Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" Epic of Metropolis regularly appears on the lists of The best movies of all timeAnd it is certainly one of the most important works of science fiction so far produced. Metropolis takes place in an industrialized future where rich in the world live in precisely constructed towers, and travel through fantastic meters and flight machines. They engage in frivolous romantic misunderstandings and enjoy creeping in gardens to eat rich food. Meanwhile, under the city, impoverished workers are literally working to death to maintain machines.

One of the most prominent wealthy brothers in the city is Freder (Gustav Frhlich) who, by chance, is a witness to a peaceful protest of the labor. He becomes immediately thrilled by Maria (Brigitte Helm), the pacifist ruler of the movement, and becomes iousubopous about how the lives of workers are. He moves underground and sees the sweat, oil and terror he had first. Machines, he feels, are like a hungry evil god ("Moloch!") Who eats people alive. Meanwhile, Freder's father (Alfred Abel) advocated a crazy scientist (Rudolf Klein-Rogue) who aims to build a duplicate of Maria. The plan is to send the robot duplicate back to the underground, to have its scene forcibly uprising and to use violence as an excuse to kill working hours.

It is barely subtle, but it is powerful. To this day -today, almost a century later, the audience has been hypnotized by Metropolis, and the film school still has their curriculum.

But it wasn't always deeply loved. Indeed, deep diving in film reviews written in the late 1920s, some critics revealed by the film's waving melodrama and ultra-obvious messages. Indeed, The 1927 Yorkyor Times review It was a chain of complaints about her storytelling and blunt policy.

And that was written by the Science Master Hg Wells, author of "The Time Machine", "The Invisible Man", "The War of the Worlds" and "Island of D -Moro".

It may be difficult to read the scanned newspapers on the Yorkyor Times website, so Wired for happiness has prescribed the entire review. It starts with the sentences, "I recently saw the most stupid movie. I don't believe it would be possible to make one strong. " Who ... JOCH. Shoots shoots, Herbert. This may have been an ordinary blow to the ego if it comes from any other critic, but Wales has already been established a master, so he is found particularly cruel. The overview is 2,880 words long, and each bun is Barb. Continue wells:

"He gives in one concentration of one thing almost every possible nonsense, cliché, width and interference with mechanical progress and progress at all served by a sauce of sentimentality that is his own."

Although he admitted that "I probably do not like this soup in a whirlwind, however, because I find fragments that decay from my juvenile work thirty years ago," Sleeper wakes up ", hovering in it." What is a fair point. There is no doubt that Lang's masterful film was inspired by much of Wales' work. It is only possible for Wales to oppose what his ideas were, to the eye, to worship for a new medium.

However, Wales was not above Nitling. He noted that the planes of the future looked too much as modern aircraft and that the cars at the exhibition were models since 1926. He said visuals often praised critics for Their striking designs for art deco And high expressionist units are difficult, and are only an amalgam of scientific images that he was already exposed. What is a fair point; I can find scientific anthologies in front of Metropolis that have similar images on their covers.

More than everything, Wales located the "metropolis" for its dating political views. He felt that Lang's film is at least 30 years above all that is thematic. "Far in the 1897 dear old year," he wrote, "it may have been pronounced to symbolize social relations in this way, but it was thirty years ago, and there was a lot of thinking (and some experience)."

More than everything, Wales may have been too optimistic to accept the Metropolis premise. He writes in length about how an automated future would not look for slaves as workers, and the class would disappear in a high-tech world. Wales predicted semi -communist, almost The future similar to Gene Roddenberry where technology will democratize the world and no longer need to distinguish between rich and poor. The machines, he felt, will deal with all the work, and the stratification of society will fall apart. "What this film is expecting is not unemployment," he wrote, "but hiring Draj, which is exactly what passes. His fabricists did not realize that the machine reinforces Draz. "

At this point, in 2025, we may be able to accuse Wales of being naive. We are here in the future, and financial inequality is greater now than it has ever been. He did not be responsible for the constant greed and thirst for the control of the world class of billionaire. Wales did not count on the capricious wealth found by immature technology braids. And the dragist has not passed, and he barely changed his form. Technology, I will tell me to tell him, he doesn't save us.

Wales hated the end, describing it:

"There is a pretty good blur in the water, after the best movie traditions, some violent and unconvincing breaking machines and unrest and debris, and then, pretty confused, someone collects it (Freder) learned a lesson, and that workers and employers should now be reconcile with "Loveube". Never for a moment no moment believes any of this stupid story. "

Again yes.

Wales completed his overview to note that Metropolis is terribly popular and that his display is full of impatient audiences, waiting to be blind. Wales had a very cynical view of the audience, writing:

"I suppose there is a lot of people to be" drawn "with the promise of showing them the city of one hundred years. It was, I thought, an irresponsible audience and I didn't hear comments. I couldn't say from their wear whether they believe that Metropolis is a really possible forecast or not. "

And Wales was not the only one who hated the "metropolis" after its release. The critic of the variety They announced their review in 1926And they praised the design of Lang production, but were delayed by the simplicity of the script. The critic (only credited as "diverse staff") wrote: "A pity that so much work of art was spent on this produced story."

Of course, in the next century, "Metropolis" has been redistributed, lost, found, reduced, re -evaluated, processed and re -examined, and has now settled in a huge praise at the cinema. Most of the reviews of "wounded tomatoes" are reviews with four starvins from expert critics who had the chance to study Lang's work. However, it is important to remember that not every movie will appeal to every person. Even films, dear readers, consider them perfect or inaccessible, can be deeply hated by critics who, if they do their job properly, will be able to articulate their view.

I love Metropolis, personally, but I can see where Wales comes from. However, I am ease that the remake never happened.