Gabrielle goes 1001

It's not a feature, but it is a narrative film and one of the first of those. I suppose that compared to a two-minute flick 12 minutes would have felt like a feature if they could have imagined one.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Considering this drove some people screaming from the cinema at some screenings, I'm guessing A Trip To The Moon would've blown their minds.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

The IMDB top 250 aggregates information from millions of individuals allowing for more variety of films and less biased opinions while these lists of films compiled in books tend to be biased towards a set of films and also they tend to feature the stuff that the writer likes and not the stuff that people on average like.

So you are being inane right now, disrespectful and naive.

exactly,I've only read online how good technically it is but there weren't enough praise for the storytelling which is so professional already.

I hoped I don't have to explain this one, but it seems inevitable. Since the first one contains only 250 titles that are ranked from best to worst and are voted by 'normal' people, while the second one contains 1001 titles chosen by critics and not ranked in any order, it's impossible to say which one is better, as there's no common formula in both of them. If it was two top 100 rankings, it would be possible for everyone to say which one is subjectively better. Besides, films on IMDB are ranked using weighted arithmetic mean, which means that highly rated films with just a few votes can't make it into the top, while in the book there are some very obscure films, which makes it more of a variety. Anyway, as I've said these two things are completely different and can't be compared.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Another short movie made in the early days of cinema which introduced a western story.

The plot is like the title says - the train is being robbed.Couple of reckless bandits rob a train,terrorize people and eventually get what they deserve.

Now,unlike my previously discussed A Trip To The Moon,this Porter's film doesn't have such a structured story,I think it lacks introduction since the film already starts with the action sequences but unlike the latter film,it has a much more complex story,which requires attention or even a rewatch to understand(I had to read a summary after watching this movie).The action(second act) goes for too long,in my view,therefore the film got monotonous.

But this disadvantage is outweighted by tons of new things that The Great Train Robbery introduced.First of it,is violence and I have to say not a random tough scenes but real violence.Even now it seems quite harsh,then it must have been shocking(also don't forget the fact that it's made in 1903,none of the World Wars had happened,people weren't so much touched by death).There are quite a few people killed,there's terror and chasing scenes.

Another thing that caught my attention is the little sparks of character study.Bandits gather hostages and one of them tries to escape.He is instantly shot.Later,other hostages go to the dead one to check if he may be alive.With no words,only visuals we can already tell that the hostages are caring and brave yet terrified and the criminals are really reckless.That's only one example but if you watch the film closely there are tons of them.Sadly,the acting is quite cheesy at times and some scenes are clearly overacted,probably because the crew tried to create the dramatic effect.I think that music was not so fitting as well.

The final scene where one of the bandits shoots in front of the camera(picture above) is awesome,probably scared the audiences like hell but I loved that scene not only because of that but because it's so simple yet scary,effective and memorable (it was used by Scorsese later).

To sum up,a good start for the western genre,already some kind of sparks in character development,introduced violence and a more complicated story.

The music can be a big problem for people with silent film. Mark Kermode (film critic) and Paul Merton (comedian), when talking about silent comedy, often mention how much better it is with a live performance and how, back then, the accompanist would often have a repertoire of pieces which they'd play when appropriate.

Being born in the 90s when the film industry thrived,it was very difficult for me to watch this movie,mainly because it’s silent.
Considered the first major feature film,it tells about the civil war,Ku Klux Klan,two families touched by the government’s attempts to equal black and white people and there’s a lot of war scenes.The film is divided in two parts: Pre-Civil War America and Reconstruction.

I noticed tons of massive scenes which I don’t think were used previously.They certainly helped to create the effect of hugeness of the events.The quality of the shots is quite decent and they are quite artistic,for example, when Elsie kisses the bird(pic above).There was also lots of playing with colors(sepia,B&W,blue and red),decent acting.I also liked the music,fitted very well.

But however innovating it is,I think storytelling-wise it was very poor.The subtitles are very annoying since they tell you what is happening or even what will happen.Yes,they are needed and maybe that's how all the silent movies are but no sound is a major drawback for the movie.All this prompting what is happening in the film reduced suspense and overall this movie doesn't have much ups and downs,it never made me jump.Or cry.Or cheer.I didn't connect with it but honestly can you connect with the silent characters,war and praise of the Ku Klux Klan?I think the first part is worse than the second one mainly because it was very monotonous,there's war and tears,and war and tears again.I even found the acting more theatrical and unrealistic in the first part.I think Griffith tried to exaggerate the war and how affective it is but that failed.I will not even start talking about its propaganda since it's not the main factor for me but at its time it was a scandalous movie.

The story(or maybe plot) itself reminded me of epic films and I think it's the main inspiration for all the epic films that followed (particularly reminded me of Gone With The Wind).

I enjoyed Lincoln's assassination scene where there finally were some pauses which helped to create more suspense and there were no subs which give away everything.The scene is very similar to the one in Godfather III which takes places in the theatre(final scene).It's interesting to see the references.

Overall,The Birth of a Nation may have been something special 100 years ago but now it's just a "film monument" for me.I missed sound,missed greater quality,particularly missed the dialogue.It's good for a first film but seeing it now,it seems just boring.

You didn't watch it with music? Was this your first silent feature?

it was with music (I highlighted that it was good) but I meant the sounds of the movie itself - laugh,gunshots,walking sounds,things like that.Lack of that made this film so ineffective. :/
I've seen Battleship Potemkin.Well,and The Artist if it counts.

goode idea david

??

huh?

Birth of the Nation is a movie to me, but the next one in this book is a epic! Just watch Intolerance.

Yep,there's one more film and then Intolerance ^^ Can't promise that I will like it,I don't like most old films.

So let me get this straight. You don't like old films but you are starting at the beginning of 1001 films? That could be torture. Me personally, I'm working through the book but in completely random order, whatever I feel I'd like to watch at the time.

I wanted to start from the beginning and I actually want to watch them all by release date but that probably will be hard. :/ Anyway,no torturing here at the moment but when I get bored maybe I'll go by genres or whatever order. You see,I watch them at work and my work is much more boring than any old movie.

What does your job involve that you can watch movies there?

I stay during the night at the hotel and sometimes during the day as a receptionist.It's an off season time,so basically I eat,watch movies and sleep.It's awesome,I know. And it pays well,considering.

I personally hate Birth of a Nation. I respect it's place in film history, I respect what DW Griffith did to pioneer film, and I accept it should be studied in academia. But I cannot like a film that glorifies the Klan.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews