Having seen this film a long time ago, it wouldn't surprise me if it became the target of so-called "political correctness" in the present climate of New Labour Hypocrisy. Sure enough, the previous entry here has attracted a comment from one of this appalling brigade of interfering nonentities who haven't the intelligence to understand that any film, especially the early ones like this, is a reflection of its own time and culture. Who exactly is this "politically correct" judge who can sit there and state that a film of a black woman washing her little boy is racist and is therefore disgusting? What these stupid, ignorant hypocrites never realise is that THEY are the real racists. It is because of their narrow-mindedness that some people are led to believe there is something odd about a black kid being washed, whereas white kids naturally wash seven times a day. Anyone with a bit of common sense can see that this film is a bit of fun. A kid has been playing and has got dirty, so his mum washes him: doesn't matter if the people concerned are white, black, brown, yellow, red or Martian. Unless of course you are one of the righteous few who thinks Blair and his ridiculous wife should be canonised.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Historic importance
6 July 2005
Unlike the previous commentator who failed to understand the historical importance of this piece of film and tried to review it in the context of 21st century technology, I would give this 10 out of 10 for the fact that without Le Prince's pioneering work, cinema as we know it might still be a pipe dream.
In terms of 19th century technology, which is the context in which it should be reviewed, this film is cutting edge.
The subject is recognisably a road across a city centre bridge in Victorian times. We have all seen plenty of still photographs from that era but in this composition, the horses and people actually move. I come from Yorkshire and I know that one branch of my family was resident in Leeds at this time so, who knows, one of those people could be a long-lost ancestor of mine. That's a romantic view but you really can't take anything other than a romantic view of something like this.
To see the film, follow the IMDb video clip and enjoy a glimpse of a bygone age. The title mentions traffic but you won't see any horseless carriages!
Absolutely fascinating.
In terms of 19th century technology, which is the context in which it should be reviewed, this film is cutting edge.
The subject is recognisably a road across a city centre bridge in Victorian times. We have all seen plenty of still photographs from that era but in this composition, the horses and people actually move. I come from Yorkshire and I know that one branch of my family was resident in Leeds at this time so, who knows, one of those people could be a long-lost ancestor of mine. That's a romantic view but you really can't take anything other than a romantic view of something like this.
To see the film, follow the IMDb video clip and enjoy a glimpse of a bygone age. The title mentions traffic but you won't see any horseless carriages!
Absolutely fascinating.
Man with a Camera
(1958–1960)
Excellent drama series for its time
3 October 2004
The points made by the exquisitely named Welsh gentleman in the previous review are fair enough in a 2004 context but what people like him always forget is the HISTORICAL context. No, Charlie Bronson did NOT have a digital camera in 1958, so he had to make do with the existing technology.
The point is that this series was made FOR ITS TIME and so the only test we can apply in 2004 is: "was it entertaining?" And, like most of Mr Bronson's work, yes, it was entertaining.
Providing you maintain the right perspective and keep old series and old films generally within the context of their time, you can apply a meaningful judgment of them. It utterly amazes me how so many people can dismiss something because it was made in the days before computerised special effects became available. If these special effects films nowadays are so good, why are the cinemas so empty?
Lets take a modern example of a film that is closely related to contemporary technology: this "Matrix" rubbish. Is that entertaining? Is it hell. It is absolute garbage.
"Man with a Camera" is completely watchable. I agree that Charlie's subsequent superstardom tends to detract as you look back on it, but it is certainly worth watching again for its own sake.
If it's on a nostalgia channel near you any time, believe me the story lines alone make it worth watching. And Charlie was always worth watching anyway.
The point is that this series was made FOR ITS TIME and so the only test we can apply in 2004 is: "was it entertaining?" And, like most of Mr Bronson's work, yes, it was entertaining.
Providing you maintain the right perspective and keep old series and old films generally within the context of their time, you can apply a meaningful judgment of them. It utterly amazes me how so many people can dismiss something because it was made in the days before computerised special effects became available. If these special effects films nowadays are so good, why are the cinemas so empty?
Lets take a modern example of a film that is closely related to contemporary technology: this "Matrix" rubbish. Is that entertaining? Is it hell. It is absolute garbage.
"Man with a Camera" is completely watchable. I agree that Charlie's subsequent superstardom tends to detract as you look back on it, but it is certainly worth watching again for its own sake.
If it's on a nostalgia channel near you any time, believe me the story lines alone make it worth watching. And Charlie was always worth watching anyway.
The Wild Bunch
(1969)
The definitive end of the west Western
3 October 2004
An incredible performance by Bill Holden is the high point of this sensational, landmark film. Holden made a whole career out of laid-back, easy-going, what-the-hell sort of characters but here, at his zenith, he departs from type and plays a character so mean and so embittered that in some ways he even out-Bronsons Bronson himself.
