Looking at the first half, I was going to give it a five-star review, but the second half made me decide to give it one less star.
The restored version I watched, the opening subtitles told the restoration process, and I found the complete version after a lapse of decades, which made me think of the lost "Orphans Save the Ancestors" for the first time.
The first half brought me a surprise. The scene was amazing. It was really imaginative and powerful to be able to create such a grand scene in that era. After watching it, it really is the most expensive movie in the silent film era. Although some shots can be seen at a glance as the shooting method of special photography (that is, the shooting method of Ultraman), the real scenes with character interaction are already amazing.
I still have a small question about the full version, why Metropolis dominates overhearing the geek scientist and knocking out the scientist there are subtitles and no show. I feel that this part can be performed, and it is not procrastinated, but it seems a little procrastinated to appear in such a long subtitle in a silent film. So is this segment not filmed in the first place, or is this so-called full version still missing a small part? Although I lean towards the former, I still have doubts.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
The second half started to get chaotic.
The first is the legend that Maria told about the ancestors who built the Tower of Babel. My English is not good, so I don’t know if I misunderstood it. According to the Chinese subtitles, the brains who originally thought of building the Tower of Babel were unable to do it themselves, so they paid to hire hands to help build it. Then the hands felt too tired and didn't want to. If they quit, they resisted the brain and demolished the Tower of Babel. People pay you to do the work, but it's not the feudal autocratic monarch who forced you to come with a whip. If you don't want to do it, just leave. Why are you rebelling against others and tearing down their belongings? ? ? It's not that the brain and the hand need a regulator, it's that the hand has no brain.
Now back to the plot of the movie itself.
The workers live very hard, and the capitalists live well. Then the workers' anger was directed towards the machines and robots. I was really full of question marks.
When the workers heard what the robot said, they immediately became violent and smashed the core machine recklessly, so that the workers' children and their families were almost drowned or smashed to death.
After a few words from the fat foreman, the workers turned their attention to the robot.
It's not that I want to take the hat, but the plot itself has portrayed the workers as mindless images, so I think the plot is suspected of maliciously smearing the workers.
Are the workers portrayed as mindless just to echo the hand and brain metaphor that has been mentioned in the film? But the metaphor itself does not make sense. If the metaphor has to be emphasized, then the Metropolis should be disabled.
Personally, in my humble opinion, whether in reality or in the foreshadowing of the film, what makes the working class difficult, and the opposition to the working class should be the capitalists represented by the rulers of the metropolis, not machines or robots. The point of contradiction in the film should be the class antagonism, not the antagonism between man and machine, man and robot.
In the movie, the workers immediately rioted after hearing the bewitchment of the robot. They didn't rush to the capitalist's office, but to the machine. After the machine was destroyed, they rushed to the robot. Scientists become the new villains.
From the beginning to the end, it seems that the Metropolis dominates the brains on the side of the workers, but suffers from no intermediate mediators.
And in the scene of adjusting the hands and the brain at the end, it is no problem for the brain to be dominated by the metropolis, but why is the representative of the hands the fat foreman? It begins with the fat foreman telling the "brain" that the "hands" are dishonest and plotting something. The "hands" in the back rioted and smashed the machine, and the fat foreman was also on the opposite side of the "hands". Until they were about to burn the robot, the fat foreman and the "hands" were on the same front. Why does this fat foreman represent the "hands" at the end.
The above is my evaluation of this movie, the first half is amazing, the second half is confusing.
View more about Metropolis reviews
