Pandora's Box

Louise Brooks is very captivating, and the film is technically excellent. It's not terribly enjoyable, though. I was kind of into it, I guess, but overall I thought it was a movie that was more important for its context than as a cinematic experience.

Watched in Melbourne in 1993 at what was then the Valhalla Cinema, with a score composed by Jen Anderson performed by a live orchestra. Everybody Brooks meets in this film, male or female, falls in love with her: Lulu makes this seem completely plausible. Adorno: "The rebellion of art against its false - intentional - spiritualization, Wedekind's for example in his program of a corporeal art, is itself a rebellion of spirit that, though it is not perpetually negative, does indeed negate itself."

Everybody loves Lulu because she loves life more than anyone else - life in comfort, life in beautiful things, and life in men - and she pours it right into that crack of people's heart that's craving to be filled; nobody's willing and able to take care of that love in the end, because it unavoidably flows beyond the boundary of people's fear of a freely sexual woman, and into a realm where greediness and murderous urges are no longer constrained from committing the worst crime possible.

Wonderfully shot with amazing cinematography. The film also has solid and, understated for the time, acting. The story however is where I feel this film falters. Lulu is a manipulative beauty who uses men and women alike to get what she wants and in turn gets used by her playthings.

Never trust a guy called Rodrigo Quast.

Louise Brooks is absolutely magnetic, but I have never read critics actually talk about the actual film. Frankly, on this first viewing, its not that great, especially against Pabst's superior Diary of a Lost Girl. The first quarter is very good, VERY good, but from the trial on it seems too padded and not really going into interesting areas. The potential conservative message against Pabst's moments of sympathy with Lulu causes a real rift, and its only the end where it gets back on point.

This film features some beautiful shots and the subject matter was, I imagine, very daring for its time. The acting is very good as well, and so this tragic tale has instantly become one of my new favorite silent films (only surpassed by 'Das cabinet des Dr. Caligari' and 'La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc'). A classic I would recommend without reservations.

I have little tolerance for superfluous melodrama and that seems to be all that this movie is. The whole idea behind it is that Lulu makes horrible decisions and does stupid and malicious things with no regard for other people and we're supposed to feel sorry for her. The problem is that she has no admirable traits and the viewer is given no reason to feel sorry for her. I, for one, was happy to see her on the verge of getting murdered at the end.

Possibly the least engaging film I've ever seen.

A bit heavy on the melodrama, but I was drawn in nonetheless thanks to the wonderful score, strong visuals and the undeniable charisma of Louise Brooks, rocking that 20's hairdo like a champ. She's so radiant, she practically burns off of the screen.

Louise Brooks is mesmerizing in the Pandora role, and Pabst surrounds her with such magnificently detailed sets that the film rarely fails to capture the eye. Pabst also makes excellent use of light, shadow, and a slightly expressionist milieu to create a compelling and engaging setting for his characters. The final act with Jack is probably the most engrossing, as the film seems to gain momentum throughout its run time.

The material here borders on being ridiculous at times, but Brooks' magnetic screen presence and Pabst's penchant for melodrama keep it captivating. Although it takes a bit of time to really get going, it's never dull, and the last two-thirds of the movie are incredibly compelling and enjoyable.

Brilliant, and with Louise Brooks in her at her very best. Feels as claustrophobic and inevitable as a bad dream. Passionately explores one dark aspect of femaleness in a way that today would be politically unacceptable if not impossible, touching some powerful places in the psyche.

Well, that's a heck of a Christmas movie. It reminded me a bit of Candide, where more and more ridiculous things kept happening but c'est la vie. I'd watch Brooks watching a candle for two hours, but the plot here wasn't as tight as most silents. Thankfully, it has solid cinematography and a good cast to pull it through the weaker spots. (Was not expecting JtR as a walk-on character.)

The second half feels so disjointed from the first - if either remained consistent throughout, I would have few complaints. As it stands, the pacing is brutal at times, despite admirable performances, polished editing, and a sweltering (almost feverish) atmosphere. The final act didn’t work for me whatsoever.

This is a film that is compelling, mercifully, by cinematographic standards alone. The finer details of the plot remain a point of personal disinterest.

Very solid silent with a fantastic Louise Brooks, who is completely convincing as the woman who drives the men around her crazy as an early film version of the femme fatale. The beginning, or the first third or so, is by far the best, but more than anything it's worth seeing for Brooks' performance. The acting in general is quite different than you see in most silents--much more modern.

Feels like an experiment, which it is.

86.00

Louise Brooks is just as ravishing as her reputation would claim. Beyond that, it's also a beautifully shot film that moves along at a nice pace and makes poignant points yet still leaves certain issues and characterizations maddeningly unclear and confusing.

A surprisingly subversive drama with a superb lead performance. The lead character, despite being the classic wanton temptress who drives men to depravity, comes off as sympathetic, even kind, merely unable to stop being who she is.

"'We are SMART cinephiles!'" http://illusionpodcast.blogspot.com/2015/12/episode-82-cinema-masters-vol-xi.html

may rise on rewatch. nick davis is his usual excellent self in writing about this one.

Too long.

85.000

convoluted and ludicrous, but also intriguing and morally ambiguous. something that seems to be the case with a lot of this mysterious german silent cinema. not pulled off as well as lang might have, but still good.

Complex in it's politics and in it's emotions, Pandora's Box packs a whollop.

Founded even less enjoyable after second watching. Lacks interest.

The men all agree that she's a sinful creature, that she's the Pandora who opened her box (oops) to let out all the evil. And yet the story Pabst's camera tells is the exact opposite, showing nothing but people projecting their various issues onto her and using and condemning her for it. Louise Brooks is stunning enough to keep the movie unmissable even when the plot goes a bit astray.

84.000

Okay, so, I didn't enjoy this film very much. I just wasn't feeling it. I felt myself drifting off into other thoughts many, many times. It's a good film, especially for its time. I just didn't really feel interested in it. It's weird, because I love German cinema of the 20s. The films I have seen are brilliant. Yeah, I don't know. I wouldn't want to put anyone off seeing it or anything. It just failed to captivate me, for whatever reason.

Pretty good if you watch it at 4x speed.

#214

I was entralled with the first half, but after the trial the movie took a couple of confusing turns and Lulu gets a lot less screentime. Too bad, because Brooks gives perhaps the best performance in a silent movie.

Louise Brooks is my favorite actress, and I suggest finding all of her movies and reading "Louise Brooks" by Barry Paris ASAP.

"This is a stirring vision of the world gripped by a sinister moral vice--a nosedive into a carnal abyss of despair lined with visionary chiaroscuro sights and thorny mythological references." - Ed Gonzalez

Geez Louise!

199

Brooks feels so modern in this.

Heart wrenching..

Much better than Jessner's Erdgeist.

189

# 209

I hate to say this but this movie sucks