Death_to_Pan_and_Scan
Joined Jul 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews30
Death_to_Pan_and_Scan's rating
I watched the 4 hr reconstruction version and I couldn't wait for this film to finally be over. I awaited the words 'The End' the way many cineastes await the discovery of the long lost original cut of this silent film. Despite all its acclaim, the version I saw reveals Greed as an overly-long, ham-fisted melodrama 'epic' with cartoonish characters and situations, clumsy heavy-handed symbolism and the overacting typical of its era. McTeague's wife, Trina, is a pale imitation when compared alongside Ebenezer Scrooge and seems to have a level of depth closer approximating Disney's later character Scrooge McDuck. The film reminds me in some respects to the current trend of 'serious' 'prestige' Oscar-bait movies released every year just in time to receive nominations and wins during award season. It makes Capra's often-derided films seem subtle by comparison.
I can't help but wonder if the voters in various film polls who have acclaimed this film are voting on the extant 2.5 hour version or the 4 hr reconstruction (which often relies on a La Jetee-esquire slide show of old on-set photographs in an attempt to replace 1.5 hours of the missing footage) OR if they're voting for the alleged greatness of the mythic 9.5 hour version seen by a handful of people before it was cut to ribbons by the studio. It seems like people feel so sorry for von Stroheim's loss, that placing his film in the pantheon of 'great films' is an attempt at a consolation prize. Greed can't compare to achievements like Murnau's Sunrise, which also took a simplistic story, but through vision and artistry turned it into something much more. Unfortunately, Greed doesn't succeed similarly IMO. I wish a copy of the original version would be magically discovered in storage somewhere, either so we could see the greatness of this legendary film, or so we could at least debunk the myth of its legendary 'greatness'.
The story: Hot-headed ex-gold miner turned unlicensed dentist McTeague proposes to his friend's girlfriend Trina, after which she wins a $5,000 lottery. His friend with a misplaced sense of entitlement is jealous over the loss of the girl and the fortune, not knowing what a greed-obsessed, penny-pinching gold-hoarder Trina will become and how much she'll make McTeague's life miserable, making them live like paupers while she stashes away her interest on the business investment she makes with her uncle, not to mention the money she scrapes out of her husbands earnings. She'd be content for them to live in filth if she could hold onto her dream of someday swimming in a pile of gold. There are also parallel stories of a thieving maid woman who marries a junk dealer after her elaborate lie to him about a fantasized million $ gold set of dishes that she claims to have once owned/has buried away somewhere and a story of a couple of elderly boarders who live next door to one another and fall in love.
It's astounding that the telling of this story required even 4 hours, let alone 9.5 hours.
If you want to watch a film about what greed can do to people and see an over-the-top performance (in about half the runtime), I highly recommend 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre' instead. Sitting through 'Greed' is only recommended to silent film enthusiasts and film historians, yet 'tis still better than Vidor's 'The Crowd'.
I can't help but wonder if the voters in various film polls who have acclaimed this film are voting on the extant 2.5 hour version or the 4 hr reconstruction (which often relies on a La Jetee-esquire slide show of old on-set photographs in an attempt to replace 1.5 hours of the missing footage) OR if they're voting for the alleged greatness of the mythic 9.5 hour version seen by a handful of people before it was cut to ribbons by the studio. It seems like people feel so sorry for von Stroheim's loss, that placing his film in the pantheon of 'great films' is an attempt at a consolation prize. Greed can't compare to achievements like Murnau's Sunrise, which also took a simplistic story, but through vision and artistry turned it into something much more. Unfortunately, Greed doesn't succeed similarly IMO. I wish a copy of the original version would be magically discovered in storage somewhere, either so we could see the greatness of this legendary film, or so we could at least debunk the myth of its legendary 'greatness'.
The story: Hot-headed ex-gold miner turned unlicensed dentist McTeague proposes to his friend's girlfriend Trina, after which she wins a $5,000 lottery. His friend with a misplaced sense of entitlement is jealous over the loss of the girl and the fortune, not knowing what a greed-obsessed, penny-pinching gold-hoarder Trina will become and how much she'll make McTeague's life miserable, making them live like paupers while she stashes away her interest on the business investment she makes with her uncle, not to mention the money she scrapes out of her husbands earnings. She'd be content for them to live in filth if she could hold onto her dream of someday swimming in a pile of gold. There are also parallel stories of a thieving maid woman who marries a junk dealer after her elaborate lie to him about a fantasized million $ gold set of dishes that she claims to have once owned/has buried away somewhere and a story of a couple of elderly boarders who live next door to one another and fall in love.
It's astounding that the telling of this story required even 4 hours, let alone 9.5 hours.
If you want to watch a film about what greed can do to people and see an over-the-top performance (in about half the runtime), I highly recommend 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre' instead. Sitting through 'Greed' is only recommended to silent film enthusiasts and film historians, yet 'tis still better than Vidor's 'The Crowd'.
What a waste of 6 or 7 minutes. It's nice that he credited where he got his lighting style for this short film from, but it seems to be an unworthy 'tribute' otherwise. Mario Bava is easily one of the more influential people on genre filmmakers, particularly those working in horror and fantasy, but sadly it seems not all of his fans paid attention to his movies aside from his trademark 'lollipop lighting'. The music does feel like leftovers from Goblin (music for several of Dario Argento's films -- another filmmaker inspired by Bava, but one who actually learned enough to make some great films of his own), but I'm not going to complain about amateur music in a low budget student film.
I just don't see that Tareen seems to have learned much from the giallo genre -- which allegedly inspired this short film -- other than 'the killer wears leather gloves and sometimes takes a knife out of a non-cluttered area' (a drawer in this case, though nowhere approaching the type of weapon fetishization seen in films such as Argento's brilliant Deep Red). Granted, it's a short film and has little running time to develop much of a story, but it never really felt much like even so much as a giallo scene to me, even compared to the C grade efforts of some of Italy's lesser hack filmmakers. He should re-watch Bava's Telephone segment from 'I Tre Volti della Paura' for ideas how to make a giallo film with a short runtime. This seems more like an American slasher movie scene with interesting lighting than something truly giallo-influenced and titled.
I hope Tareen will re-watch giallo films to better understand them and/or read an online article on the genre (technically more of a 'filone') if he intend more homage to them. I'd suggest the Kinoeye article for starters. I also suggest he read the essential Tim Lucas book to better understand Bava, his work and his themes.
I just don't see that Tareen seems to have learned much from the giallo genre -- which allegedly inspired this short film -- other than 'the killer wears leather gloves and sometimes takes a knife out of a non-cluttered area' (a drawer in this case, though nowhere approaching the type of weapon fetishization seen in films such as Argento's brilliant Deep Red). Granted, it's a short film and has little running time to develop much of a story, but it never really felt much like even so much as a giallo scene to me, even compared to the C grade efforts of some of Italy's lesser hack filmmakers. He should re-watch Bava's Telephone segment from 'I Tre Volti della Paura' for ideas how to make a giallo film with a short runtime. This seems more like an American slasher movie scene with interesting lighting than something truly giallo-influenced and titled.
I hope Tareen will re-watch giallo films to better understand them and/or read an online article on the genre (technically more of a 'filone') if he intend more homage to them. I'd suggest the Kinoeye article for starters. I also suggest he read the essential Tim Lucas book to better understand Bava, his work and his themes.
One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.
This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.
From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.
This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.
Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.
This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.
From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.
This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.
Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth.