85.375

I know it's supposed to be a classic, but I have to be honest. Compared to most films of this late silent-era, I found this dull and not stylistically daring or special. Hence the grade.

"Through kaleidoscopic composition, Epstein affects Rorschach-like chiaroscuro, every image a dense, sludgy viscera, a looking glass held up to the audience and characters, daring us to pass through." - Ed Gonzalez

While not overly accurate to Poe's master piece, it still manages to capture its essence. Epstein's direction is outstanding. His use of symbolic imagery, camera movement and slow motion are highly poetic while being quite creative. Jean Debucourt sparks in his role of Usher. A surprising down-side are the poorly written cartons by Louis Bunuel. [This movie is in public domain and can be watched for free on archive.org]

Jean Epstein was, before a filmmaker, one of the most influential film theorists of cinema's early days. His ideas on the nature of photography in film are very interesting and very well put to use here; unfortunately though it is made clear by this film that he didn't know shit about rythem. Buñuel's script adaptation is awful.

Better than Nosferatu, and deserves whatever "status" that film may have.. Unfortunately it's only mildly interesting and worth a watch for buffs, seeing as it is pretty slow and unfortunately the nice imagery can't compensate fully for this.. A neat touch, is the focus on landscapes and "life" in general (compared to "art), which is examined further than in the original story..

Creepy music and visuals only do so much for me, and while this is a very atmospheric film it just didn't engage me enough. It drags with a drawn out underdeveloped story.

Even though it's ridiculously theatrical it's somewhat eerie and exciting. Visuals are pleasing. The script is pretty goddamn hilarious to be honest. "Take me to the house of Usher!" "Usher?" "Usher?!" "USHER!?" "Usher." What? Worth a watch, although it drags on.