense of what the film was originally like, the highlight perhaps being the final capture of Ned Kelly himself as the actor wears the bona fide armor of his real life character. Mainly worth a look for historians and film buffs now, as it is impossible to follow as a narrative but instead provides historical interest as the remnants of a lost landmark.