Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Better Late Then Never

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

I had wanted to see "Sidewalk Stories" ever since I read a rave review of it from Roger Ebert over twenty years ago. But for some reason, the movie never got a release on video (at least in North America) right after its theatrical release. And when it finally got released on DVD a couple of years ago, all the video stores were gone. Fortunately, thanks to Turner Classic Movies, I finally got to see the movie, and it was well worth the wait. It's a brave movie, not only being a silent movie in black and white, but also that there are no title cards to tell us what the characters are saying or doing. There are a couple of moments when some written text would have cleared up things a little, but otherwise the movie is all the same very easy to follow. Charles Lane clearly boned up on the movies of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton, because the movie really has the feel of many of those classic comedians' movies - though interestingly, Lane's movie is mostly serious in tone instead of being more comic. (Though there are some genuinely humorous moments here and there.) And while its main intent is to entertain, Lane does manage to make some effective statements on homelessness. A sex fantasy sequence does seem out of place, and the final scene - where we finally hear dialogue - also was a misguided touch. But apart from those minor quibbles and a few others, "Sidewalk Stories" is an independent film triumph that you'll remember for a long time.

I have known about and been wanting to see this gem ever since I looked at various movie sites that mentioned it over a decade ago. I read about it and the details concerning this made me interested in it and wanted so badly to see it. Another reviewer of this on here typed that he caught it on PBS and aired on that channel, let alone any other, only once and for some dumb, jacked-up reason, I know that it was released on VHS in Germany, but never in the U.S. and to date, it still hasn't been brought to DVD either. And since learning about the Youtube site that was founded and established a few years back, I kept checking back the search engine on the site to see if anyone posted it on there. Every time I did, there was no copy uploaded unfortunately. That is until a few months ago. I found it after searching once again on there a couple months after it was posted (which took long enough) and it's about time. Finally, at last. I thought I was never going to get to see it, since it's been so difficult to find a copy of the full movie online (although prior to that, I came across a clip of the feature on the same video site). Following watching it for the first time, I got to say I loved and enjoyed it a lot, just as I thought and knew I would.Although Mr. Lane had already made a short film prior to this one over a decade earlier called A Place in Time as a film school project and assignment, this obscure, full-length, follow-up may be the better known for the two and for which he's best renowned. This must be the only, old-timey, black and white, (mostly) silent film shot in the second half of the 20th century (or at least, the only one that I know of anyway), because I haven't discovered any others. And if there really aren't, that's disappointing, because I'd love to see more filmmakers do something like this and again. Anyway, this movie is a throwback to the pre-colorized, pre-talkie kind of flicks. Lane's character, The Artist, is truly Chaplin's The Tramp-inspired and he captures that inspiration well. The Artist's life change when he happens to come across witnessing a robbery one night and a man is murdered, leaving his baby daughter (who happens to be Lane's real life daughter) an orphan. The Artist takes it upon himself to be her temporary guardian. We follow the adventures and misadventures they have as they journey around Greenwich Village, New York until he finds the mother and reunites the baby with her. The soundtrack in this is just as great. Early on, this takes a look at the wide array of denizens who live on the streets, but that situation isn't quite the made focus. If none of y'all who may be reading my review have ever seen a b&w, silent flick, then I advise y'all to do so. I know it captivated me the first time I saw it instantly. I hope someone else will do something like this in the future and I'd look forward to it.

It takes a lot of nerve to update a classic silent comedy, and do it again as a silent film, but that's the idea behind this Reagan-era remake of the 1921 Chaplin comedy 'The Kid'. Writer/producer/director Charles Lane himself takes the Little Tramp role, playing a homeless New York City street artist who reluctantly adopts an abandoned toddler (in real life Lane's own daughter). Both have big shoes to fill, Lane most of all because, unlike Chaplin, he isn't exactly a creative genius, and his attempts at visual comedy are never more than mildly amusing, at best.But silence is golden, and more to the point for a struggling independent filmmaker, it can be economical as well. By muting the voices on screen Lane succeeds in muting the harsh impact of poverty, bringing some charm to what could have been a merely depressing backdrop. So why introduce the panhandler's begging voices in the final scene, when their faces alone would have been eloquent enough? It amounts to thematic overkill in an otherwise engaging novelty (if not much else), with a likable underdog as its director and star.

I saw this film a number of years back---circa 1990---on PBS. It got ONE airing...and I never saw it again. I had even forgotten the title...until I ran across it by accident.Charles Lane pays homage---in a manner of speaking---to Chaplin...by way of default. This was a period when Blacks were still struggling to get any film made...and struggling to have films released. Lane ran out of dollars, evidenced by some few moments of sound.But he manages to salvage the film in the style of pantomime...like the "ol' time flickers". This film is more a commentary on the times, than an homage to any particular screen idol of the past. Homelessness and poverty are its main themes, and the struggle to survive is intensified when the hero takes on the added responsibility of caring for a child whose parent has gone down in an "unfortunate happenstance".The acting is natural, not campy, and there are a few "hot scenes". But, all in all the film is a good watch, rather touching at points, filled with 'Chaplin-esque' pathos (a la "The Kid"...but it doesn't get quite that intensely mushy). However, the closing scene is pretty intense, and reveals a bit of the pain, misery and suffering all too pervasive during that time---all in the name of greed--and much of which remains with us to this day.Charles Lane needs to make other films, and he needs to put this one back into circulation--it merits an across the board viewing. This one is a stand alone of the genre of Black films and, though it had nothing even close to the budget of Mel Brook's "Silent Movie", its point are well taken. It is a movie that you will enjoy...and I would caution having the kids watch due to some sexual situations and a little violence. But enjoy. I don't know if this film is back in circulation---I understand it has been out of circulation for some time...but I would not mind coming into possession of a copy.