Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Antonius Block Alla Nazimova is probably an acquired taste, as her appearance in 'Camille' (that poofy hair!) and her overly dramatic emoting create quite a combination. (Perhaps she's like blue cheese, strong, will make you sit up and take notice maybe not always in a good way, but somehow grows on you … but I digress.) Together with heartthrob Rudolph Valentino, the film tells the story of the doomed love affair between a young law student and a society woman who is kept by rich suitors. There are some scenes that are touching and others that are too drawn out, but the Art Deco set designs from Natacha Rambova (who would later marry Valentino) are fantastic throughout, and the biggest reason to see the film. The story itself and the acting aren't going to blow you away, but it's watchable despite its unevenness.

gavin6942 Camille is a courtesan in Paris. She falls deeply in love with a young man of promise, Armand Duval. When Armand's father begs her not to ruin his hope of a career and position by marrying Armand, she acquiesces and leaves her lover.I watched this because it was on the DVD for "Camille" (1936). I am not going to say it is a bad movie, because it is not a bad movie. Though I will say it was more challenging for me to watch the silent version than the talkie version. And I love silent films... must have just been the day.Watch this if you want to see why Rudolph Valentino was a star and is still known today (unlike the bulk of 1920s actors). He was one of a kind, to say the least.

pvtexmex-1 Whatever made Nazimova think she could be Camille, one of the most sought after "courtesans" in Paris? Or maybe French men really did have a thing for flat-chested, shapeless women with big feet and bigger hairdos. Surely that was a wig. There is no way they could have tossed up that concoction on a daily basis. And Rudolf Valentino falls hopelessly in love with her at first sight. Really? Valentino might could have added something to this picture if Nazimova would have allowed it. Instead, she chose to keep his appearances brief and subdued, and even to keep him off-screen as much as possible so as to keep the (very soft and fuzzy) focus on herself. On the positive side, there are some very interesting set designs, especially Camille's Paris apartment and the casino. I especially liked the women in silhouette behind the screen and their Egyptian-evoking movements. Valentino's second plaything, Olympe, looks like she may have just stepped out of a Venusian spacecraft. But then it was Paris. I see that many people are impressed with all of the "artistic" innovations introduced by Nazimova, including her rather unique acting style. To me, it seems to date the picture. Possibly in 1921 Nazimova was all the rage, but not for long. It could have been a better movie with more Valentino and less Nazimova--and a lot less hair.

MartinHafer I watched both this version and the more famous Greta Garbo version one after the other. And, despite these being such famous films, I didn't particularly care for either of them. The film was a typical 1920s weepy and overly campy romance and this makes it a silent that does NOT age very well.Nazimova stars as the courtesan, Camille ('courtesan' is an old fashioned and nice way of saying high-priced whore). This woman has definitely been around the block quite a few times--so to speak. And she has quite a bit of talent for seducing men--including a young and innocent Rudolph Valentino. However, despite it being obvious that she has slept with half the rich men in Paris, Rudy is so smitten that he cannot accept that she has a tarnished reputation. But, eventually after making Rudy pretty miserable, she does the right thing and rejects him--though the reason in this film seemed pretty flimsy compared to the 1936 film--which just made more sense.As far as the acting goes, Valentino did an okay job and didn't seem as wimpy and stupid as the same character Robert Taylor played 15 years later. Regarding Camille, Nazimova (this was her full stage name--she was a one-namer like Cher), she was pretty bizarre to see due to her totally wacky hairstyle. It looked almost as if she took two or three wigs and stacked them on her head! I assume this was meant to look sexy and exotic, but I just thought she looked weird. Her acting was fair, though since she was playing Camille, there was a lot of wild gesticulating and posturing due to her unnamed illness (I assume it was supposed to be TB).Interestingly enough, the film was different from the later and more famous version. First, it was set in the present day (1921) instead of the 1840s. Second, the ending was very different--the entire final scene of the 1936 version was missing in this film. I actually think this improved the film, somewhat, but overall the film seemed to be technically well-made but too over-the-top and melodramatic to elevate it much above mediocrity.