---
title: "Foolish Wives"
year: 1922
kind: "film"
canonical: "https://film.one/film/foolish-wives"
fi1m_id: "foolish-wives"
imdb_id: "tt0013140"
tmdb_id: 35227
wikidata_id: "Q1116541"
fi1m_score: 75
critics_score: 66
critics_reviews: 5
published: "2026-09-25T06:00:48.325644+00:00"
updated: "2026-09-25T06:00:48.622942+00:00"
region: "DK"
licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL."
---

# Foolish Wives (1922)

Directed by Erich von Stroheim · 2h 23m · Drama, Thriller

## Identity

Foolish Wives

- **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/foolish-wives
- **Type:** Film
- **Fi1m ID:** foolish-wives
- **IMDb ID:** tt0013140
- **TMDB ID:** 35227
- **Wikidata ID:** Q1116541
- **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013140/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/35227, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1116541

**Fi1m score: 75** · Critics 66 (early) from 5 reviews

*In a sentence:* Erich von Stroheim is excellent company, provided he stays on the screen

> Erich von Stroheim gives *Foolish Wives* a compellingly unpleasant centre. The lavish setting and capable cast make it worth the evening, though the slow pace demands an appetite for prolonged moral discomfort.

## Synopsis

Monte Carlo provides the setting for Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin (Erich von Stroheim), a Russian count whose title offers little reassurance about his character. Helen Hughes (Miss DuPont) and Andrew J. Hughes (Rudolph Christians) feature alongside Princess Olga Petchnikoff (Maude George) and Princess Vera Petchnikoff (Mae Busch). Maruschka (Dale Fuller), Cesare Ventucci (Cesare Gravina) and Marietta (Malvina Polo) also figure in the story. Amid the lavish surroundings, the drama concentrates on Karamzin and the people around him, questioning how much good character can be inferred from a title.

## Review

Erich von Stroheim makes *Foolish Wives* worth an evening, provided patience is part of the arrangement. As director, writer and star, he makes the Count’s bad character the main attraction and gives us little respite from it. The result is a good, sour drama whose central performance survives some sluggish storytelling. It runs for 143 minutes.

Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin holds our attention because the actor is so reluctant to soften him. The performance offers little encouragement to excuse his behaviour or enjoy it innocently. We felt uncomfortable at how much we wanted to keep watching him. The actor sustains the nastiness without making it monotonous, and that is a considerable achievement in a film that gives him so much of our time.

Miss DuPont’s Helen Hughes supplies a welcome alternative to the Count’s presence, and Rudolph Christians gives Andrew J. Hughes enough weight to hold our attention. Maude George and Mae Busch, as Princess Olga Petchnikoff and Princess Vera Petchnikoff, help keep the surrounding company from becoming anonymous. These are capable performances in a film dominated by its leading man. Even so, we occasionally wanted the director to take as much interest in the people around the Count as he takes in the Count himself.

Monte Carlo matters because the luxury makes this company attractive before we have considered its character. Cinematographers William H. Daniels and Ben F. Reynolds give the setting a persuasive richness, allowing the surroundings to compete with the actors for our attention. The sets do useful dramatic work by making proximity to the Count seem desirable. Sigmund Romberg’s music provides a serviceable accompaniment, though our unease comes chiefly from the central performance.

Arthur Ripley’s editing is less persuasive. There are stretches when another dose of the Count adds little to what we already know, and the drama seems content to repeat its disapproval. A performance can remain interesting while the story around it stalls, and that happens too often here. The slow pace gives us time to examine the surroundings, but we begin paying attention to them when we should be concerned about the people.

As a thriller, it is too leisurely to promise sustained suspense. Its strength lies in the close attention paid to a man we would prefer to avoid, and in the director’s willingness to make that attention uncomfortable. The title raises a separate irritation: calling the wives foolish puts the judgement on women before the film has begun. Whatever judgement that invites, the Count’s behaviour gives us plenty to condemn without looking for excuses on his behalf.

This needs an appetite for spending time with a character whose appeal depends on how much we dislike him. Anyone hoping for a tightly wound thriller should make another choice; the interest here is in watching an actor make sustained villainy worth our attention. We would allow for the slower passages rather than pretend they all reward close scrutiny. Come for Erich von Stroheim, and do not expect him to make the evening comfortable.

*Fi1m score 75, published 25 September 2026.*

## Straight answers

**Is Foolish Wives worth watching?**

*Foolish Wives* is worth watching for Erich von Stroheim’s compellingly unpleasant central performance, and we score it 75 out of 100. We recommend it to anyone with patience for a sour character drama, though its 143 minutes contain sluggish, repetitive stretches rather than the sustained suspense of a tightly wound thriller.

**How long is Foolish Wives, and what is it rated?**

*Foolish Wives* runs 2h 23m. It is a drama and thriller film.

