The Fall of the House of Usher (1928)

Some things I liked some I did not.

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

One of the benefits of knowing Dave Sindelar (of sci-film.org and the "Movie of the Day" forum on the "Monsterkidsclassichorrorforum" on Yuku) is that sometimes I get to see some stuff I never would have know about otherwise.Well, I mean good stuff as well as the deservedly obscure stuff.He pulled out this fairly short film recently as a break from all the 50's sci-fi dreck we've been wading through, and I have to say that this silent film was easily the single best example of the era that I've ever seen.This director and the casting crew managed to cast and film a group of actors who were superbly suited for the demands of silent film...and by this, I mean that all you have to do is look at the actors in almost any given scene and you will already know almost everything there is to know about their characters. This is way different from the hammy over-emoting that jars my sensibilities even when I view something like the recently restored "Metropolis Complete".And the photography and lighting and costuming and set design...they all combine to create and reinforce the atmosphere of Poe's little tale of decadence and dread.Especially impressive is the soundtrack, which seems to combine wire harp, scratching violins, hammered piano and heaven knows what else to provide a background that is at once beautiful, disturbing and haunting.Only 8 stars because the story itself...is extremely annoying in its way, especially after the first 30 minutes. You can't help but wonder if maybe actually having a JOB with stuff to do OUTSIDE would work wonders for the situation. "THIS is what comes of having too much money and too much time on your hands..."

From the eerie opening where a stranger comes in from the mist and mud to ask for safe passage to the house of Usher, to the fiery ending where said house comes crashing down, this film is a strange piece of surrealism - using animals, pictures, and extreme close-ups to drive the story along.'The Fall of the House of Usher' has just three characters taking the main roles in the film - the stranger, who has been asked to visit his friend and the friend's dying wife - the friend, Sir Roderick Usher, a wild-eyed loner struck with the passion to paint, and his wife, Madeleine, who has a slow death with every brush stroke inflicted by her husband, while the painting of her lives and breathes.When Madeleine finally dies she's buried in her veil and dress in a coffin, but after a lot of tension (shown by bells and clocks counting time) we find she's not really dead but just walking wounded in spirit. By the time we reach the blazing close of this short film (only an hour) it has done Poe's story proud - a silent classic of Surrealism.

La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.

A stranger called Allan (Charles Lamy) goes to an inn and requests transportation to the House of Usher. The locals remain reluctant, but he gets a coach to transport him to the place. He is the sole friend of Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt), who leaves in the eerie house with his sick wife Madeleine Usher (Marguerite Gance) and her doctor (Fournez-Goffard). Madeleine is the beloved muse and model and is being painted by Roderick. When she dies, Roderick does not accept her death, and in a dark night, Madeleine returns.For those like me that have not read the story of Edgar Allan Poe, the conclusion of "La Chute de la Maison Usher" is quite confused. However, the Gothic cinematography is very impressive, recalling the German Expressionism. It is amazing how Jean Epstein was able to produce such atmosphere, considering the primitive technology of 1928, with difficulties in lighting, sensibility of films, edition table and portability of cameras. However, the shadows and lights are really amazing in this black and white film. This movie was the first work of Luis Buñuel in the cinema industry, working as assistant of Jean Epstein. Just as a curiosity, the resemblance of Charles Lamy with Carlos Alberto Parreira, the coach of the Brazilian soccer team, is incredible. My vote is nine.Title (Brazil): "A Queda da Casa de Usher" ("The Fall of the House of Usher")