IMDb > Fantomas (1913) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Fantomas More at IMDbPro »Fantômas - À l'ombre de la guillotine (original title)

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 reviews in total 

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Avantguard of Detective Genre!

10/10
Author: Vasilii Naidionoff from Ukraine
11 May 2006

Everything perfect in Louis Feuillade's FANTOMAS series.Action is very expressive and leave behind any possible dialog.Gestures of actors are accurate and laconic.Text between grounds styled in form of visiting cards or newspaper articles.Much significance have the space outside of frame.Stairs,curtains,lifts,windows and walls are produced the intricate labyrinth where every becomes victim or criminal.Poor decorations work as guide in this tangled area.This active space of film no need special effects or even camera travelings.As result we have pure cinematic product which speak with audience by language of images.Leterature and theater resources are slaves of this cinema triumph.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Silent film at its best

9/10
Author: jmducat from Madison, WI, USA
12 September 2005

The story of Fantomas's exploits and adventures are also those of the woman he loves and the men trying to catch him. In a time when films still used novelty to draw crowds these shorts entertained audiences with exhilarating escapes, astounding disguises, and taboo violence. Fantomas is a series of five short films produced in the golden age of silent film in France, 1913 to 1914. Each episode continues the story of the criminal Fantomas has he evades Inspector Juve time and time again. These films were directed by Louis Feuillade and produced by the Gaumont studios. Critics and fans worldwide have enjoyed these films and the mystery/detective novels they were based on.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Amazing Early Example of French Cinema

9/10
Author: gavin6942 from United States
11 April 2013

Fantômas (Rene Navarre) makes it as the emperor of Crime. First is the robbery at the Royal Palace Hotel. Then he abducts Lord Beltham...

Critic Maurice Raynal wrote that "There is nothing in this involved, compact, and concentrated film but explosive genius." I absolutely agree with this assessment.

Film historians (and amateurs like myself) tend to focus on American innovation (Thomas Edison) and the rise of the German film. While these are important areas (I believe the Germans did more for cinematography than any other group), "Fantomas" shows that the French were in the game, too.

This is an incredible film, and it has been touched up very nicely by the folks at Kino. It could easily pass for being the 1920s...

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

They Seek Him Here, They Seek Him There

Author: JoeytheBrit from www.moviemoviesite.com
21 December 2007

Fantomas is a kind of French Moriarty, an arch-criminal, leader of a huge rag-tag band of villains, who can evade arrest by two policemen holding each of his arms simply by shaking his wrists and knocking them both out. I ask you, what chance has an honest copper got? The film actually seems quite ambivalent about him at times, and you suspect there is a sneaking admiration for him on the filmmakers' part, despite his incredibly ruthless streak (in one episode he uncouples a train carriage and sends its passengers to their death so that they can't act as witnesses against a robbery he has committed on board; in another incredible sequence he leaves a fellow villain stranded inside a church bell to await certain death the next time it is rung).

The story lines of this French pre-WWI serial are fairly simplistic and don't stand up to even cursory scrutiny but, as a time capsule from a bygone age, the films are fascinating. Louis Feuillade's style of direction is basic to say the least and, for such a renowned early name from French cinema, something of a disappointment. The camera never moves, and every shot appears purely functional and nothing more. Perhaps I'm missing something, or perhaps I'm expecting more than I should from a piece of work nearly one hundred years old, but his style makes things drag at times. The film only really comes alive when Feuillade takes his camera outside to capture scenes of both rural and urban France. The film makes as much use of letters as it does intertitles to drive the story on and, considering the hindrance of it being a silent film, it's a device that works quite well.

Fantomas will only be of interest to the movie buff rather than the film fan. The art of storytelling has moved on – or, given the impression of advancement that gives, perhaps changed is a better word – and even the most patient of filmgoers will find that the pace drags at times. Nevertheless, given its place in film history, it's an important film that is worth checking out.

And it's also worth watching just for the final get-out-of jail card played by the wily Fantomas…

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Fantomas?/What did you say?/I said :"Fantomas" /What do you mean?

Author: dbdumonteil
28 December 2008

For a person who would have read the Souvestre /Allain's novels,Feuillade's movies would fatally be a disappointment.I read them when I was sixteen and I was fascinated by this mysterious masked figure .Today "Fantomas" has lost much of its popularity ,probably because he was not a "nice "character ,like Arsene Lupin who is still enjoying success.But anyway Maurice Leblanc was a better writer than Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain.

