DbcultAccessing Vault...
Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
Alright, so In Holland. Is it worth tracking down today? Well, that depends on what you're looking for. If you're a fan of old, old shorts, especially those little slices of early comedy that feel like vaudeville acts stretched onto film, then absolutely, give it a whirl. It's got that particular charm. But if you’re hoping for a snappy, fast-paced story or anything with a deep plot, you're probably gonna be bored stiff. It’s for the niche crowd, really. 🧐
The whole thing feels a bit like a postcard come to life, or maybe a moving picture show for the local nickelodeon crowd. George Bickel and Paul McCullough play these two American fellas, George and Ralph, who are just trying to enjoy their vacation. Of course, nothing goes quite as planned when you're a tourist, especially not back then, it seems.
Bickel, with his magnificent mustache, really anchors the physical comedy. He's got this way of looking utterly bewildered that's just kinda infectious. There’s a scene where he’s trying to navigate a narrow bridge, and you can just *feel* his frustration. It's not laugh-out-loud stuff, but it's a knowing chuckle.
McCullough, on the other hand, is the more frantic of the pair. He's always on the verge of a stumble or getting caught in some contraption. His fall into the canal — yeah, it happens — feels like it took a few takes to get that splash just right. He goes in with a sort of resigned exasperation that I found kinda endearing.
Marjorie Beebe shows up too, as the love interest, or at least someone to cause some romantic confusion. She’s got this very expressive face. You know, the kind where you can tell exactly what she’s thinking just from her eyes. There's a moment when George tries to impress her, and her reaction shot lingers just a beat too long, making it pretty funny. Like she's thinking, 'Oh, bless his heart.' 😂
The writing, by Paul Gerard Smith, is straightforward. It sets up these simple, almost episodic gags. You don’t get a lot of complex dialogue; it’s more about the visual humor and the situations they find themselves in. It’s very much a product of its time. The humor isn't trying to be clever; it's just trying to be amusing, which it mostly is.
There's this one recurring bit with a wooden shoe, I think it was. Someone keeps losing it, or it gets kicked, and it just pops up in unexpected places. It’s not a huge plot point, but it's a nice little running gag that adds to the general silliness. It’s the kind of thing you might miss if you blink.
The pacing is… leisurely. This isn't a film that rushes. It take its sweet time getting from one minor predicament to the next. You can almost feel the film trying to convince you that watching these men try to ride a very stubborn bicycle is *super important*. And, for a minute, it kinda is. 🚲
I did notice the outdoor shots, when they’re actually in what looks like the countryside. They have this certain charm. The windmills, the little canals. It almost makes you want to visit. The sets, when they're indoors, feel a little… sparse. Like they just grabbed whatever they had laying around the studio.
One odd thing: there’s a moment, very brief, where the film stock seems to jump or scratch. Like a real old print. It adds to the authenticity, I suppose, but also makes you wonder what kind of a shape the original was in. Small detail, but I saw it.
The film ends rather abruptly, too. No grand resolution, just sort of… stops. It leaves you feeling like you just watched a very short sketch, which, honestly, is probably what it was intended to be. It doesn't overstay its welcome, which is a blessing for some
IMDb —
1918
Community
Log in to comment.
