LuvSopr I can certainly understand why the discovery of this film was seen as a major event - a lost, major teaming of two of the biggest film stars of all time. The care put into the restoration is a sight to behold - the movie is pieced together beautifully, and some sequences, like the glimpses of color, are stunning. Rarely would the sight of blue flashes on a dressing gown excite you as much as they do here. The soundtrack, by Henny Vrienten, is a masterpiece. Soothing, romantic, sweeping, tribal, majestic. I wish the DVD release of this film had gone into more detail on the making of this genius. It truly carries the movie when the movie itself is not quite up to the task.As for the film itself, I just felt little connection to the characters or story. While I appreciate that Beyond the Rocks did not delve into huge, murderous melodrama, there are very few stakes in a two hour film. Theodora and Hector meet. They fight their feelings as he chases her around the world. They continue fighting their feelings to the point where a supporting character is the only one who causes movement to the plot. Even at the end of the film, Theodora and Hector are on the sidelines. The film seemed more concerned with preserving the morality of the characters than with telling a strong story. You have little reason to care about this couple, and that extends to the performances. Valentino, one of the most charismatic film idols of all time, seems restrained and lost in this role. Swanson, not too far off from her days as a comedienne, makes facial expressions in closeup which come across as if Lucy Ricardo was making a silent picture. The makeup piled on her is also distracting, and aging.Robert Bolder, as Theodora's husband in name only, is the most interesting part of Beyond the Rocks. To the film's credit, they do not demonize Josiah, instead presenting him as a man whose time has passed and who truly does love his wife. His final scene in the film is quietly powerful, and the finest moment.Beyond Bolder, and the soundtrack, my favorite element was the jolting fantasy sequence of the price a wife pays for adultery - a moment which has far more vitality than the rest of the film.

MarieGabrielle Gloria Swanson looks lovely and young here as Theodora, an ingénue with no money who marries businessman Josiah Brown so she may help her dear father. For the era, the film is remarkably effective, the rice throwing scene as she departs, to go to Europe with her new husband. Even while black and white and digitally restored yet bruised film, the visuals are quite interesting.Rudolph Valentino as Lord Bracondale is quite attractive. It is subtle, he meets her through the Tyrolean honeymoon, the smell of narcissus on her handkerchief reminds him of.....something....Of course all is above board and nothing happens for quite some that is untoward.What is lovely about this film is the visual sense of eroticism and romance. We do not see this today. It is subtle, no screaming, psycho-drama or histrionics. It is, in a sense the way some real romance and infidelity may be played out. Theodora loves Lord Bracondale but remains faithful to elderly and infirm duffer Josiah Brown.Eventually we see Josiah financing a safari to Algeria as he chooses to do so to rid his wife of the stigma of being married to an older, less virile man. He acquires a small legion of Algerian soldiers on an archaeological mission, but there is danger and Theodora decides to follow him.There are some innovative scenes of the Algerian desert and an archaeological site which several explorers note was a "torture site for an unfaithful woman, as from the Bible". It is stark and desolate desert, evoking barren emotions, barren marriage.I found this film charming and visual. Romantic comedies today are saccharine and trite. While some of the cinematography is rudimentary it far surpasses what passes for romantic interlude today.Please watch and Gloria Swanson looks lovely. 8/10.

bakooi-1 Being a genuine film buff, I couldn't miss out on this one when it was shown on television. It is quite easy to see why the creators of this fluff wanted to bury this incredibly ludicrous film. The biggest stars of their time also seem to realize that they have somehow been forced to make something of what has to be one of the most awful screenplays to ever make it to the big screen. Swanson is on holiday when she nearly drowns and is rescued by... Valentino! Later on she is climbing mountains somewhere in The Alps and nearly dies. But who just happens to be there (again) to save her in the nick of time (again)? Yes, it's Valentino. And when Swanson has dinner in one of the numerous Parisian restaurants, disaster strikes again when she inadvertently drops her handkerchief! Guess who (once again) just happens to be in the same restaurant at the exact same time to (once again) play the romantic hero by retrieving Swansons handkerchief? It would have been more credible had Rudolph The Rednosed Reindeer been there to liven things up, because the creators of this film apparently despised their audience so much, that they believed we might actually fall for this ridiculous story. One the fans could have (and, for my part, SHOULD have) done without. Still, strangely fascinating to see these two together...

Piltdown_Man Despite an earlier poster's view that the soundtrack was at times "too contemporary sounding," I would argue that the track brings this film up-to-date, without sacrificing its initial intent.The more modern track (and I'm a traditionalist in all things...) pulled me in and made me watch this film with new eyes. The "original" music used on many silents is clearly one of the things which immediately dates them and makes them seem old and, to some people, silly. With fresher music, it is easier to watch the performances and not get caught up in the sound, which obviously predominates in silents...Ron