Feuillade's adaptation is not very satisfying:he ruled out the best part of the first volume ,which took place in a château where the marquise de Langrune was murdered (the first word of the saga is "Fantomas!" when nobody had still heard of him).That's after this crime that Charles Rambert became Jerome Fandor -in Feuillade's movie ,he is introduced as Juve's best friend whereas Juve really "made " Fandor.

Even more embarrassing is the ending Feuillade chose -he had to make Gaumont's money work for them ;these are his own words- for what was primarily a horror story: in the novel,Valgrand is really guillotined .It's only a movie after all ,so what's the point of saving him apart from making a film "suitable for any audience"? The Danidoff episode seems out of its context.But the biggest mistake is to have shown Fantomas.Fantomas had no face or he had other people's faces (such as the actor's).By showing since the cast and credits the actor who plays the "hero",they make the character lose 90% of its appeal.

Feuillade had talent for story telling ,nobody can deny.The scene of the substitution retains a sense of mystery .Feuillade's greatest merit -and it's quite important-was to attract the crowds : the serial genre forced them to come back and come back again if they wanted to know if the criminal would be finally caught.He was the granddaddy of so many series and miniseries in the world that he would never be thanked enough just for that.

For people who would like to know about the first part of the novel,I would recommend Paul Féjos's "Fantomas" (1932),which includes spooky scenes in the old château and features Fandor when he was still Charles Rambert.

The De Funes movies ,unless you are a fan of the actor ,should be avoided ,for they kept nothing from the novels but some of the proper nouns.

On the other hand, Chabrol's miniseries in the late seventies /early eighties is to be commended:Helmut Berger was an ideal Fantomas and he got good support from Jacques Dufilho as Juve and from Pierre Mallet as Fandor.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Nice Start to the Series

Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY
5 March 2011

Fantômas - À l'ombre de la guillotine (1913)

*** (out of 4)

The first of a five film series has Rene Vacarre playing Fantomas, the mastermind French thief who breaks into the hotel of a princess and steals some priceless jewelry. Inspector Jive (Edmund Breon) finally manages to catch Fantomas but he plans an escape hours before heading to the guillotine. FANTOMAS: IN THE SHADOW OF THE GUILLOTINE isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination but at just 54-minutes the thing is entertaining enough to make it worth viewing if you enjoy silent cinema. I think the one thing this picture shows is that during this era the American cinema was still miles ahead of the French and even when Feuillade was considered the country's greatest director at this time. As with many of his earlier pictures, the director usually tells the story in simple medium shots and he really doesn't use any noticeable editing to try and build up any suspense or drama. The director pretty much just tells the story without any real flair or style and while this might kill some films from this period, Feuillade at least keeps the story moving at a nice pace to where it never gets boring. The film is basically broken down into three sections. The first dealing with the hotel robbery, the second with Fantomas' arrest and the third his eventual escape. The first segment was actually the most entertaining as the sets were rather interesting to look at and we get a unique opening showing an elevator climbing several floors. The trick editing is obvious but this sequence still has a unique look to it. The third story has a very far-fetched idea to get Fantomas out of jail but it somewhat works in a cliffhanger-like fashion. Vacarre is wonderful in his role(s) as he's certainly photogenic and manages to make you believe he could actually pull all of this stuff off. I was also impressed with Breon even though he's featured a lot less.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

A Regrettable Contribution to the Silent Film Genre

3/10
Author: aldenl-86 from United States
2 January 2011

Feuillade's "Fantômas" falls horribly short in the silent film genre, especially when held up to the contemporary films put forth by Germany and the United States. The acting feels half-hearted and heavily reliant on intertitles for direction. The plot arcs, in spite of a few scattered gems, smack of predictability - a viewer can almost always stay one or two steps ahead of the scene. And through the serial's longevity, it would almost seem that the film hopes we would forget all its wince-worthy moments that have past. Perhaps Feuillade's one saving grace is the intricate mise-en-scène of the masked ball and Lady Beltham's estate, as well as the artfully crafted bell tower sequence in the final installment. The American's had their big budgets, the German's had their big ideas, but as the first French silent I've seen, I'm at a loss to identify the dominant strengths.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history