The Wild Bunch is a group of disillusioned outlaws who are out of time and they know it. When Sykes says that they've got one of those things (a car) up north that can fly, they gloomily accept that this new-fangled 20th Century is not for them.
It is a movie all about values and about a man's loyalty to his companions. Holden brilliantly declares that if you cannot stand by a man who rides with you, you are like some kind of animal. In the end, that is all these hunted men have: their loyalty to each other.
And so they band together for one last walk to try and rescue their doomed Mexican comrade. The bloodbath that follows is an eloquent summary of their lives. They who live by the gun.....
Superb performances by Holden in particular and also by O'Brien, Ryan, Borgnine, Oates and Johnson. Peckinpah's finest hour. Definitely ten out of ten.
The Wild Bunch is a group of disillusioned outlaws who are out of time and they know it. When Sykes says that they've got one of those things (a car) up north that can fly, they gloomily accept that this new-fangled 20th Century is not for them.
It is a movie all about values and about a man's loyalty to his companions. Holden brilliantly declares that if you cannot stand by a man who rides with you, you are like some kind of animal. In the end, that is all these hunted men have: their loyalty to each other.
And so they band together for one last walk to try and rescue their doomed Mexican comrade. The bloodbath that follows is an eloquent summary of their lives. They who live by the gun.....
Superb performances by Holden in particular and also by O'Brien, Ryan, Borgnine, Oates and Johnson. Peckinpah's finest hour. Definitely ten out of ten.
Once Upon a Time in the West
(1968)
The greatest western and therefore the greatest film
3 October 2004
What can I say? A masterpiece by the master director with considerable help from the master composer and a superb cast.
The only slight complaint I have about this magnificent film is that I wish Henry Fonda had not played the bad guy. Why, oh why, wasn't Frank played by Lee Van Cleef?
But casting of the other lead roles played by Robards, classic stage actor, and Bronson, the ultimate screen heavy, was perfect. As for Cardinale, well, could Loren or Taylor have done it better, perhaps? I'll give Claudia nine out of ten for this one. She was good and above all she was gorgeous.
But ultimately the film belongs to Bronson with Robards hard on his heels.
The enigmatic character of Harmonica, who slides in and out of shots like a ghost (which perhaps he was), entrances the audience. Never more so than when he makes the hero's one allowed mistake and is taken prisoner on the train. Here he becomes our guide while Robards shoots up Frank's henchmen in stylistic and semi-amusing fashion.
The showdown is actually not as good as the one in The Good the Bad and the Ugly, but that is only one scene. Even so the sheer horror of Harmonica's reason for revenge is unsurpassed.
If Frank had been the defendant in Twelve Angry Men, I don't think Mr Fonda would have voted "not guilty".
Eleven out of ten for this masterpiece.
The only slight complaint I have about this magnificent film is that I wish Henry Fonda had not played the bad guy. Why, oh why, wasn't Frank played by Lee Van Cleef?
But casting of the other lead roles played by Robards, classic stage actor, and Bronson, the ultimate screen heavy, was perfect. As for Cardinale, well, could Loren or Taylor have done it better, perhaps? I'll give Claudia nine out of ten for this one. She was good and above all she was gorgeous.
But ultimately the film belongs to Bronson with Robards hard on his heels.
The enigmatic character of Harmonica, who slides in and out of shots like a ghost (which perhaps he was), entrances the audience. Never more so than when he makes the hero's one allowed mistake and is taken prisoner on the train. Here he becomes our guide while Robards shoots up Frank's henchmen in stylistic and semi-amusing fashion.
The showdown is actually not as good as the one in The Good the Bad and the Ugly, but that is only one scene. Even so the sheer horror of Harmonica's reason for revenge is unsurpassed.
If Frank had been the defendant in Twelve Angry Men, I don't think Mr Fonda would have voted "not guilty".
Eleven out of ten for this masterpiece.
The House on 92nd Street
(1945)
Outstanding suspense thriller of the war years
6 December 2003
A film that must be viewed in the context of its time.
An outstanding suspense thriller that holds your interest to the end when the identity of "Christopher" is confirmed. Excellent location photography gives a stark view of wartime New York. Fine acting by a quality cast and good direction to keep the story moving.
All told, an absorbing film and a fine piece of history.
An outstanding suspense thriller that holds your interest to the end when the identity of "Christopher" is confirmed. Excellent location photography gives a stark view of wartime New York. Fine acting by a quality cast and good direction to keep the story moving.
All told, an absorbing film and a fine piece of history.
Tell Your Friends