User reviews

The 1st part of film had the right documentary feel to it. Sadly, and I say this with my heart in my throat, did not result in a notable effort. Perhaps the production required more time or funding. I am not sure. One this is certain, the faux 2nd part of the film could have been so more authentic looking. I should not have expected so much.

First of all, the focus was much too sharp for the era. The film stock is generally one of the main reasons at fault in these efforts to duplicate the past. The creators had other challenges that fell short of the "authenticity" of lost silent film. The lighting was entirely too nuanced, the acting too modern, the make-up too refined.

OK, I was disappointed with the final effort, that's obvious. Perhaps one thing could have saved it: the frames per second. This might have been a real masterpiece had the creators made an effort to taken some of these aspects in order to present the feel of film-making of this very special era of this art form.

I am watching this film as I write. There are no spoilers, as I shall turn the film off when I am finished writing.

Even though this begins as a documentary about finding a 90 year old film, everything, and I mean 'everything' in this film is fake. The discovery of the film, the two director-brothers, the documentary interviews, and the supposed restoration of this 90 year old film, all fake.

I started watching because I thought it was a documentary, not a mockumentary. The discovery and restoration of a lost film is serious business to those of us who admire silent films. Simply the fact that this is a 'serious' mockumentary, makes this film becomes more annoying by the minute.

The actual fake movie within the fake movie is supposed to be this famous lost film. It is marginally acted, and is generally dull as dirt.

With all the great silent films out there, TCM has to show a 'fake' one? Stupid.