ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Chris As a huge film buff, I'm a little surprised myself at the rating I gave it.The reason I gave it a 5 is because I believe the ratings system is to determine the QUALITY of the movies, and not to signify the importance of them. Yes, this film is a classic and a technical masterpiece (considering the time, at least). But as a fully-fledged MASTERPIECE, I would think before calling it that. Yes, film had only recently been discovered, and people were looking for new ways to use film, so storytelling was still out of frame. (Amazing, right?) So at the time, the very notion of a moving resemblance of real life being thrown on to a wall from a hypermagical light machine was enough to instantly consider any film a masterpiece. But now, 120 years later, we've come to find so much more can be done with film and storytelling, that this seems just a memento of a then-blossoming technique which would soon change the face of media, period.But to the point.Would you call cave art from 10,000 years ago "Great Art"? Important, yes, but great? It was great at the time when humanity found the now taken-for-granted freedom of expression, but looking from today's standpoint, it's just some sloppy sketches of buffaloes, humans, and God knows what else. Same goes here. It is undeniably a monumentally important film that should never be forgotten, but calling it a good movie would just be silly.So it's easy to give a 10 out of duty to history, and I'm not blaming any of you for doing that. I'm just stating my opinion on the film, and my reasons for it. I have given half of the rating grace to signify what the film represents for people then and now, but for the other 5 stars, I just can't bring myself to call it a genuinely good movie.g'day

Horst in Translation ([email protected]) La Ciotat is a town in South-East France and this little short may very well be what she's most famous for. While the train arrival is the center of the film according to the title, the real highlight are the people waiting for it. You see one man running in front. He obviously expected the train to stop earlier. Just like you do today when you know you should enter right behind the driver to save some way as you will otherwise need to walk the way anyway at the station where you exit.Another interesting thing is the film's hat culture. Hats and mustaches obviously were the most common thing back then, two trends we see less and less these days. Also, nobody really seems to realize that they are filmed. Just think of going to your nearest train station and start filming and imagine for a moment how people today would react to it. They'd either love it or hate it. Here everybody's just going on doing his business.

bob the moo I watched this film on a DVD that was rammed with short films from the period. I didn't watch all of them as the main problem with these type of things that their value is more in their historical novelty value rather than entertainment. So to watch them you do need to be put in the correct context so that you can keep this in mind and not watch it with modern eyes. With the Primitives & Pioneers DVD collection though you get nothing to help you out, literally the films are played one after the other (the main menu option is "play all") for several hours. With this it is hard to understand their relevance and as an educational tool it falls down as it leaves the viewer to fend for themselves, which I'm sure is fine for some viewers but certainly not the majority. What it means is that the DVD saves you searching the web for the films individually by putting them all in one place – but that's about it.Anyway onto this film which is the continuation of the understandable Lumière standard of standing a camera pointing at an event and then recording it happen. In this case a train pulls into a station and people get out. In terms of action it is not that interesting but in regards history of cinema it does offer something at least. It struck me that the other films from Lumiere I had seen to this point had point head on at the action whereas this one was set so that we had a wider view and that things played out across the screen towards the viewer. Also amusing is that some people become awkward when they notice the camera whereas other just bluster in front of it unaware.The usual fare then that produces little of interest in terms of actual content but has more of interest when viewed in its historical and cultural context.

ackstasis There doesn't seem to be anything particularly exciting about an approaching steam locomotive, but somehow this image has stuck, the first iconic scene in cinematic history. Produced by pioneering French filmmakers Auguste and Louis Lumière, 'L' Arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat / Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat' was filmed at La Ciotat, Bouches-du-Rhône, France on December 28, 1895 and first screened to a paying audience on January 6, 1896. The 50-second long film, like most other Lumière shorts, successfully captures a brief snippet of everyday life, chronicling the gradual approach of the train, its slow to a halt, and the disembarkment of its passengers.For many years, there has been an enduring myth than, upon the first screening of the film, the audience was so overwhelmed by the image of the train bearing down upon them that they fled the room in terror. This has been shown to be something of an embellishment, and, though the film would undoubtedly have astounded and mesmerised audiences, there was never any real mass panic. French scientist Henri de Parville, who attended an early screening, is said to have written: "The animated photographs are small marvels. ...All is incredibly real. What a power of illusion! ...The streetcars, the carriages are moving towards the audience. A carriage was galloping in our direction. One of my neighbors was so much captivated that she sprung to her feet... and waited until the car disappeared before she sat down again." This, I think, adequately sums up how remarkable the film must have seemed back in 1896.Auguste and Louis Lumière obviously recognised the power of illusion offered by their Cinématographe. In order to maximise the shock value of the approaching train, they have mounted the camera as close as possible to the edge of the platform, so that the audience feels as if they are almost standing right in the locomotive's path. The people departing from the train are just normal citizens going about their day (several Lumière relatives, however, can be spied on the platform), enhancing the realism of the short. Cinema does not get much more memorable than this.