Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Diagonaldi Very well executed

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Ian (Flash Review)The crux of this film begins with two orphan girls living in the same house and one goes blind from disease. The sister sparks a mission for them to head to Paris to find a doctor to cure her. During their adventure the French Revolution hits and they are separated. The blind girl is taken in by a smarmy old hag (film's words. Ha) while the sister has been courted by an aristocrat. During the Revolution, many aristocrats are rounded up and many put to death. Will the sister escape death and be reunited with her sister and will her sister ever see again? There is a lot of meat on the bone of this story that runs around 2.5hr and it really keeps you engaged. There is some neat edits and certain scenes have very modern editing that help ratchet up the tension. Another one of the influential epic films directed by D.W. Griffith.

ironhorse_iv Orphans of the Storm is a controversial silent film from a very controversial director about a controversial topic. Set during the events of the French Revolution, the movie tells the story of two orphan sisters Henriette Girard (Lillian Gish) & Louise Girard (Dorothy Gish), who struggle to survive in extreme poverty France. As the events of the French Revolution, unfold, Louise goes blind from malnutrition, while Henriette is kidnapped by a lustful aristocrat. Could the two sisters find a way to reunite or would the trouble nation separate their love of each other, forever? Watch the movie to find out. Griffith often use the family theme in most of his major works. Families are often threatened, torn apart, reunited, destroyed, and created in his films. One can only guess at the motivations for this obsession with family from a man whose father died when he was ten, and who was never able to create a strong family relationship in his real life. D.W Griffith has often dealt with extreme depression, and abandoning issues with drinking. In many ways, the insolation from people in his own life, made D.W Griffith work harder to connect his films with the audience. You really do see it, here in this film. One of the greatest things, he did, was to set the events during the French Revolution rather than the pre-revolution Ancien Régime settlings of the original source material, the novel, 'The Two Orphans' written by Adolphe Philippe d'Ennery and Eugene Cormon. The events portray in the film really does mirror, what happens in Charles Dicken's novel, 'A Tale of Two Cities' and 'History of the French Revolution' by Thomas Carlyle in which D.W Griffith use as research. Still, there were some historical inaccurate, like how they portray revolution leader, George Danton. Widely disputed amongst many historians, Danton is a controversial figure that was often portray as an Abraham Lincoln type character. In truth, George Danton was not much a benevolent aristocrat, but a power hungry ruthless politician. In many ways, he was just as bad as Maximilien de Robespierre. Danton voted for the death of King Louis XVI and often agree with the tactics of the Reign of Terror which is clearly facts. It's twisted and distorted almost beyond recognition from honest truth. D.W Griffith often use the French Revolution as a metaphor of the Bolshevism Red October Revolution of 1917. On that note: While one could make a very broad connection, in terms of Bolsheviks being primarily of working-class membership and Robespierre being portray like a Stalin like figure. Still, there are huge different between the First French Republic and early Soviet Union. Both can be viewed as communism doctrine nations, but its modern form, communism grew out of the socialist movement of 19th-century Europe due to Industrial Revolution advanced technology. Socialist critics blamed capitalism for the misery of the proletariat—a new class of urban factory workers who labored under often-hazardous conditions. In a way, it's nice to see D.W Griffith tackle an issue like that, at the same time, show the early paranoia of America has toward Communism. Another thing that Griffith did well is create a narrative film; when most films of the time had little to no direction. The acting under his direction is amazing for the most part. Lillian Gish and Dorothy Gish are just beautiful. You see the emotional and physical suffering, both were able to portray during all the great close ups in the film. They do overdone the whole love thing, as it seem more incestuous lesbians than sisterhood. The supporting cast was just as good, with the rumbustious performance of Lucille La Verne as the female Fagan, and the strong portrayal of Danton by Monte Blue. Seeing how it's a silent film, they do kinda over act a bit, by overdoing their body language. It's get kinda goofy at times. Trying to outshine the German films being import at the time, the production values of this movie was epic in scale. The sets, the costumes, and film value were great. Lots of violent scenes like a child getting run over. Also it did had a lot of sex for a silent film. In many ways, some people believe Orphans of the Storm was the last