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
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