@ Harry Long
Yeah… I can imagine. I think 2001 Space Oddesey got a pretty mixed reception when it first came out, Blade Runner also, and recently Children of Men didn’t do so well with the public.
But I still think I would have had a blast if I had been there in 1927.
I think people fail to appreciate how special these pictures are now that special effects are so common place and we have sharp images and sharp plots and acting etc.
I prefer Spione
I prefer Spione
@ Eli
Certainly its visual look was emulated (particularly in HIGH TREASON and JUST IMAGINE); can’t say I can think of too many sci-fi films that emulated its themes.
@ Berjuan
I keep reading that peculiar notion about 2001 … critical reception was mixed, but the film was the second-highest earner of the year it was released. And since it started out as a roadshow, back in the days when films slowly filetered down from the larger to the smaller cities, it was probably pulling in first-run earnings well into 1969 (which is when it got to our town).
Sorry to be posting this so late but I couldn’t resist after seeing some of the film tonight. I watched “Metropolis” at the Royal Theater in santa monica and i agree with the majority and say it wasn’t as appealing as I thought it would be. I’ve been wanting to see this film for about a year so it was pretty hyped up in my mind, especially to see it on the big screen with those “25 minutes of lost footage” the billboard mentioned, but honestly (and in my opinion), the story was mediocre and the majority of the film just seemed to go too slow.
And though some of the visuals were really some of the most amazing scenes I have seen (especially for it’s time), it really didn’t make up for the rest of the film. It could have been that I walked in a bit late to the film and had to leave early so I really don’t have a say in it, but I’m just glad it wasn’t just me who thought the film didn’t get a home-run. Is home-run a lame term?
Tip: By the way, never sneak movie in a silent film.
Metropolis swings for the fences, but ultimately only has warning track power.
It is visually a magnificent film, but the pacing and storyline leave much to be desired.
So, no, it is not a homerun.
It’s truly a visionary film, but i can’t say i’m all that excited about the new cut. I’m tired of the film basically.
Overall though, can’t deny it’s power and influence.
Have you seen the recent restoration yet, Jason?
never sneak food in a silent film.
im an idiot
Saw the recent restoration ( with the added footage) in Cambridge last night…as a prelude to the Cambridge Film Festival.
Fantastic music, great ideas, terrible script, agonizing last 35 minutes and a disappointment overall. Sometimes it becomes trendy to “appreciate” a movie – i think this is one of those.
Sorry, nothing great. Better than Night at the Museum or Twilight, but the greatness was lost to me!
Hopefully Ben got a chance to see the restoration.
I’d like to do a re-edit of Metropolis
Jason, with a really cool disco score?
I guess that “Metropolis” might have been the first film to suffer the effects of film production on a massive scale. With colossal settings and hundreds of people on set it’s hard to concentrate your mind in more than the visual aspect of the work. As with many great productions that came later, the story is overshadowed by the magnificence of the visuals. “Metropolis” is a great film, both in scale and artistic merit. But the question remains: has any director been able ever since to make a better film with such gargantuan production values?
The only way someone could call Metropolis “average” is if they were completely blind.
HOWEVER (mmm, I love that word), I view Metropolis as like the first “big Cameron picture” – not seriously, mind, but essentially that’s what it is. It’s extravagant and technically proficient (and, I might add, there’s much more substance/resonance than Cameron could ever hope for), but it’s ultimately weighed down by it’s own virtuosity – and not in a particularly ‘great’ way. I think, if I had seen it when it was released, it would’ve been waay over my head and the bias of being there when this achievement was taking place would’ve coloured my opinion considerably, but now that I have the advantage of hindsight I can look past the technological achievements and appraise it full on.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a wonderful visual achievement and is certainly a cinematic landmark (I’ve used that term twice today and I don’t know why…), however, it clashes with my own personal preferences, so my only qualms with it are subjective ones (namely, emotional ones). Objectively, it’s importance is undeniable. Everyone should see it – BOTH cuts (each helps one appreciate the other, heh).
Oh and I just gotta regurgitate this little quote for posterity: “Sorry, nothing great. Better than Night at the Museum or Twilight, but the greatness was lost to me.”
It is a great movie, taken in the context of when it was made. We certainly can’t compare it to a modern-day film. Very prescient and timeless all at once.
it is great because it is timely and timeless. the message remains true and relevant to this day. fritz lang once admitted that he was a visionary, and he applied that trait in this film. but there was more to that. sci-fi is hardly my preference, but this silent film captured my interest.
Great is the answer to it because it is Fritz Lang’s greatest masterpiece as well one of the first true modern sci-fi flicks in cinema history and never forgotten in silent film era. I’m pretty stoked for to see it on Blu-Ray for the first time real soon. It belongs on my top 5 greatest sci-fi flicks as #3.
Metropolis (animated film) great but could be better, Metropolis (Lang) is excellent.
this topic is a travesty.
Eli Goodspeed
I refer to “Metropolis” as the “Brave New World” of film. Like Huxley’s masterpiece in the literary world, so is Lang’s film in the film world. And the themes and atmosphere depicted in the film were heavily emulated in sci-fi movies for years to come, so, when you look at it from an influential standpoint, it’s indisputable as to its significance.