great success that D.W Griffith had. Orphans of the Storm did turned a modest profit, but nothing as spectacular as his previous film, 1920's Way Down East. Griffith needed a success of those proportions to sustain his production costs and the expense of maintaining his own studio, and sadly, it didn't. It got worst for D.W Griffith, as his love affair with his top star Lillian Gish got sour. Gish sick of the continuing rivalry with movie starlet, Carol Dempster for Griffith's affections, left him. The aftermath of the movie cause D.W Griffith to drink even more heavily in alcohol to the point that it cause him, his life in 1948 due to cerebral hemorrhage. A lot of critics love to hate this movie do to the fact that the director is D.W Griffith. People describe him as a drunken, self-pitying, racist escapist, who egomania try to get his way. A lot of modern people love to hate his films, due to the change in attitude toward race. In 1915, D.W Griffith directed a film that would forever taint entire oeuvre and prevents any kind of objective analysis of his films with 'Birth of a Nation'. It got so bad, that in 1999, the Screen Directors' Guild removed his name from their lifetime achievement award. While, I don't agree with all of D.W Griffith's opinions. He's a very ignorant man who happened to be good at directing. He deserve more credit. Overall: While, the movie is indeed aged with some bad editing and dirt. It's watchable. This film is in the public domain and may be viewed in its entirety at YouTube. It's not hard to find. Check it out if you want to.

carvalheiro "Orphans of the storm" (1921) directed by D.W.Griffith is one of the most important movies ever made in silent cinema, which took the French revolution as target of nowhere unhappiest disgrace to explain maybe by contagion the near happening of another revolution, like the Bolshevik, less obviously maybe and its uncontrolled terror of state mixed with defense motivation. Griffith was here in this movie in the plenitude of his strength as interpreter of a kind of unfortunate conception about evolution of Europe history, taking an option for the goodness to the losers, even if their relatives were responsible directly or indirectly for the state of hungry and the consequent disorganization for the supplies in that society, with the people's savings lost and surviving only with unrest in countryside namely. The style of editing close shots alternatively with some long shots and even the so-called American shots - that was and still is in the half figure subject by his or her chest - as though the variety of compositions and also its shapes inside for a photography made by his fellow Billy Bitzer it seems - but he was out of the credits giving his name to another cinematographer - and the style of a dramatic issue for the romantic story below the tragic events, put this movie still now at high level for an utmost and better context, for another answer to the problem of an issue for the revolution. Independently of the destiny of human beings but as the result of contradictions made by development and its bad distribution between humankind and the people, in splitting classes or in hierarchies against the production of means of wealthy. The story in itself comparing the children in the storm as orphans in between the adventure of their abandoned souls, when it was implanted the system of the three powers after the first big crisis of legitimacy of the ancient regime, because the kingdom absolutism without possible issue at short term in France, surely is the better moment of this movie. Just while in it the characters rolling the eyes round the sockets, as typical touch of the silent drama since Griffith particularly. Surely with the dissolution of customs within these families linked with the propriety of the soil, the owner each own with its heraldic condition, symbolizing strength and the mercy for such a couple of young girls, in a storm for their poor lives at mercy of circumstances as guillotine and Danton's help. Personally which seems an exaggeration from the story, as told by an aristocratic version of a more liberal and perfunctory conception of reflux from the historical movement since Thiers. It is thinkable that the scene with the crowd in exciting mood, with the impression of lack of pity for the convicted on the convoy, it made the matter of the emotions from the viewer, as the execution on the place before the people, in such an exaggeration from the skilled editing of the scene of excited crowd, in an overwhelming way of specific kind of agitation and insensitivity for the mortal ceremony. The strength of its expressively beauty for which it was told also as the so-called salvation from the last minute, typically from the artistic conception of Griffith, whose weakness it was nonetheless understandable by the fault of its amplification, at the level of public service before the opinion of the incendiary times. Incompatible with the needs of a romantic contrast as essence of sweet melodrama, with such a photographic reconstitution - of such a range of details and tears of the victims - there of vengeance, as return for fixing the past with much more poetry.

