Fantastic!

Absolutely the worst movie.

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Not many people watch the old silent films these days, but for those that actually take the time to do so, sometimes, I think, those people carry a 'respect for the elderly' approach when assessing them. In other words, they give the film a certain degree of deference simply because the film is old. After watching "The Phantom Carriage," and seeing its lofty rating (currently 8.1/10), I think that is likely the case here. Having said that, going in I was fully prepared to like, or more probably, love The Phantom Carriage. I enjoy horror films in general and I have no qualms watching silent/old films, many are among my favorites. However, the films have to 'work' - or more simply - make sense, and this one just sadly does not. *Spoilers follow*The plot largely centers around a ne'er-do-well, David Holm, and the Salvation Army worker, Edit, who tries to help and redeem him. However, Edit shows an abnormal affection for and interest in David, despite only meeting him once or twice. Now, for one, there is no viable explanation for why Edit, the Salvation Army worker, should care SO MUCH for the miserable David; even to the point of proclaiming her love for this man that she knows literally nothing about, other than he is a contemptible misanthrope of the highest order. Hardly the stuff for inspiring undying love. So there is a real problem with that plot element that is never satisfactorily resolved or explained. Second, David's redemption comes about rather quickly, after witnessing his general barbarity for a good 90 minutes. Time and again he is shown to be an unfeeling brute, even to the point of carelessly endangering the lives of his own children. And then, in a flash, he is a new man. It's an incredibly quick turnaround for the cad that David was. Dickens handled this material much better in his "A Christmas Carol," a story that "The Phantom Carriage" borrows heavily from but never successfully duplicates.Other reviewers have mentioned the story structure itself is somewhat jumbled. I agree and it does not help the film. There are flashbacks, and flashbacks within flashbacks, and it becomes a bit of a chore to keep track of it. These flashbacks are not announced, mind you, you just have to sort of suddenly realize the scene you are watching is a flashback. This may have been different and revolutionary in 1921, so sure, it can be acknowledged, but does that mean it is worthy of fawning acclaim?The cinematography is superb for the time. The oft-mentioned double exposures used for the phantom carriage scenes are certainly noteworthy, and for that the film should be recognized as breaking new ground. But a classic or 'all-time great?' It is most certainly not. The issues outlined above keep it from attaining such a status. And although there were some inspired shots in the film, for really effective, harrowing scenes one must look no further than the next year's 'Nosferatu' - the vampire in that film truly was a chilling sight to see and is easily more memorable than anything in 'The Phantom Carriage.' Or, for just an all-around great film from 1921, Chaplin's 'The Kid' is infinitely more entertaining. 'The Phantom Carriage' is plodding, tedious and flawed by comparison.6/10. Sometimes a film is.....just a film and not much more. There's a reason why "The Kid" has 80k+ votes and "The Phantom Carriage" has only 7k. One is a masterpiece, and one is not. You guess which is which.

"Korkarlen", or "The Phantom Carriage", is a milestone in Swedish cinema. It was a favourite film of Ingmar Bergman, and featured ground breaking special effects to represent the supernatural, and a plot filled with unprecedented complications. All movie goers are familiar with flashbacks; this 1921 work uses flashbacks within flashbacks.The film's superstition states that the last person to die on New Years Eve must spend the next year gathering souls for Death in a lonely carriage. Edit, a Salvation Army sister, lies on her death bed with one last wish: that David Holm, the man she prayed for, should come to see her so she can see if her prayers were answered. He is first visited by the ghost of Georges, a man who died last New Years Eve and is now gathering souls.Along with flashbacks, the film makes liberal use of transparency of characters - and their carriage - to represent the afterlife. At one point we see the Phantom Carriage gliding over water to collect the soul of a man who has just drowned.Death is represented by the "ghost", or transparent actor, rising from the prone body of the deceased, the same actor lying still and opaque. I'm not sure if this is the first movie to use this effect; if it is, it deserves recognition. It reminded me immediately of Patrick Swayze's "Ghost", made some 70 years later. This effect has served filmmakers well.If all of this sounds confusing, unfortunately, that is because it is. I was well on board for "Korkarlen" for its first half. However, in the second I lost interest, tired of keeping up with its constant doubling back on itself. "Korkarlen" is an example of the phrase that we only know what is enough when we know what is more than enough. It pointed the way for special effects and flashback scenes, and perhaps also demonstrated why the latter should not be overused.

I read a great deal of work on cinema and yet had never heard of this film. It is a remarkable example of the best the silent era had to offer. The acting is subdued and believable. More is done with the faces and postures of the characters than is done with most modern films. Sjostrom a the lead character has the marvelous ability to show a kind of kind exterior while suffering inside. There are times when we see him on the edge of salvation, but he thinks a moment and pulls back inside. He is so set on the revenge on his wife that it trumps everything, even the lives of his little children.It is the story of a Salvation Army worker, a young woman, who is dying of consumption. On her death bed, she calls for David Holm to be brought to her. The response from those around her is that of fear and disgust. Yet she persists and her cohorts start a search for him. It is unsuccessful since he has determined to have nothing to do with her. Even the wife is brought to the young woman. She is in incredible pain. We now get the story in a series of flashbacks, precipitated by the story of the Phantom Carriage which is driven by the last sinner to die on New Year's Eve. He must put in one year before he is released to his reward. David, instead to going to see Edit (the young woman), gets in a fight with his drinking buddies and is killed, just a few seconds before midnight.This is a story of reclamation, which is one of my favorite themes. It is rather Dickensian in some ways. The beauty of this is that we are treated to the incredible resistance to transformation that Sjostrom's character puts up. This is one of the better movies I've ever seen.

This is, quite simply, the first masterpiece of cinema. An incredibly moving tale, it takes a simple plot and executes it brilliantly. Similar to Dickens' Christmas stories, a deceased man is taken on a journey to show the suffering he has wrought in his life of drunken debauchery.The moral centre of the film is the saintly Sister Edit who somehow sees Christ in this fallen man and seeks to save him, though it will cost her her own life.The cinematography is of an exceptionally high standard, with excellent use being made of chiaroscuro-style lighting in particular. Tinted film stock conveys atmosphere and the ghostly effects are simple by modern standards, yet extremely well-executed.The film builds towards a dramatic and heart-rending climax.The portrayal of the alcoholic David is subtle. Reminiscent of a character in Waiting for Godot, he kicks out at those who try to help him and offer charity. He is both a frightening monster and extremely human and vulnerable. The growth of his character throughout the film is plausible and extremely well-done.This, then, was the first perfect film.