Foolish Wives

Foolish Wives

1922 ""
Foolish Wives
Foolish Wives

Foolish Wives

7 | 2h23m | en | Drama

A con artist masquerades as Russian nobility and attempts to seduce the wife of an American diplomat.

View More
AD

WATCH FREEFOR 30 DAYS

All Prime Video
Cancel anytime

Watch Now
7 | 2h23m | en | Drama | More Info
Released: January. 11,1922 | Released Producted By: Universal Film Manufacturing Company , Country: Budget: 0 Revenue: 0 Official Website:
Synopsis

A con artist masquerades as Russian nobility and attempts to seduce the wife of an American diplomat.

...... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Cast

Erich von Stroheim , Rudolph Christians , Miss DuPont

Director

Ben F. Reynolds

Producted By

Universal Film Manufacturing Company ,

AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.

Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

framptonhollis Without a doubt, "Foolish Wives" is one of the biggest surprises when it comes to the quality of a film. When I was about a half hour into the film, I wasn't particularly enjoying it all. The sets were nice, Erich Von Stroheim was, obviously, pretty great, and it certainly wasn't boring, but there wasn't much happening. Well, now that I've seen the entire film I can confirm that by the time it all ends, a whole lot has sure happened!Mixing various elements of humor, drama, and suspense, Stroheim invents a true one of a kind masterpiece, a true silent era gem. If your bored during the early stages of "Foolish Wives", don't give up because it truly is an epic picture!When reflecting on the experience of viewing "Foolish Wives", certain scenes certainly do come to mind. Scenes like the huge storm that Stroheim's character gets stuck in and has to find his way out of, or the grand fire sequence towards the end, which I would hate to spoil (just let me tell you, it is truly spectacular and thrilling to watch).The characters are certainly unlikable at times, but that doesn't mean they aren't entertaining or even funny to watch be their awful selves every now and then. No matter how repulsive Stroheim's character manages to be at times, I still always wanted to see more of him, because he really does bring in a lot of the true entertainment value.Other than the excellent story and characters, I absolutely loved "Foolish Wives" for being a technical masterwork, with it's grand set design, cinematography, and filmmaking techniques. This is no bland silent film, this is a marvel of moving and breathtaking style. The previously mentioned storm and fire sequences are made exceptionally well made, giving the film a more grand and epic feel.I'd recommend this film for anybody willing to sit through something like it because, in the end, it really is one spectacular watch.
thinbeach They call Erich Von Stroheim the man you love to hate, and after seeing 'Foolish Wives' - the first film of his I've seen - I can see why.A critical, cynical eye is cast over all who enter, and by the end there are none who escape untarnished. The women are foolish to naively fall for a despicable man's charms, while the man is despicable for taking advantage of them - but while the finger pointing of this film sometimes feels a touch heavy handed, the plot developments are believable enough, and the woes of capitalism driving the characters are apt thematically. After a slow start, the complexity builds nicely as each new character has either a personal of financial stake in the game, which you know cannot end well for all of them.The picturesque, sunny seaside of rich Monte Carlo is particularly suitable, offering a neat visual metaphor for the themes of evil hiding behind a charming face, and Von Stroheim, unlikeable as his character is, is superb in the lead role.While not the most enjoyable of company, the complexities of the plot ensure suspense is maintained, and the visuals are impressive throughout.
NYLux Erich Von Stroheim directs and plays Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin (Capt. 3rd Hussars Imper. Russian Army). He is very much in love with his dashing persona that is best described as an acquired taste, I think it would have been much more effective to have that much footage on a really talented actor that is also good looking,but that is just a detail. The film is a good film, the characters are interesting and well developed and the scenes are beautifully filmed. The problem, and it is a problem no matter how much talent we may think Von Stronheim had as a director, is the timing. It is an unnecessarily long movie, period. I can totally understand how this became a real challenge later as he thought longer was better and the more expensive the production, the better too. Neither one of these is necessarily true as we know from other great directors. In all fairness, the length of time has always been endemic to German cultural productions, it is actually one of its most salient characteristics and can be traced all the way back to Goethe's Faust and Wagner's Operas, though I dare say it probably started out from the very beginning in their medieval dramas. The problem usually starts with confusing and melding two different things which creates a third which is neither. For example with Wagner's operas, there is no question the music is great quality. The problem begins when throwing that content into the structure of a performance: 4 or five hours without interruption is not the usual amount of time people can sit without a bathroom or refreshment break. As far as this perspective is concerned if you can't take four hours to say it, then it is not worth bothering with, and I for one could not disagree more.Here for example at the very beginning of the film we see the characters in a villa endlessly having breakfast. I mean you have all the time in the world to count the patterns of silk on Count Sergius' silk robe, which I also found overly done and a bit ridiculous. Then there is the walk he takes with the wife of the American envoy to Monaco (Miss DuPont) that turns into a total nightmare as they hit a rain storm and when it is raining the hardest Count Sergius takes her into a boat and decides to go across the lake to some hut, where a witch like hag lives with her goats. This entire scene, which is endless, is totally unnecessary, we get to see several long shots of the goats too, as if they were major characters, and of the hag sleeping. In the midst of this a monk stops by and stays with them too, another twenty minutes going nowhere. The film finally takes off when he tells the American wife to meet him at his villa, where his cousins Maude George as Princess Olga Petchnikoff and Mae Busch as Princess Vera Petchnikoff, who look like Weimar trans-gender women, run a mini casino where they clear Cesare Ventucci, (Cesare Gravina) a Counterfeiter's bills that he makes for them on a regular basis. The permanently depressed and abused maid Marushka (Dale Fuller) however has been having an affair with the Count as well, she has even given him her life savings after he has a crocodile tear scene asking her for money, which she consents to do thinking of his (false) promise of marriage. As one of the first vengeful neurotic lovers in film, she sees them through the keyhole and decides to set the place on fire and throw herself to the sea from a cliff later. Both scenes are shown in exhausting detail. I can totally understand why this movie was heavily edited, but can not begin to comprehend how it could have possibly been longer than this. Supposedly one of the 'great' ideas was that it reproduced Montecarlo on a Hollywood back lot. Unless they were going to do a series on the Riviera, it would have been better to go there. I now can see why Von Sronheim ran into problems with "Queen Kelly" and Gloria Swanson as that story started to 'grow'. The word 'cut' must be very difficult to pronounce, or to put in mind in German, which is a shame for there is no question there are great qualities here as well as a lot of talent. I have hear that the original length of his 'masterpiece' "Greed" was 9 hours, even cutting it down to two viewings of 4 and 5 hours each is difficult to envision. Who had that much time for a movie then? or now?
mrdonleone In 1999, I watched a documentary about movies that changed my life. In 2001, my late grandfather gave me a book that changed my life. There were many titles the two both matched, but three of them I'll never forget. The first is 'Dog Star Man' from Brakhage, but that one didn't made up its promise. The two other ones, however, 'Scorpio Rising' from Anger and 'Foolish Wives' from Von Stroheim, truly did. They both tell the story about a guy with a hat made from leather. I was amazed by that leather hat, and 'Scorpio Rising' has become my favorite movie ever. 'Foolish Wives' is not as good as I thought it would be, but still, it's Von Stroheim's best picture (even though I saw 'Greed' too). In fact, you must see 'Foolish Wives' for two things that occur in the picture: Von Stroheim who looks in a mirror, and Von Stroheim who smokes heavily. That's all.