Amateurish film even for is day. Everything is bad: caddish hero, shop-girl-like heroine, stupid plot, shoddy make-believe set (broad river with a great cascade, in a tiny, flat island?!), and absurdly implausible lighting that doesn't even get one frame right.
I value historical interest as much as the next person, and I have enough piety on reserve for the occasion, but I fail to see any historical significance here at all. I can't believe this movie was made in the same year in which Lubitsch did "Trouble in Paradise", and 7 years after Lubitsch's "Lady Windermere's Fan", and 8 years after Murnau's "Las Laugh". I thought film-making was supposed to progress forward, not regress backward. Maybe someone can enlighten me?
This is from the folks who gave us the original King Kong. Why am I not surprised?!
HD