MartinHafer By today's standards, ORPHANS IN THE STORM would be considered way too melodramatic or believable. There are just so many improbable situations and far from subtle moments. However, when you realize that back in the early 1920s this was not considered the case, you can appreciate the film so much more. Now this does not mean that every silent movie abounded with these elements, but they were far more acceptable then than they are now.Lillian Gish and her real-life sister, Dorothy, star as the two orphaned sisters. One, Dorothy, is actually the daughter of a Countess that was left on the steps of the church, but they are as devoted as any two sisters can be. Years later, the parents that raised them died from plague and Dorothy was left blinded. So, Lillian decides to take her sister to Paris to see if the doctors there can help restore her sight. Unfortunately for them both, they leave just as the French Revolution is about to erupt (talk about your lousy timing).On the way there, the girls are met by a slimy nobleman. He wants to rape Lillian and arranges for some thugs to kidnap her--leaving blind Dorothy to wander the streets at night! This is a pretty harrowing moment in the film and ultimately an evil lowlife finds her and takes her to live in her subterranean lair--figuring she can use Dorothy's blindness to beg for lots of coins. Dorothy doesn't want to but is tortured into compliance.In the meantime, Lillian arrives at a debaucherous party where the nobleman plans on raping her in front of his party guests. However, one nice guy (who turns out to be Dorothy's biological half-brother, a count) sees her plight and helps her escape. This earns the ire of the nobles but the guy is too fundamentally decent to allow this.A bit later, some more scumbag nobles (and most of them are in the movie) tries to have the Revolutionary leader, Danton, murdered. The injured man stumbles about the street as the assassins are following until he is found and rescued by Lillian.There is a budding romance between Lillian and the Count, but before it can progress any further, the Count is imprisoned for having the affront to want to marry a commoner and Lillian is thrown into a prison for "fallen women". I never heard of such a place and assume it was all made up for the movie! A short time later, the Revolution occurs and as a result the two lovers are released from prison. However, Dorothy is still missing and she only comes to light when Lillian and the Count are brought before the court for being monarchists! They are both sentenced to death as Dorothy is in the crowd and recognizes her sister and vice-versa. They are drug away to the guillotine several miles away as Dorothy screams and yells like a banshee. Minutes later, Danton arrives and realizes the miscarriage of justice has occurred. He makes an impassioned plea and gets the court to rescind the execution order. But, the carts with the two lovers is almost at the scaffold so Danton and his men race to rescue them at the very last second (Lillian already has her head inside the Guillotine when they arrive). The final scene shows everyone happy together. Huzzah! Despite being so melodramatic and having so many coincidences, the film's energy and drama keep you riveted. In other words, you KNOW it's over-the-top but because the movie is so well-crafted, you don't mind. Huge and impressive sets and costumes abound and the print from Kino Video was excellent. By the way, the apartment where Lillian lived in much of the movie is recognizable from several other films, including another D. W. Griffith film, BROKEN BLOSSUMS and I also recognized it from some of the FRANKENSTEIN movies.An interesting point about this film is that several times during the film, the title cards talk about the "evils of Bolshevism"--saying that the French Revolution was akin to the recent Russian Revolution. While there are definite parallels, this was more a statement about the times in which the film was made as opposed to 1789.A very important film historically and one of the last films of Griffith to make money. Unlike his evil BIRTH OF A NATION, this film deserved the accolades and success it attained.A final note: In the movies, Danton was rightfully shown as one of the decent leaders of the Revolution who fought for justice, not mass murder. However, they never mentioned that ultimately he was guillotined at the end of the era for questioning the direction of the revolutionary government, and in particular, Robespierre. Only a few weeks later, in reaction to this execution, Robespierre himself was executed and the Reign of Terror came to an end.