Brilliant and touching

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Every scene looks like Picasso' painting. Absolute art. For that time even for our time its very very modern look. Buildings, rooms, windows, streets, town looks very interesting shape.

Of course, back in the 1920s you would expect to watch bad quality but really, none of it made sense to me. I don't usually watch silent films but the poster made me want to watch it and it reminded me of David Bowie in dark version like! What was so annoying as well in silent movies like this, you would miss half the words they say, like if the text screen pops up and then disappears, you would still see them still talking! I have to say, this one was even worse and gave me a headache really lol! Its not that i don't like silent movies, its just that well they can be very hard to follow. Whereas the talkies were easier to know what the hell is going on with the characters! Its a pity I didn't get to enjoy it since the Joker inspired actor Conrad Veidt was on this...

Between the varying and conflicting production testimonies of its many players, the endless bizarre legends and anecdotes serving as catalysts for various design and creative choices; between all this there is a small, independent, seminal art-house movie that premiered in 1920 to resounding accolades, praise and most importantly for all involved, money. It was a success that surprised most of the people involved, but looking back at Caligari almost a century forward, it's easy to see how the film was at first universally adopted as revolutionary, and then analysed to death by scholars over the coming decades to the point where the actual film—that is, as a work of interpretive art and not something that desperately requires classification and resolute distinction in terms of motivations, political ideology, historical placement, influence and social stature —is often overshadowed by its lasting legacy as something more than just that.Rather than drive myself to madness attempting to unwrap the mystery of Janowitz, Mayer and Wiene's unending battle of dispute over who did what and why and where, I instead prefer to see Cabinet for what it is; a deceptively straight-forward murder-mystery that exists in a world of irregular angles and avant-garde design. And I'm not just referring to the movie's expressionist scenery which is, of course, what makes the most immediate impression on a first viewing. I'm also alluding to the twisted, dream-like state in which the characters move within their world, almost as if they were one in the same. You could argue, in fact, that they are cut from the same piece of cloth that never wants to settle down in a neat little arrangement until you wish to make use of it. Instead, both the characters and the world in Caligari demand your immediate attention from the very beginning and in a strange way it's hard to draw your attention elsewhere, even if everything does seem a bit otherworldly, strange and abstract.If you're looking for some sort of synopsis from this review, then best leave now. It's a relatively simple affair as I pointed out before, but even then there are many differing interpretations. My own is not in fact my own. Others share it, and it's relevant to us as individuals who see the movie the way we do, but the details of such a view aren't important to you as someone who—potentially—hasn't seen the film yet. Anyone else who has already seen it, more than likely already knows, or doesn't care. What is important, is simply the distinction that exists between Caligari and many films that came before it. It's open-ended, open to debate and, once more, refuses to be consolidated merely to straight, perpendicular angles with only one logical conclusion. This aspect, along with the overall style, atmosphere and artistic merit of the feature is what makes it special. On paper, it's nothing special, and by no means do I loft it as highly as other film historians, scholars or enthusiasts. Let me be clear. I'm not one to automatically prescribe "genius" to trailblazing films ahead of their time for that fact alone. Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a great film, and an extremely important and influential one for sure. But it's not the pinnacle of the movement it begins. It's not perfect, and no, I don't believe it to be a masterpiece. Masterpieces are timeless, and while it's very easy to watch and enjoy Caligari a century on, it's still mostly important because of the time in which it was produced. Again, it's a simple affair. Simple, but extremely effective. So much so that it caused a cinematic revolution, the echoes of which we still hear today.

A simple plot, but with a great execution, a gem every cinephile must discover, "The Cabinet...¨ is among the best of the best, even for its time.One can easily perceive why it became a classic: not only for the superb visual style, with those surreal, curved decorates that give the feeling of being trapped in a nightmare, but also for its dark, engaging and suspenseful plot (highlight scenes are the kidnapping of one of the main characters, and the last 20 minutes). A psychological thriller, which even has its moments of horror, as it's normally considered to be the first of that genre, at least in full-length format, if we compare it with, for example, short films such as "Frankenstein" from 1910. The uses of colors, framing, lighting, makeup, shadows, are all perfectly executed in order to give life to a nightmarish atmosphere.It is also important to note that it has the honor to be the film that founded the German Expressionist Movement, which would give us other treasures such as Nosferatu, The Hands Of Orlac, and Metropolis.Superb are also the performances, especially Conrad Veidt as Cesare and Werner Krauss as his master the doctor, who are already very creepy not only by their physical appearance, but also because they imbue an aura of mystery.And last but not least, the final plot twist (being also the pioneer film in using this device) encourages debate, and (why not?) further viewings. This twist, if it was not enough, was used in some later and recent modern films, with more or less variations, but I have no doubt that in its time it shocked audiences.A truly amazing experience. And it is already among my favorite silent films.