For me, SUNRISE is film perfection. The visuals are as fresh and gorgeous as ever, and while the characterizations may be more types than flesh and blood, every time I see it with an audience they may chuckle at some of the melodrama but they applaud wildly at the end. My first viewing of the film was a totally silent 8mm print and I was won over completely. I love introducing people to it and seeing their reaction to the visuals.
I am probably one of those extremely rare individuals under the age of 70 who prefers watching a silent film presented properly (35mm, live orchestral accompaniment, large screen) to just about anything made today. IMHO, a film must be VISUAL, with sound secondary. I love a really well put together soundtrack as much as anyone (just see how much I mention DTS in my posts), but with very few exceptions, most directors today either rely on editing to boost a weak script or uninspired visuals or they pile on the sound to the point where a quiet moment to them is under 90db. They don't seem to realize that film is a visual medium first and foremost, and what you do with onscreen space and offscreen space, along with a solid script and actors who give a damn about their performance should be priority. David Fincher is a director who has a fascinating visual style, but until ZODIAC I didn't give a rat's ass about almost anything else in his films because with that film there was more than razzle dazzle in the execution. I'll say the same about directors like Peter Jackson, Brian de Palma and many others who sure know how to give you a visual feast but the rest is just empty calories. Jackson learned on the LOTR trilogy and KING KONG, and sometimes an UNTOUCHABLES comes along to show that de Palma actually realizes that there are human beings in front of his camera.
Unfortunately, most directors today don't think that way. If you want proof, look no further than the latest Indiana Jones movie. There is no love of the audience or the craft in that film and I think Spielberg realized it while making it. Lucas has been in that mode ever since the third Indy movie-the last STAR WARS films make my point.
The silent filmmakers drew their inspiration from plays, books and even real life and it showed. Today many of the performances seem a bit much, but there was a gravitas, a grounding with reality that very few films have today. There were reference points to modern culture, but not the endless repetition that you see in most all media today, nor the almost incestuous relationships that all the various entertainments engage in today. If there was this much 30, 50 or 90 years ago, at least they weren't as obnoxious and in-your-face about it. There were no so-called "tentpoles" for studios back then-there were series films that could stand on their own for the most part but sequels were rare.
A silent film had to be watched-you couldn't turn and talk to someone during the show or you might miss a valuable plot point or fascinating bit of business by the actors. Someone once told me that you could tell when the writer and director of a film knew what they were doing-you could turn off the sound and be able to follow the story pretty closely because of the camera placement and the way the actors conveyed their emotions with expressions and body language. Now some may argue that great dialogue is also necessary and I agree with that to a point. If you are talking just for the sake of talking or having sounds just to show how cool you are, you may as well just do a play-this was the problem of many early talkies when you watch them today. In many of them the camera just sits there while ac-tors recite tons of dialogue that could easily have been handled by a couple of reaction shots or reverse angle shots.
Terrence Malick probably would have done very well in the silent era. DAYS OF HEAVEN has Murnau touches all over it, as do THIN RED LINE and NEW WORLD, and I think Scorsese has the occasional silent film inspiration-just look at the scene in GANGS OF NEW YORK where the door to the outside world is kicked open and we see that incredibly recreated New York city as the camera goes out the door.
Things like that keep me going to new movies with some hope, and I hope that releases of box sets like this one will enable filmmakers today and in the future to see what was/is possible in this wonderful visual medium.
Now if you will excuse me, I will climb down from the soapbox. . .
This new set from Fox is just incredible. I have been hoping that these films would someday get an home video release (SUNRISE has been out but only as part of a box set and this set includes a print from Europe in the ratio the film was shot in-1.33 as well as the Movietone print ratio of 1.2) and this is the equal of last year's monumental Ford box set. The print quality ranges from beautiful to very worn, but in many cases these are from the only existing prints or negatives. There are two beautiful books of stills-one from the films and one concentrating on the lost 
Murnau film 4 DEVILS, which I would give my eye teeth to see. 