DuracellEnergizer said:
The still construction of London After Midnight (1927)
Now that I know the story, I have no interest in seeing the film even if a copy is somehow discovered, restored, and made available to the public. Except for The Village, I've never once enjoyed these "bait and switch" movies, and nothing here convinces me this film would be any exception.
5/10 (for the reconstruction, of course; the film itself is unratable)
Was bait and switch even a concept in 1927? ;)
I think it's hard to judge LAM, since the photo recon is all we have to work with. Tod Browning essentially remade it with Bela Lugosi as "Mark of the Vampire" in 1935. That movie I felt cheated by, as characters are acting out a deception even when they couldn't possibly be observed by anyone else. You can mislead or hoodwink an audience, but you can't outright lie to them.
There's a similar conundrum with The Innocents from 1961. Most reviews go with the theory the main character is slowly going mad, and that neatly explains away all the spooky goings on. As Deborah Kerr's character sees the ghosts and describes them before ever seeing pictures of them, this doesn't hold water for me. That one plot point robs the film of any ambiguity for me.