I know that the reasons (length, silentness, grainy quality) are obvious. But don't you think that anyone willing to see a 4 1/2 hour silent movie would be inclined to like it?
black and white movies were better
Well, you summed it up yourself, it's a shame. Do you know many people inclined to see a 4 1/2 hour silent movie? I don't.
On the other hand I know many people inclined to watch THREE 3 hour sound and color movies in a row (The Lord of the Rings).
7.8 is quite a good rating on IMDb, considering that the lowest entries in the top 250 only have 8.0.
I am a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar.
It's not a BAD rating, but I would think that anyone willing to watch a 4+ hour silent film would be inclined to like it. The average philistine that would bring down the rating would never have heard of this.
black and white movies were better
"The average philistine that would bring down the rating would never have heard of this."
In the wonderful world of IMDB, it doesn't mean they wouldn't give it a 1 rating. The 12+ % of ones have a lot to do with it. Then there are Fritz Lang fans, who expect to see another M or Metropolis, and it's not it (personally I don't see why anyone would prefer Metropolis over Mabuse).
Well I prefer Metropolis. My problem with this film is the second part. It is laborious. The first part is far more entertaining.
shareI kinda agree. There's a lot of interesting build up, but I suppose one needs to stay on tracks quite well in order to appreciate the second part. That's at least how I felt about it.
shareI always thought this was much better than metropolis, but now that I have seen the restored version, I'm not so sure.
black and white movies were better
Maybe some, like me, might not have realized this was a 4.5 hour movie when they rented it/began watching it and therefore might not be terribly thrilled with the prospect after such a realization dawns on them. I rented this after enjoying the sequel but 4.5 hours of having to stare at the screen is pretty brutal. At least those Lord of the Rings flicks I can do other things during the slow parts but a silent film makes that pretty impossible. Probably turns off many early on.
Also some might just be watching because it's a known movie and they're curious, not because they enjoy such a movie.
When I saw this DVD on the shelf in the local video store and noticed that it was a Fritz Lang I grabbed it. The first Lang film that I watched was M but that was mainly because it had a very young Peter Lorre in it. When going through an old Sci-fi stage I happened to see Metropolis. The sheer scale of that film was absolutely amazing. Recently, while going through a few Brigitte Bardot films, Lang appeared as himself in Contempt. I found that film a little too avant garde though.
Turning to Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler; like you, I didn't realise that it was 4-1/2 hours long either. To gain a bit of an insight I first watched a 30-minute documentary. Lang talked about the Dr Mabuse character in particular as well as his films and society in Germany at the time. I watched the film with the audio commentary on which played on and off about a quarter of the time throughout the film. The commentary wasn't distracting at all.
After about 1-1/2 hours, though, I did find this film a little gruelling. The film being made up of acts provided good break-points. It took me a few days to finish watching the film. The story was interesting from start to end. After a while I sort of could follow the story from the acting alone. I mean, I tended to watch the characters more and more and merely refer to the text for detail or confirm the visual story.
All in all, Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler is well worth watching. It's a fine example of an expressionistic art form by a great director. For the record, I rated it 8/10 - very good.
Turning finally to the topic; the low rating seems to be because of the disproportionality large number of 1/10 ratings. No doubt these were from people who were expecting something else and don't appreciate masterpeices like this.
Another thing worth noting about the user ratings is how relatively unpopular it was for women aged 45+. This wouldn't have dragged the average down by much though because, for some strange reason, only 10% of the voters were women.
To sum up, 7.8 is a fairly accurate rating for this film IMHO.
dunno. on tcm today. sounds good to me...
🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴
I've just watched it on TCM. Amazing movie! I am so happy they restored such a gem.
shareI wouldn't call anything over 7 low,and its at 7.9 now.My cable company allows me to tape movies,so any long silents,I watch in hour segments,and we can store up to 50 movies,to see anytime.Love anything by Fritz Lang....
shareI'm over 100 silent movies and this was a good movie but not even close to my top 20.
Worth watching, historic but just as a stand alone movie, just decent
6 / 10