Lack of good storyline.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The opening of "The Cat and the Canary" is amazing. A layer of dust and cobwebs are wiped away to reveal the opening credits. The mansion is first seen as a tall, distorted silhouette, a series of shadowed spires emerging out of the darkness. The towers of the mansion fade away to a series of glass bottles. Mr. Cyrus West, the ill millionaire watched over by his greedy family, the metaphorical canary, appears in the bottles while cats leer hungrily at him. We cut to a POV shot of someone walking through the shadowy halls of manor, the huge white curtains billowing in the wind. As far as classic Gothic horror imagery goes, this is a buffet.This wasn't the first 'old dark house' movie. D.W. Griffin's "One Exciting Night" predates it and the genre existed on the stage first. If you're looking for a compilation of clichés, this one provides. We've got greedy relatives gathering in a spooky mansion, awaiting the reading of a will. Some are trust-worthy, while others are duplicitous. The mansion has secret doorways, including one in a bookcase. There's an escaped homicidal maniac. Someone tries to discredit the sole female benefactor with old fashion gas-lighting. A dead body falls out of a secret compartment. The villain even wears a fedora. This is clichés 101 and how you feel about that depends on how you feel about classic horror in general.Another hallmark of the 'old dark house' genre is incorporating laughs with thrills. The leading man, Paul (Creighton Hale), hides under beds, gets vexed by giant bed springs, runs around hallways, gets spooked by the creepy maid, and bounces around. It's not hilarious. Another problem is the large cast. The main characters are developed to basic ideas while the supporting cast doesn't even get that much. Laura La Plante as the main heroine does nothing but gets threatened. She's the dullest of the damsel in distress type. The movie ships these two cousins without question which is a little weird. Aunt Susan (Flora Finch) reminded me of Una O'Conner in "Bride of Frankenstein." It's as funny in '27 as it was in '35. The movie drags in its latter half. Since the supporting cast is so thinly devised, you can't guess, nor care, who the killer is.The film isn't without merit. Beyond the amazing opening, there's a cool shot of Paul hiding under bed, lights reflecting in his glasses. The shot of a hand appearing out of the wall, over La Plante's sleeping face, is great. An appearance by a sinister doctor doesn't add to the story but is a weird, off-putting moment. The Cat, the villain, is actually pretty cool looking. One of the fun things about the movie is how it plays with the silent movie titles. Words like 'Ghosts!' and "Help!' are presented in wiggling or growing text, while a series of swears are presented by comic book exclamation."The Cat and the Canary" isn't a great movie but it was, no doubt, influential. Universal made two sound remakes in 1930, one in English, one in Spanish, both of which are lost now. Paramount remade it as a farce starring Bob Hope in '39, probably the most famous version. A British version was produced in the 1960s, somehow by a studio other then Hammer. This isn't discussing all the films that took its clichés and ran with it. Despite all of this, the movie isn't discussed too much today, probably do to the lack of an iconic presence like a Chaney or a Karloff. Some bits are brilliant, even if the overall film doesn't really come together.

As silent films go, this one is probably more entertaining than most for modern viewers. The B&W visuals are interesting, even if predictably drab and bleak. Most of the plot takes place inside a "mansion", ironic given how dilapidated the place looks. Immensely high ceilings lend a touch of the Gothic. And light and shadow are played for all they're worth.The story is cliché-ridden but kinda fun. A wealthy old man has left his fortune to one of six people, all of whom gather at midnight in the spooky old house to hear the will read. After a promising first Act, the middle Act treads water as characters scurry around in a state of semi-fright, scared of the mansion's "ghosts".A ghastly looking hand with long fingernails reaches out to steal a necklace from a fair maiden's neck, in one sequence. And, in another, one person is found dead. The film's ending is less disappointing than I had initially feared. But still, a lot is left unexplained. The plot inserts humor at various points throughout, which helps, given the lengthy runtime. The Aunt Susan character is a hoot.Bleak production design is typical for films of that era. Ditto those drab glad rags that pass for costumes. I have yet to watch a 1920s film wherein the visuals did not look like precursors to the 1930s Great Depression.Acting is predictably melodramatic and hammy, maybe deliberately so. Exaggerated facial expressions, bug-eyed responses, and lots of animation in general emphasize that this film is mostly visual.Nothing is to be taken seriously here. "The Cat And The Canary" is an early example of a whodunit mystery, set in a spooky old house, played as semi-comedy. As such, except for the lagging middle Act, the film is reasonably entertaining.

After reading the many flattering reviews and comments for "Cat and the Canary", I wondered if I should rethink my position - my position being that I disliked it very much. I appreciated the cinematography and several directorial touches that must have made this picture a hit in the 1920's. I also appreciated that it was probably one of the first of its genre, and many situations have been done to excess since then.First off, it was too long - I have the Alpha 101 minute version and the picture moved at ice-cutter speed (don't know about the 80 min. version) - is this really how it moved in 1927? But worse, this film contains some of the most outrageous,scenery-chewing, hambone overacting ever put on celluloid, the performance by Creighton Hale the biggest offender - One more look of pop-eyed surprise and I was ready to sue his estate. Reading other readers reviews, this was de rigeur for silent films of this genre but I found it very irritating and thought it detracted from the final product.It could have been a better film. Maybe I would have liked it better when it was first shown; and the 1939 remake is even worse.

This is one of those must-see-at-least-once haunted house films, being one of the originals. I've seen it more than a few times. It took me years to track it down on VHS, nowadays it seems everywhere on digital platforms. It was very well done, a very pleasant comedy and well worth while and yet imho is nowhere near as good as the 1939 remake, that is if comparisons between silents and talkies are permitted. To me it's the same story therefore the two are comparable, although the 1979 version is probably best utterly forgotten if not completely forgivable for being such a time waster.Various quirky guests assemble at huge spooky mansion at midnight exactly 20 years after the death of their eccentric relative Cyrus West to hear the reading of his Will and who gets his money. It always struck me as odd that the greedy relatives didn't initially contest the bizarre rule, after all some of them might have joined him Upstairs in the intervening 2 decades! Creighton Hale and Laura La Plante played the lead characters of Paul and Annabelle excellently – but unfortunately without the same sparkle Bob Hope and Paulette Godard had when playing Wally and Joyce 12 years later. However, the 1927 version had some nifty camera-work, inventive intertitles, some witty moments (especially Aunt Susan encountering the wide eyed Paul under her bed!) and nice sets with a lovely atmosphere that all still manages to suck you completely into the plot. I would add that the version I just saw ran 93 minutes with a rather stale soundtrack, I thought the tape I watched in the '90's was more sympathetic at 126 minutes long - there's apparently a wide range of versions now available on DVD so a little care in choosing seems required. As I'm still searching for the Perfect Copy this applies to me too!All in all an enjoyable and essential silent film to see even if you don't like the genre; if you do then I would particularly recommend the remake as one of the best films ever made.