Lot in Sodom (1933) YIFY - Download Movie TORRENT

Reviewed by djpass-1 6 / 10

Well. That was interesting.

I could hardly spoil this, since everyone knows the story. This film looks, as one writer here noted, as if it were made in Germany about 1920. The directors seem to have used all the special effects they knew, like neophytes. It is more ballet than conventional movie, using music, singing, voice-over and text (though some is in Latin) to augment the action.I seem to recall that this group made their few films in Rochester, so perhaps they were connected with Kodak. Sorry I can't give a citation for that.On the whole, the film is interesting as an historical glimpse into early independent work. A good film for stoners.

Reviewed by netwallah 7 / 10

A visual ballet of a biblical tale

A short art-house movie, beautifully photographed and edited, with dark stage-like sets, leaping and leering effete young men wearing eye-makeup, jeering townsfolk, biblical intertitles, and jarring modernistic music. The decadence of the city seems to reside in its airborne or writhing gay dancers, and in the opposition to Lot and his visitor the Angel. A problem arises with Lot: he is the only old person in Sodom, apparently, and he looks a lot like an anti-semitic caricature of an old Jew, both in costume and makeuphe's got a great hooked nose and deepset eyesand gesture. Lot's wife is neither ancient nor stereotyped, nor is his daughter especially notable except for a tranquil beauty. Some cinematic effects workthe montage is both visually attractive and symbolic, and the fiery rain is okay, tooand others don't (a jagged white lightning streak down the centre of the screen during the opening is headache-making). The story ends with the transformation of Lot's wife into a pillar of saltLot is nowhere to be seen. The movie is more like a ballet than a story, interesting and sometimes beautiful but quite uneven.

Reviewed by Bunuel1976 5 / 10

LOT IN SODOM {Short} (James Sibley Watson & Melville Webber, 1933) **

This is one of the longer films in Kino's 2-Disc "Avant-Garde" collection, also among the more notorious and, in retrospect, disagreeable. The title obviously refers to the Old Testament episode depicting the destruction of the immoral twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; it is very probable that this was made in the wake of the contemporaneous Cecil B. De Mille epics of Biblical lore but, in the long run, their hokey and unsubtle approach is vastly preferable to what is on offer here! Its multiplicity of slowed-down images comes across as mere ostentation; otherwise, there is a concentrated striving for authenticity: Lot is recognizably a Jewish stereotype, the archaic intertitles direct quotes from Scriptures and, most importantly, the overt gay perspective corresponds to the 'historical' reason behind the obliteration (a rare instance of this, by the way, here surely at its first representation) but which was clearly what the film-makers were interested in portraying to begin with, thus distorting the point of the entire narrative! For the record, the directorial duo had previously been responsible for the lesser of the two rival 1928 film versions of THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF USHER and the film under review unaccountably ranked among the year's Top 10 in the annual "National Board Of Review" selections!

Lot in Sodom

1933

Action / Drama

Lot in Sodom

1933

Action / Drama

Plot summary

Director

Top cast

Tech specs

Movie Reviews

Well. That was interesting.

A visual ballet of a biblical tale

LOT IN SODOM {Short} (James Sibley Watson & Melville Webber, 1933) **

1 Comments