B1gBut

This is a strange film. It has some notable strong points but they can't save the film from painful mediocrity.

I guess I should mention that the version i saw was in pretty bad shape but clocking in at around 70 min, i don't think there were any significant footage missing. Still, the print left a lot to be desired in terms of quality, as did the plot. The major events are disconnected, the character's actions make no sense and i couldn't understand anyone's motivation. Also, no amount of suspension of disbelief could make the fake tough guy act of The Rat (Ivor Novello) less annoying for me. The Rat is an early example of boy characters written way too obviously for girl viewers on the silver screen.

The editing is also so inconsistent that at times i couldn't tell whether the editing is really that bad or some frames are missing.

On a positive note, there were some well directed scenes here. I particularly liked the first encounter of the rat with Zelie. And the gangster elements in the film could be considered novel in 1925 (13 years after The Musketeers of Pig Alley and 2 years before Underworld).

The performances are fine but overall, I wouldn't recommend the film to anyone. Thanks for reading.

I won't lie, the number "Show Biz Bad" films in the relevant time period annoys me a bit and Synd (1928) fits well within those. At points I'd forget that its not a hollywood talkie/musical.

To be fair, there are some things that differentiate it and it doesn't make the mistake of playing down the "thirst for attention" aspect which made a few of the similar works pointless. Regardless of the context, the film itself is competent in most aspects. I particularly enjoyed the pacing. No scene is too long/short and the film remains engaging throughout the whole duration except for maybe a single scene. I found The ending a bit wanting but other than that, can't say i see much to complain about.

I recommend Synd unless you've seen many other pictures with the exact same structure and plot.

Also, it isn't a big deal for me but i might as well mention that the copy i watched had low qualty.

Yes, i did watch this because of Adventures of Prince Ahmad. I was taken aback by prince ahmad. There was a continuity and smoothness to some of the sequences that was genuinely unexpected and it served the story exceptionally well like how creepy the introduction of the villain is. Way more creepy in fact than expressionist films of the time with characters that desperately try to look creepy but end up looking like scooby-doo villains.

Unfortunately, that smoothness and continuity isn't here. There are actually too many cuts during the runtime. Everything is segmented and bite sized segments at that which is likely due to the short runtime since the Dr Dolittle shorts are a lot more continuous even if they also don't have the "smoothness". Maybe my expectation isn't fair but to me that's what elevated prince ahmad beyond a bunch of silhouettes.

That's not to say i didn't enjoy watching Cinderella. I'm sure everyone knows the story and the film even starts by summarizing it. Stories are boring when there's no element of surprise to them. This one did have a couple of surprises though and the style is still pretty effective in capturing the imagination.

And you know, its short enough that you might as well just watch it instead of reading this.