The Sealed Room (1909)

Pretty Good

Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I loved this movie, and I loved Arthur V. Johnson's performance in it. I have seen him in several movies, and he was always excellent in them. He is described as a "pioneer actor and director of the early American silent film era", but an even better description would be "the first great actor in silent films", and he was certainly great in this movie! I do not think he over-acted: he was required to play a man outraged by his woman's infidelity, and that is how he acted it. Much credit should be given to director D.W. Griffith, and to co-stars Marion Leonard and Henry B. Walthall, who both turned in excellent performances. Considering this movie was made in 1909, I would say it is a superior movie, and I definitely recommend it!

I found it interesting that two very famous silent film stars, actress Mary Pickford and director Mack Sennett, had supporting roles in this D. W. Griffith silent film. To add another famous name to the mix, the screenplay was based on an Edgar Allen Poe novel.Yes, this short film looks creaky but it's one year short of being 100 years old, so you can't expect much as far as a big-budget film. It's hard to relate to much at all, actually, because movies were only 10-20 minutes long at that time anyway, and since there was no sound, the actors acted more like mimes.Since "talkies" were still almost two decades away, even the silent actors hadn't quite got their acts down yet. You can see the result: insane overacting and wild, crazy facial expressions - actually laughable at times. But, hey, it was 1909. I find it amazing we still have the opportunity to look at a movie this old, and appreciate the fact it's available.

Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. *** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard

There are enough positives to this short feature to make it a decent rendering of the idea of "The Sealed Room", familiar from a number of horror stories. The leading performers all give plenty of energy to their performances, and for the most part they are believable. Among its best aspects are the scenery and the costumes, which make the general atmosphere convincing. The physical limitations of the sets and the fixed camera field do, though, somewhat hinder how well the "sealed room" effect can work.The story is simple, and at one or two points its plausibility is rather strained. But it is the kind of macabre tale that holds your attention in spite of yourself. There have probably been other versions that were more effective, but this one tells the story clearly and efficiently, and it works reasonably well.