Very cool! AI does a decent job of adding color without losing the sharpness & contrast of the original, unlike the awful 90s Ted Turner colorizations that looked like they were done with a box of warm crayons. I still think AI has a ways to go, but I imagine in 20 years it'll render these old films virtually indistinguishable from a modern digital source.

I have severe reservations on that. But one way or another it's interesting that we're nearing that point. Pretty soon you won't know what's real vs. what's a fabrication. Theoretically George Lucas can deepfake Maria's face onto the body of a computer generated figure, slim her down to ridiculous marvel superhero proportions, and pass it off quietly as a "remaster".

So true. It's amazing what all technology is able to do and come up with today.

Impressive that Metropolis, produced in 1926, is from now 97 (!!!) years ago, and that already, way back then, such advanced creative, artistic, and technical technique and expression was being put on film. This movie truly is a masterpiece of cinema.

As Wikipedia states: "Metropolis is...widely regarded as one of the greatest and most influential films ever made....In 2001, the film was inscribed on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register, the first film thus distinguished."

After years and years of film aficionados telling me I simply MUST watch this movie, I finally got around to it last night. I've had a Kino DVD restored version that I picked up at a local library sale for around five bucks, a few months back. The disc states it has a runtime of 124 minutes, although it in fact ran for about 118 minutes. I've read that a further restored version was released in 2010 which ran to 153 minutes.

In any case, from my point of view, it was overlong, to the point of tediousness. All the running around of the workers throughout the city following the flood probably could've been cut by a good 10 minutes, while achieving the same effect of raw panic. Many of the frames appeared washed-out (bright white light on faces, for example, obscuring features), and some of it, at least to me, appeared to be a problem with the original print, rather than caused by deterioration of filmstock that was-- going by this 2002 version --more than 70 years old. Compare this to an even older film, Nosferatu (1922), for example, where restored versions from around the same time absolutely pop (I think Nosferatu is fantastic, by the way).

I did like the four levels of society in Metropolis-- the catacombs at the very bottom, the workers' city one level up, and then further up the machines where the workers labored. All three of these levels underground. And then, at the very top, on the surface, the city of gardens, where the masters of Metropolis lived.

And the robotized Maria was perhaps the first appearance in film of an android. As many have pointed out, Metropolis is a groundbreaking film. It seems, too, that this film would be ripe for Marxist interpretations of the exploitation of the lower classes by the higher.

My final verdict? The movie did feel like it was taking much too long to hammer home a point-- as I've said I often found it tedious--and, despite the well-earned praise this film has received for its special effects, I found some of its cinematography surprisingly lacking. I know that goes against the conventional wisdom; perhaps the Kino version I have just wasn't restored well-enough.

I was tempted to rate Metropolis a 5 (for me, anything below a 6 is generally not rewatchable), but one cannot discount the originality of the film itself (again, the android, and many, many, special effects techniques that previously had not been done). So, Metropolis gets bumped up to a Six. The film was undeniably ahead of its time.

I basically agree with everything you've stated, north, particularly realizing it's the earlier (not the 2010 deluxe, which is a vast improvement, and is the version I have) restoration you've viewed.

The 2010 restoration bridges a lot of previous gaps and shortcomings, and reassembles the film (introducing much rediscovered footage) in what's now considered pretty nearly fully complete original form. Everything flows much better, the characters feel not quite as one-dimensional, the movie becomes more engaging (thus viewing time seems faster), and it offers a much improved viewing experience.

north, I always felt as you do, until seeing the 2010 restoration; before then, I mainly appreciated the movie's groundbreaking, creative, cinematically highly influential aspects, but not at all the characters, depictions, or the pacing - and really not much the story (which admittedly isn't my type of thing).

This movie definitely is nowhere close to being among my fave film, or featuring very stellar acting, and the story is decidedly hit-em-over-the-head-with-the-message, and very long. However, the 2010 restoration brings everything together (including the film's overall balance, and some characterizations) so much better that viewing it immediately resulted in me favourably reevaluating the film, and left me more fully able to appreciate Metropolis as truly an impressive masterpiece of cinema.

Most viewers rate Metropolis either 10 or 8. My rating: 9.

* also see *

I also saw the pre-2010 restoration first and was a bit disoriented. The restored footage and improved picture really makes a difference.

Something else worth noting, somewhere on youtube someone uploaded the entire film at its original framerate (I think 16 or 18fps), unlike all the commercial releases at 22 or 24fps. That makes an enormous difference to the credibility of the acting (no sudden gestures and running around clownishly). I hope one day maybe Criterion will take notice and get everything right. We’ve had too many inaccurate releases, probably since it’s public domain and anyone can release their own “official” restoration.