GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Claire Dunne One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

audiemurph While the first half of the "The Last of the Mohicans" is rather run of the mill, the second half, beginning with the attack of the mass of drunken Indians against the British and French soldiers and civilians, is nothing less than astonishing. The explicit scenes of violence are some of the most spectacular ever filmed in black and white. There is no romanticization of war here. A baby is ripped from its mother's arms, and tossed high in the air to its presumed death. Wounded soldiers are attacked, tortured and massacred. Incredibly sickening, and it really draws you in.The most horrifying part of the battle is how long it goes on for. We are too trained in old films to expect the cavalry, or some other hero, to arrive before it is too late, before too many have lost their lives. Not here. The bloodbath goes on and on, men, women and children being hacked to death, and we finally realize, there IS NO cavalry to save them. The scenes of piles of corpses are amazing and captivating; I can't remember seeing anything quite like it in early cinema.The massacre scenes by themselves are enough to make this film memorable, but there is more: an incredible series of outdoor long-shots of a nightmarishly high cliff, with the tiny figures of the heroine and bad-guy Indian Wallace Beery on top, struggling, fighting, terrifyingly near the edge. This kind of scene, when done right, like it is here, always feels more dramatic in a silent picture, then it is with sound. The fight between Beery's Magua and the good Indian Uncas, quick as it is, also has an epic feel, taking place over a quick series of spectacular and varying landscape shots, down immense hills and titanic waterfalls. Remarkable indeed.A long forgotten actress, Barbara Bedford, plays the older dark-haired sister. She is actually quite beautiful, and the eye is drawn to her whenever she is on screen. Interestingly, IMDb credits her with over 200 movie roles, but once sound arrived, almost all of her remaining 100 roles were uncredited and/or in short subjects. Long forgotten.The movie suggests that quite a substantial number of civilians, including an surprising number of women, lived with the British soldiers in the colonies. I wonder if that is accurate. "Last of the Mohicans" really drives home how absolutely miserable it must have been to be living in the primitive forests of North America, at the whims of staggeringly extreme weather conditions, never mind the dangers posed by the Natives, thousands of miles from the comfortable, civilized, mild conditions of Britain. Interesting. And do the officers really never remove their white wigs, even in death?A highly recommended piece of cinema history, primarily for the historic battle scenes of the second half.

MartinHafer You can't compare this version of the Cooper story to later sound versions--it just wouldn't be fair. It's like comparing apples to oranges. However, if you compare this adventure film to other similar silent films, then it comes off as one of the better ones you can find today. Not only does it do a pretty good job of sticking to the original story, but the production values and acting are superb. For a 1920 film, it was amazingly well-crafted and complex. In particular, the outdoor scenes were so realistic and beautiful. Many of the outdoor scenes (particularly at the end) were like works of art--and look very much like moving Ansel Adams photographs. The mountainous scenes are just gorgeous. The stunts were also amazing and well performed--looking every bit as good as modern stunt-work. Also, while most of the Indians are played by white folks in dark paint (a very, very common practice for the day--and which included Boris Karloff as an extra!), they at least look a lot like real Indians. In fact, I was very surprised that they were able to get Wallace Beery of all people to play the lead evil Indian--and he looked pretty convincing!! A tight script and excellent direction all helped to make this a dandy bit of entertainment--well worth seeing even today.By the way, in some ways the film may seem pretty offensive (calling the natives "savages"), but for the most part it tried to convey them in a three-dimensional way. Sure there were plenty of bad Indians, but some decent ones as well and the movie tried very hard at times to humanize them--something you rarely saw in contemporary films or even those in the 1930s, 40s or 50s.

patrick.hunter This story, possibly the most famous of all American tales (its very title has become a catchphrase), was largely envisioned in this version by a European: Maurice Tourneur. Yes, some filmbuffs like to think the American co-director, Clarence Brown, more responsible for the movie's quality; even Brown himself (after Tourneur's death) claimed he filmed most of it. This is a hard claim to believe because Tourneur, whose reputation was virtually second only to Griffith at the time, was the one who hired Brown, largely to shoot the outdoor scenes. Tourneur loved lighting an indoor scene more than any director in the Hollywood of 1920, preferring the control of creating painterly interior scenes, so he had Brown get dirty and go camping in Big Bear and Yosemite to shoot the outdoor ones. And even though Brown directed them, Tourneur, as boss, must have had control of selecting which shots were filmed. Since Brown got his start in the industry five years earlier as Tourneur's editor and assistant, he was well-acquainted with Tourneur's style and most likely filmed shots that the Frenchman would want.The European sensibility to the story shows itself in this version's focus. Most remakes--like the novel--make Hawkeye, the most central character. Here, however, he is a very minor person indeed, often in the background, always appearing gawky and unheroic. The most emphasized characters in this version are Cora and Uncas, whose impossible-to-fulfill relationship results in a liebestod-like tragedy. Many who like the later versions of this story might be put off by the fact that Hawkeye is not a main character, but this silent movie is beautiful.

Cineanalyst This film is well photographed, as are most of the films I've seen that are directed by Maurice Tourneur. The framing and composition of shots are apt, except occasionally when it is theatrical. Much of the action happens outside, which helps--freeing the camera and providing scenery. There are some nice lighting effects: use of low-key lighting, nighttime photography, the flickering light against a wall to represent candlelight and such. There are some silhouette shots, which seem to be a trademark in Tourneur's films. The tinting, too, adds to the film's beauty.Some moments show a resemblance to D.W. Griffith and Billy Bitzer's work, such as "The Battle at Elderbush Gulch" and "The Birth of a Nation". There are the iris shots and actor's approaching the camera, both of which were likely invented by Griffith and Bitzer. The battle scene at the fort is rather Griffith-like. Impressively innovative is the pan of the faces of Magua and Uncas and then them rushing towards the camera, as they begin fighting. The main pictorial schema for this film, and I think it's a good one, if not entirely original, is switching from distanced views to intimate shots, thus taking in the breadth of the scenic environment and concentrating on the story's action. This can be seen in the battle scenes, the cliff scene and pretty much every other important scene outside.I've referred to this as Tourneur's film, but that's doubtful. Clarence Brown, Tourneur's longtime assistant, directed most of the shooting, due to Tourneur being ill. In the early days without detailed shooting scripts, it's questionable as to how much of the film was the conception and design of Tourneur, but Brown having worked under him, the issue is probably moot. Perhaps, the poor use of the same set for fictionally different locations, made obvious by the successive cuts, in addition to other minor amateurish mistakes, can be blamed on inexperience.Of worse error are Caucasians playing Indians and the film's occasional condescension and racism, although the film can be commended for its generally respectful treatment. As well, intertitles do replace some action and acting in this film, as fellow commenter Sorsimus criticized. And, the story contrives three moments where dark hair faces the choice of replacing herself for yellow hair as Magua's captive. The film appears rather unpolished at times, as a result. These are rather minor, or commonplace, problems, though.This is a promising early film for Brown, at the peak of Tourneur's career. Tourneur, a pioneer of the medium, dealt with a variety of stories, so from there one can't characterize his body of work easily; it's in cinematography that a characteristic style of innovation and the use of the best of film grammar known can be seen. For Brown, his films would surpass the visual brilliance of his master, with films such as, say, "The Flesh and the Devil". Here, it seems he wisely worked from the style of Tourneur to create some very interesting photography.