I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Powerful

The story-telling is good with flashbacks.The film is both funny and heartbreaking. You smile in a scene and get a soulcrushing revelation in the next.

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.

Erich Von Stroheim was a controversial director in the golden age of Hollywood, he was a student of D.W. Griffith having acted and been assistant to the former filmmaker. He did not only inherit the practical skills of Griffith but also the vision of himself as an artist who would make films the way he wanted them to make; he would not let any studio executive dictate the way he made his film, even if they were eventually cut in a way more suitable to the perceived public at that time.The troubled relationship between Von Stroheim had already climaxed when he was forced to leave the production for 'Merry-Go-Round' in 1923, after which he was fired by the same man, Irving Thalberg the general manager of Universal. Luck was not on Von Stroheim's side as even though he had filmed 'Greed' under MGM, on April 10 of 1924, when the film was still in post-production, MGM merged with another production studio, putting his old rival Irving Thalberg in charge of the cutting.So of the 85 hours of footage, cut down by Von Stroheim himself to a first version of 462 minutes -which allegedly was only shown to 12 people, was eventually cut by the studio to 140 minutes (the cut I got to see, I believe). However the length was not the only problem the film had in appealing to the general public as its pessimistic an misanthropic content was not suited to the 'roaring twenties' in which all other films of the time had happy endings and lighter subjects. The studios still lost money on the project and a lot (It only made half of its production cost of 546.883$ without inflation). It was a lose-lose situation.The film were way ahead of its time, only garnering admiration and praise in the 1950s. It is easy to see why; the beautifully scenes all shot on location, the harsh realistic story of man's darker side, the great directing in which Von Stroheim experimented with techniques that would inspire many other filmmakers after him (e.g. the use of deep-focus in the wedding scene) and a memorable ending that works perfect for the story.Personally I had no problems with the 140 minutes cut in terms of missing story elements or explanation to the motives of the characters. I cannot comment on the so-called "best film of all time" 462 minutes, as can no-one with that version forever lost thanks to the greed of studio executives.

Zasu Pitts is an absolute marvel, absolutely marvelous in the role of avaricious wife. Watch her face: She is not only unexpectedly very pretty, she is incredibly expressive.Cast usually as the scatter-brained and/or neurotic foil, she showed in "Greed" she could have remained a serious actress.Unfortunately, whatever it was that motivated her character is told, very unsatisfactorily and very uncinematically, in one intertitle, sometimes called a title card.Perhaps the fault is that the original version, as created by director Erich von Stroheim -- and running 6 to 8 hours! -- spelled it out better, and perhaps even explained her more-than-neurotic reaction to her new husband, and apparently to the impending sexual activities expected of brides, but no motivation is given us audience in the badly cut-down version.On a recent (14 June 2015) airing on TCM, "Greed" ran about 2 hours and 15 minutes, and it could have been cut further. The sexual neurosis, so unexplained, could and should have been cut out, since there was never any resolution, and some other scenes, especially some badly edited scenes or shots, could have been eliminated or re-cut.Still another option, as suggested on a discussion board, is to show the original 42 reels as a TV mini-series. I like that idea, very much. It could give us the complete von Stroheim feeling and probably explain all that is now missing.Other than the acting, and every performer is great, and occasional clever camera angles, and some spectacular scenery, I can't really recommend "Greed," except to film fanatics (like myself) and lovers of film history.

"Greed" is a legendary film among old film buffs--the holy grail of silents. This is because the incredibly obsessive director, Erich von Stroheim, made a film of ridiculously large proportions. Reportedly, the original print ran 42 reels!! It would have taken the best part of your day to watch the film and von Stroheim envisioned it being shown on successive nights. Well, the studio wanted nothing to do with this an insisted he cut it. After some cuts (but not enough for the studio), executives took the project away from him and had it cut down to the version we have today. There are lots of stories (probably apocryphal) of the prints sitting in some vault somewhere--waiting to be discovered. And, reports (probably also apocryphal) are that the original film is some sort of work of genius that MUST be seen. Regardless, all we have now is about two and a half hours worth of film--and it's a film that also comes with a lot of hooplah. Folks claim that although its inferior due to the cutting, it's still a work of genius. Let me say that unlike the other reviewers, I was NOT that taken by this shortened version. I think the imagery is ridiculously unsubtle though the film still is worth seeing.The film begins with McTeague (Gibson Gowland) leaving home to learn dentistry from an itinerant dentist. Years pass and now he has a dental practice of his own in San Francisco and he seems like a pretty decent sort of fellow. He meets a very shy lady, Trina (Zasu Pitts) and they soon marry. However, into their seemingly normal lives comes a problem. Trina wins the lottery and the prize is $5000. While this may not seem like much today, back then it was HUGE. But, soon Trina's heart is soured. She refuses to spend any of this money and slowly becomes a nasty miser. As for McTeague, he slowly begins to sour on his wife. She clearly has emasculated him and when he loses his job, she refuses to spend any of her fortune. They live on the edge--with barely enough to scrape by. And, full of bitterness, McTeague begins to drink and eventually lashes out at his tight-fisted wife. Then, he deserts her. Time passes and he returns--returns to claim what is his...ALL of the money. At the same time, there is a subplot involving one of McTeague's friends, Marcus. Marcus, inflamed by jealousy, demands the money that is by no right his--and when he is refused, he sets out to destroy McTeague--though McTeague himself does an awfully good job of this himself. All this leads to a dandy confrontation scene--one of the best of the silent era.As far as the plot goes, it's exceptional--full of great twists, irony and excitement. My problem is NOT with the story. My problem is with von Stroheim's manner of storytelling. He REPEATEDLY uses sledgehammer symbolism--symbolism that is not one bit subtle and he beats the audience with it again and again and again! To further beat this into the viewer, he even had portions of the film colorized golden in order to accentuate the greed aspects of the film. I have seen at least a thousand (probably MANY more) silents and this is among the least subtle I've ever seen. And, among the many films I have seen which have hand-colored elements, "Greed" is the sloppiest--with broad swaths of color instead of having it done in a more thorough fashion. Heck, the Pathe Brothers were doing FAR better jobs mass producing colorizing cels a decade of more before "Greed". So what we have is a great story but poor storytelling. I know folks are sold on von Stroheim--just like von Stroheim was sold on von Stroheim! But, I think he really could have used someone to say "Erich, even by our standards today, this film lacks subtlety and you need to back off and let the story speak for itself". The bottom line is that I still give it a 7 but think the stories about the genius associated with the film are highly exaggerated. Even old school directors like D.W. Griffith wouldn't have pushed the imagery this far and this unsubtlely.

I saw this movie in a cinema with a good print and live piano accompaniment so my viewing conditions were optimal. Overall, it was not the treat I had hoped for. There are some interesting moments and in the last scenes the movie takes you on quite an odyssey... but the heavy-handed didacticism and clumsy overacting torpedoed the film for me. Many silent films have exaggerated acting to compensate for the lack of sound, but for some reason it feels strikingly over the top in "Greed." Again and again we are given the message that greed is terrible, corrosive, a disease... but what else is new? With megabanks like Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, etc. busily doing "God's work" all over the globe nothing has changed since 1924...For me, the most satisfying aspect of this movie is that no one comes out looking good -- they're all scum trapped in their various downward spirals. But we could have gotten the benefits of Von Stroheim's bleak moral vista with more nuance and variety along the way. Instead, you'll walk out of this movie feeling like you've been beaten over the head with what you already knew only too well.