Why so low a rating?

I agree the film deserves a much better rating overall, like most of the other Garbo films as well. Can you imagine, even "Camille" Garbo's masterpiece gets only 7,6 whereas it should be closer to 10. I think the problem is that there is unfortunately a tendency to dsregard the quality of Garbo's films in general. Take any biography on Garbo and you will always see the usual line (oh she was Divine but her films were not up to her level). What does that mean anyway? People complain that Grabo has not portrayed Cleopatra or has not played any Ipsen plays as if she was a stage actress. Why should she? She was a screen not a stage actress (although she had stage training and would most likely be equally impressive on stage as well). And she did play some great parts like "Camille", or "Anna Karenina", or "Quenn Christina" or "Anna Christie" and even Pirandello to name just a few. What many people forget is that when one gets away from stereotyped ideas about Garbo's vehicles, there is so much to treasure in them and this includes "Mata Hari". Naturally, the films were especially tailored by MGM to showcase Garbo's genious, beauty and persona. But who could blame them? "Mata Hari" features luminous cinematography, clever dialogue and an effective supporting cast. Adrian's costumes for Garbo are amazing ahnd each costume tells us something about the character she is portraying. As for Garbo she is quite simply Divine.

I think 6 is about right

When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

I don't think the low rating has anything to do with the performance of the cast, but the screenplay & plot. Not to bash the 90s "Titanic", but many in the audience wanted to see a movie about the ship, not Jack and Rose....

Unsure how many real facts about Mata Hari are included in this film....but it might have a higher rating perhaps if it was called "The Lady Spy" :) based on a fictional character....

Vesele Vianoce!!!! http://www.iarelative.com/czech/xmas/index.html

I rated this movie a 7, but that is too high. Would have given it a 6 1/2 if such option were available. Without Garbo it would rate a 5.

MH was released only 12 years before I was born, so I watched a lot of "classic" movies when they were new. Love black and white. Haven't seen many movies made after 1970 I like. Don't need a snooty-fruity film class to tell what is good about old movies.

Love Greta Garbo, as most do. She makes the movie worth watching. But.....

George Fitzmaurice's direction seems still struggling to get over the silent style -- explanatory captions, irising, lengthy blackouts between scenes, actors posed like mannequins, and lots more intangibles that made it seem creaky. It is hard to believe watching MH that it was made only 10 months before the visually striking and sophisticated Grand Hotel, and by the same studio.

Ramon Novarro is a whimpy leading man. There must have been something that generation saw in him I don't get. In any case he wasn't big enough for Greta Garbo in more ways than one.

For an espionage-intrigue number, it was glacially slow moving, though it had its exciting moments.

Nevertheless, it was fairly entertaining. Good cinematography. Lionel Barrymore and Lewis Stone always help, but I'm not sure they could have saved it wihout Greta. Not one of Garbo's better performances, but her worst would hold me still for 89 minutes.

He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45

This is my 7th Garbo film. Half way through. Feeling pretty bored (as you can plainly see by my being here). Worst one yet. 6.0 is fair, 6.8 is generous.



I wanna find out why I'm working - the answer can't be just to pay bills and pile up more money.