Wonderful character development!

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

When it comes to the world of cinema, there has never been and probably never will be a bigger villain to make an impact on the screen more than that of—cue ominous stinger—the studio executive. Our oft belittled and antagonised hero, the auteur-director-genius, fights for his art to survive the relentless scissors which hack and cut and simplify and malign his soul's innermost-visions, his heart's dismays and his head's vitriol at a world which sneers at the misunderstood, holier-than-thou artist. The villains play their part well, and live up to their reputations in more cases than not. However, when watching Foolish Wives, one can't help but feel that maybe roles have been reversed for a short while. Erich von Stroheim writes, directs and stars in his first "grand vision" of a film which somewhat fittingly focuses on a leading character with no likable qualities or redeeming features. In the majority of other films, he would be the villain. Unlike Lon Chaney in 1920s gangster flick The Penalty however, this doesn't make the rest of Stroheim's bloated film interesting or in any way enjoyable. Watching the movie now, with a mere 140 minutes of footage salvaged from the original six hours, it's plain to see why most of the movie was mercilessly cut to ribbons. Often laboriously indulging in his own elaborate sets and painfully uninteresting characters (with the exception of his own), the film goes on and on, only briefly doing something interesting before succumbing back to mundane trivialities that go nowhere slowly. Stroheim does a fair job at portraying his character as dutifully repugnant as was obviously his intent, and his cast of supporting actors and actresses hand in commanding performances when called upon. But in building this self-indulgent attack on what he saw as European hypocrisy, the director comes off as a bit of a sham himself; talking loudly and endlessly about next to nothing of any real significance other than as a means to stroke his own fragmented ego. The moral of the story? The cutting room floor isn't always where genius and art dies. Sometimes it's where overweight, needlessly self-important films go to heaven. There's probably a decent film here, but it was lost in the seventies, not in the twenties.

What can be said? This movie is a challenge of near-epic proportions.Today, we have killer food-eating contests (quantity, spiciness). But I think 1922 may have given us our first film endurance challenge that may actually have an impact on human health.Fifteen minutes in, you realize this is no entertainment. It's an assault on the mind. After having been told this film, slightly longer than 2 hours, was cut from a planned 6-10 hours, you contrast this information with the slow, plodding, drawn-out, pointless scenes. The maddening impossibility of it attacks logic, fries the brain.I believe a good many reviewers had to have access to a sharp stick, or perhaps some illegal speed-like drugs, to survive the ordeal. Even live piano accompaniment does nothing to diminish the strain of trying to remain awake, in a pleasant mood.I'm so glad it's over. You'd best avoid it. If you don't, remember I warned you.

In 1999, I watched a documentary about movies that changed my life. In 2001, my late grandfather gave me a book that changed my life. There were many titles the two both matched, but three of them I'll never forget. The first is 'Dog Star Man' from Brakhage, but that one didn't made up its promise. The two other ones, however, 'Scorpio Rising' from Anger and 'Foolish Wives' from Von Stroheim, truly did. They both tell the story about a guy with a hat made from leather. I was amazed by that leather hat, and 'Scorpio Rising' has become my favorite movie ever. 'Foolish Wives' is not as good as I thought it would be, but still, it's Von Stroheim's best picture (even though I saw 'Greed' too). In fact, you must see 'Foolish Wives' for two things that occur in the picture: Von Stroheim who looks in a mirror, and Von Stroheim who smokes heavily. That's all.

Three Russian aristocrats lease a villa from which they can luxuriously enjoy Monte Carlo. They are: maid-pinching Maude George (as Princess Olga Petchnikoff), blonde-wigged Mae Busch (as Princess Vera Petchnikoff), and monocled lady-killer Erich von Stroheim (as Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin). You should also keep an eye on their foolish maid, Dale Fuller (as Maruschka). Mr. von Stroheim is the film's star, director, and writer. It becomes obvious the trio are really counterfeiting con artists. The gang of three are intrigued by the notice of the arrival of American Envoy Rudolph Christians (as Andrew J. Hughes) and his wife Miss DuPont (as Helen); they decide to strike up a societal acquaintanceship with the Americans, to help provide cover for their swindling. Then, von Stroheim shows Ms. DuPont his stiff cane, and give her bare legs a leer… Have a great laugh when Ms. DuPont, while applying her face cream, declares she is twenty-one years old; husband's reply he that is a sun-burned forty-one shows he can shave off years with the best of them. Mr. Christians died during the production, and his white-haired replacement, back to the camera, is obvious; with all the expense obviously spent on "Foolish Wives", it's difficult to understand why von Stroheim could not add a little bit of cheap shoe polish to Robert Edeson's head. There are other problems with the story, which was brutally cut down from a multi-hour epic. Still, the studio heads could not cut the neither the length of von Stroheim's cigarettes, nor the fact that his (vanity) production of "Foolish Wives" retains its spectacle.