Watch The Blue Bird For Free

Wonderful Movie

Thanks for the memories!

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Director: MAURICE TOURNEUR. Screenplay: Charles Maigne. Based on the 1909 stage play by Maurice Maeterlinck. Film editor: Clarence Brown. Photography: John van den Broek. Sets and costumes designed by Ben Carré. Presented by Adolph Zukor.Not copyright 1918 by Famous Players-Lasky. New York opening at the Rivoli: 31 March 1918. 81 minutes. SYNOPSIS: Two children set out to find the blue bird of happiness. COMMENT: I much prefer the magnificent 1940 remake to this one. Admittedly, once the movie gets started (and its seems to take forever to get going), we are presented with some really magical sequences, despite Tourneur's disappointingly static direction. Only three times does he enliven proceedings by moving his camera. On all other occasions, it's up to the players and the lavish sets and special effects to stimulate the audience. Fortunately, the movie was obviously produced on an admirably large budget, and, by and large, the acting is most acceptable. In fact, the lead children are both charming and charismatic and it's amazing to learn that Robin Macdougall made no other films at all. The neighbor's sick daughter with the soulful eyes, Katherine Bianchi, also impresses. AVAILABLE on DVD through Kino. Quality rating: 6 out of ten. Although presented in all the splendor of its original tints, the DVD has a surprisingly large number of important defects, including at least 20 minutes of worrying print deterioration, a missing scene of around 6 minutes in the middle of the film, and a concluding sequence that has almost totally dropped out except for three or four irritating freeze frames.

well. can't say this film was totally my cuppatea, but i am neither a true scholar of cinema and i often am put off by how disturbingly strange the overall effect of cinema silents are. i'm not the smartest on the block, but i don't think i'm a total slouch either. i can at least recognize the importance of something because of my partial familiarity with classicism, neo or otherwise. it was pretty obvious of the artistic and cultural importance of Maurice Tourneur's 'Bluebird'.the real problems with this film more than likely have more to do with me. even though i love horror movies and ghost stories, i also scare easily. as a child i had many recurring nightmares that were more often than not, induced by the images i was exposed to at the movies. i admit it. i was one of those silly, wimpy little kids that was frightened by 'OZ' and flying monkeys. even though i love cinema, i can't say for sure if i ever really have gotten used to the whole thing. maybe that's part of the fun. let's hope so.to be perfectly honest i found this movie to be more than just a little bit creepy and disturbing. to be truthful, i thought it was pretty weird. but it was what they say it is. beautiful, mysterious and haunting. unfortunately a little TOO haunting for some of us. it almost feels like having a actual ghost present in the TV room. if i was a kid again watching this, i'd be afraid of it. as a adult i'm not so sure i wasn't afraid of this. fortunately i saw this first as a adult because i could assess the images here better than i would have as a child. after all, don't they always say, "it's only a movie". repeat that thought two more times every time the cinema gets to you too much.not to say that this movie doesn't have moments of charm and humour. once you get used to all that caked on silent movie make up all over those kids faces, they start to look a little more like cute, normal kids. but at first they were kind of off putting. many of the sentiments are well expressed with good insight and tell the folklore with great love of tradition.also the guy that played the cat was a hilarious trip to watch run around on all fours, and the scene where he gets into a fight with the dog is a real guffaw.this also has some of the most beautiful fantasy images from the silent cinema era. a far cry from the often pedestrian imagery in the delightful and cute, but often hokey 'Peter Pan' by Adolph Zukor. love the silent 'Peter Pan', but this is obviously a more sophisticated film-work. and with due respect to James Wong Howe, the cinematography here is more accomplished and stylish. the whole thing was spooky, but definitely otherworldly.it is very sad to note the condition of the film print here. much of it was severely deteriorated and neglected to a shameful extent. this should never happen to any film. that's why film preservation should include all film and television and not be left to personal opinion or pick and choose mentality. one person's garbage is another's personal experience. at least preserving films can tell us something about the time period from which they came and about the persons. no art form should ever go this neglected or abused like this. a testimony to the cruelty man shows against the things he creates in this world.i enjoyed this classic very much. but i can't say children or families of today's commercial driven market will. most kids will probably think it weird and creepy, and their baby boomer and Gen.X parents will be confused by it. this film is probably best enjoyed by cinema scholars or people interested in the classical. whatever, it's probably only people with a learned education that will appreciate this. it's not something you might take to naturally. but who knows, wonders do happen and people can be surprisingly quirky sometimes. it's rare, like this beautiful film, but it happens.a definite must see for silent film fans and scholars in the art of filmmaking. they're probably the ones who can explain this the best.

I realize that this film has been remade several times, but there is no way I'll see any of the remakes after seeing this 1918 version. While some might find it charming or perhaps a classic, I just felt it was creepy and bizarre--sort of like morphing classical mythology with a fairy tale and "The Wizard of Oz" AND copious amounts of LSD! The film is an allegorical tale about a couple of children who, with the help of a fairy and some ultra-weird new friends, go searching for the Blue Bird of Happiness. As for the friends, the fairy gives them a magic hat with which they can unlock the souls from a variety of objects and animals. With the hat, they are able to make their dog and cat look a lot like people and talk. But, it's even weirder when they unlock the souls within fire, water and bread(????). This motley crew goes from one odd vignette to another. But, by far, the creepiest and most disturbing is visiting dead Grandpa and Grandma and all the many little babies that had apparently died that would have been their brothers and sisters!! Who thinks of this stuff?! Most people wouldn't--provided they weren't off their meds!! Apart from a creepy and incomprehensible story, the film does have a few things going for it--but only a few. The cinematography and sets, for 1918, were awfully impressive. Aside from that, I can't see much reason to watch this god-awful movie.UPDATE: Despite my pledge, I have since seen two other versions--films that were as bad or worse than this one! The problem, no matter how impressive the cast or sets is the story--one that is just bonkers and non-entertaining to say the least.

the blue bird from 1918 is one of the most beautiful, captivating films of all time. it is the story of 2 poor children who are visited by a fairy on Christmas eve. the fairy shows them how to see things through the eyes of God. she teaches them about what is truly important in life. they follow the fairy through many events and learn something new from each experience. if you have not seen this great silent film or have seen another version, then please take the time to watch this masterpiece, you will never forget it. the young girl who plays mytel (tula belle) is nothing short of tremendous. her acting is very natural and has a realism i've never seen in another child star. tula's facial expressions even without speech, is more effective than most child stars with both mediums. tula belle's performance in the blue bird is probably the single best performance by a child star of all time.