**Where can I watch Foolish Wives in Denmark?**

*Foolish Wives* is not on any streaming or rental service in Denmark at the moment. It is available in 2 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.

**How violent or frightening is Foolish Wives, and is it suitable for children?**

*Foolish Wives* has no UK or US certificate supplied, so we cannot give an age-based recommendation for children. We find its discomfort comes chiefly from the Count’s sustained nastiness rather than sustained suspense, but that does not establish how much violence it contains. Its slow pace and prolonged moral unease suit viewers interested in adult character drama.

**How does Foolish Wives compare to The Lady Eve?**

*Foolish Wives* is the slower, sourer choice beside [*The Lady Eve*](https://film.one/film/the-lady-eve), which we recommend more readily for wit and romance. Both offer calculating central characters, but von Stroheim sustains an unpleasantness that makes watching uncomfortable, while Barbara Stanwyck combines cleverness with vulnerability. We favour *The Lady Eve* for a lighter evening, despite some insistent slapstick.

**What should I watch after Foolish Wives?**

After *Foolish Wives*, try [*The Lady Eve*](https://film.one/film/the-lady-eve) (1941, Fi1m 90): For another calculating charmer, with considerably more wit and less moral gloom. Then [*The Earrings of Madame de...*](https://film.one/film/the-earrings-of-madame-de) (1953, Fi1m 87): For expensive surroundings and social rituals that make private unhappiness harder to escape; and [*Dangerous Liaisons*](https://film.one/film/dangerous-liaisons) (1988, Fi1m 84): For aristocratic cruelty performed with the good manners that make it more disturbing.

### Reviews we read (5)

- **IndieWire**, John Anderson (85/100, inferred): Anderson praises the film as having aged remarkably well and regards the Blu-ray as the most complete version known to exist. He singles out von Stroheim’s morally poisonous performance and lavishly decadent setting. [Read](https://www.indiewire.com/criticism/culture/hollywood-whipping-boy-von-stroheims-decadent-foolish-wives-was-first-million-dollar-movie-196813/)
- **Slant Magazine**, Ed Gonzalez (4/5): Gonzalez finds the film seductive, perverse, and morally bleak, and calls the Blu-ray essential. He praises the restoration’s clarity and recreation of the original color effects. [Read](https://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/foolish-wives-blu-ray-review-erich-von-stroheim/)
- **The New Yorker**, Richard Brody (70/100, inferred): Brody treats the film as a significant artistic achievement and laments Hollywood’s silencing of von Stroheim. He singles out Stroheim’s uncompromising portrayal of villainy and his distinctive moral vision. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/dvd-of-the-week-foolish-wives)
- **Time Out** (64/100, inferred): The page identifies a review of the film, but its critical verdict is unavailable in the provided text. The description singles out Monte Carlo and von Stroheim’s Russian count as the setting and focus of the plot. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/newyork/film/foolish-wives)
- **Variety**, Variety Staff (30/100, inferred): The critic finds the lavish production disappointing despite its expensive, impressive scale. The sets and capable cast are singled out as the film’s main strengths. [Read](https://variety.com/1921/film/reviews/foolish-wives-1200409380/)

## Details

- **Director:** Erich von Stroheim
- **Director:** Erich von Stroheim
- **Writer:** Erich von Stroheim
- **Cinematography:** William H. Daniels, Ben F. Reynolds
- **Editor:** Arthur Ripley
- **Music:** Sigmund Romberg
- **Producer:** Irving Thalberg
- **Cast:** Erich von Stroheim as Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin; Rudolph Christians as Andrew J. Hughes; Miss DuPont as Helen Hughes; Maude George as Princess Olga Petchnikoff; Mae Busch as Princess Vera Petchnikoff; Dale Fuller as Maruschka; Cesare Gravina as Cesare Ventucci; Malvina Polo as Marietta
- **Runtime:** 2h 23m
- **Release (Denmark):** 1 September 1924
- **Genres:** Drama, Thriller
- **Budget:** $1 million
- **Box office:** $400,200

## Where to watch in Denmark

Not streaming, renting or buying in Denmark at the last check.

Also available in: ES, IT. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country.

## If you liked this

- *The Lady Eve* (1941), Fi1m 90: For another calculating charmer, with considerably more wit and less moral gloom. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-lady-eve.md)
- *The Earrings of Madame de...* (1953), Fi1m 87: For expensive surroundings and social rituals that make private unhappiness harder to escape. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-earrings-of-madame-de.md)
- *The Servant* (1963): For a colder study of class, dependence and carefully cultivated cruelty.
- *Dangerous Liaisons* (1988), Fi1m 84: For aristocratic cruelty performed with the good manners that make it more disturbing. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/dangerous-liaisons.md)
- *The Handmaiden* (2016), Fi1m 85: For elaborate deception, luxurious rooms and a sharper appetite for narrative surprises. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-handmaiden.md)

---
© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/foolish-wives