PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

JohnHowardReid "One Exciting Night" (1922) is not terribly exciting, although it has its moments. Alas, without Billy Bitzer at the camera, D.W. Griffith is not exactly the most innovative of directors. Everything is played at the camera as if the actors were on a stage. There is only one pan (broken into two shots by an insert) in the entire movie. The film is obviously angled at keen Carol Dempster fans. She is given more close-ups than the rest of the extensive cast combined. The plot is not particularly interesting, but – chiefly thanks to Dempster – it just manages to hold attention – in Alpha DVD's quite watchable cutdown 108 minutes version anyway. (The movie originally ran 128 minutes).

Michael_Elliott One Exciting Night (1922) ** (out of 4) D.W. Griffith's only venture into the "old dark house/mystery" genre is a rather strange film that also mixes in comedy but in the end it just doesn't work. A baby is born in Africa and sixteen years later she is about to gain control of an estate, although she doesn't know this. Soon someone shows up on the scene committing murders but who is it? On the whole this is a very average film due in large part to its incredible running time, which nearly reaches two and a half hours. The final hour of the film contains about twelve different endings where you think the film is over but it keeps going on and on and on. Henry Hull delivers a good performance but the rest of the cast is rather lame. The biggest highlight is a hurricane at the end of the film, which contains some of the greatest special effects of its time. There's a moment when a servant takes shelter by a house only to have the house tear apart and fly away while the actor is standing there.

Mart Sander Nice goings-on in an old mansion. But several flaws as well. The plot is a bit over-written, and there are numerous warnings on title cards to be very attentive, to be very afraid and so on. One step away from a brainwash really. From the first moments it's difficult to understand who's who - especially if you have a washed out bootleg copy, such as mine. You just don't distinguish the many faces. Plus there are several black-face performances, which is really stupid, as the men who are supposed to be black servants, have especially distinctive paleface features. Needless to say, they also provide the comic relief, and needless to say, it's all about rolling the eyes, waxing stiff, falling down, and running around in terror, yelling "lawdy, lawdy!" or something similar. In other words, not funny. I did like the leading lady and I can't blame Griffith for falling madly in love with her. Fortunately she's not only pretty, but also quite convincing as a 16-year old precious little rich girl, hungry for her mother's love. I immediately went browsing the net and found two more films where she is in, so I'll know a bit more when these arrive. Strangely enough her career totally ended a few years after this film, and I would like to know the reason, why. The leading man was a new face to me as well, even though looking at the list of his films, I realized I have seen several, but from the later period. He looks like he could be 16 himself, whereas in reality he was 32. Very handsome and moving as a young man tortured by love, he left a very good impression on me. There are nice interiors and some very good 1922 fashions displayed. I only wish there were a good, sharp, legitimate copy released. Despite some obvious flaws in the story, the complexity of the plot and the irritating comic subplot, a thoroughly enjoyable dark old house flick.

rsoonsa D. W. Griffith made his only venture into the mystery field here, primarily due to the success of the "old dark house" genre, stimulated by Mary Roberts Rinehart's novel, THE CIRCULAR STAIRCASE, which was very successfully filmed and staged (with Avery Hopwood) as THE BAT. The script written by Griffith (as Irene Sinclair) is extremely complicated, and engages the cast in a jointed series of plots revolving for the most part about attempts at discovery of a missing half-million dollars of bootlegger takings, secreted somewhere within a mansion that is replete with secret passages and hidden panels. Griffith gave his mistress, Carol Dempster, the female lead romantically linked with Henry Hull, whose kinetic limberness is difficult to match, although she acts well, and vigorously too, as much of the scenario provides comedic lunacy; Morgan Wallace is particularly engaging as a Dempster suitor. The film is well-edited, and the special effects by Edward Scholl are creative, to say the least; however, Griffith's penchant for adding numerous story lines to his cinematic landscape causes more than a bit of weariness in the viewer as the work pitches constantly among romantic, mystery and comedy themes; as to be expected, the small moments of detail when the talented players are given rein are generally the most satisfying.