Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Keira Brennan The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

He_who_lurks This is a very, very, very, very impressive movie for 1892. Yes, 1892! Edison was still experimenting with his Kinetoscope in America, Etienne-Jules Marey was using his Chronophotographic Gun to shoot film experiments, and films were, like, 3 seconds! Charles-Emile Reynaud's "Pauve Pierrot" originally ran 15 minutes, is in painted color by Reynaud himself, and (drum-roll, please) is animated! 1892, and this is the first cartoon! It consists of 500 images, tells a story, and is something you'd think came much, much later than this!That's not to say it doesn't have any flaws. It definitely does. For one thing, while this is animation, it is very, very primitive looking by today's standards. The figures' movements are jerky, and at times they don't move at all. One particularly poorly animated spot is when Colombine comes out to meet Harlequin, as well as when she opens the door for Pierrot. Also, while sometimes there is some cutting closer to the figures, we mostly view what's going on from a single vantage point. If you decide to see this, bear in mind that, while ground-breaking, the animation isn't anything like what you'd see nowadays.It's so sad. So much of Reynaud's work is lost today. The only other available cartoon from him is "Autour d'un Cabine" from 1894. His other two cartoons, "Le Clown et ses Chiens" and "Un Bon Bock" were both thrown into the Seine by Reynaud himself. Luckily, he spared these two movies so they could be seen and appreciated today.

heikkiloytynoja everything is said the history of this film. I myself was amazed about the colors and the drawing; it is so delicate and fragile. if the speed is clumsy, it is not adequate to comping to future animation films. I thin this film was something that people who saw it back 1900s found it fresh and invigorating.

JoeytheBrit This might be fairly basic animation compared to today's 3D computer-generated spectaculars, but it is in its own way just as remarkable. Emile Reynaud developed many marvels like this, and operated some rather tricky mechanism to screen it. Sadly, Reynaud was not only something of a perfectionist who personally hand-painted every image of every film, he also only trusted himself to operate the screenings. and therefore stretched himself a little too far. He was hugely successful before the advent of movies, but was incapable of progressing and stands as a singular warning of the fate that befalls any business that fails to adapt to a changing market. The film has historical importance, and as a bitter and impoverished Reynaud destroyed most of his films years after the film industry had made his shows obsolete, it's something of a minor miracle that it still exists today.

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre Charles-Émile Reynaud deserves credit as the inventor of the animated cartoon. Unfortunately, he was a poor businessman, and his artistic innovations outstripped the technical hardware which he invented to exhibit them. Reynaud died penniless in a Val-de-Marne hospice. A few years before he died, embittered, he took most of his animated films -- too deteriorated to be restored yet again -- and flung them off Pont Saint-Michel into the Seine. I am reluctant to describe any movie as 'lost' unless it was deliberately destroyed, since many early films which some expert described as 'lost forever' have returned from the dead. Sadly, it does appear that the most of the cartoons drawn and produced by Reynaud -- each running 15 minutes or less -- are, indeed, lost.Reynaud's first innovation was to adapt the zoetrope -- basically a toy -- into the more sophisticated praxinoscope. This placed a series of drawings on the inside of a cylinder, with a mirror at the centre. As the cylinder revolved, an onlooker -- viewing the mirror through a slit -- would see the drawings as a continuous moving image, courtesy of the same optical illusion (persistence of vision) now exploited by modern films. But the length of the 'story' told by a praxinoscope was limited to the number of images which could be displayed within the cylinder's finite diameter. Usually, a praxinoscope's drawings depicted a single event happening over and over (with each circuit of the cylinder).Reynaud's next innovation was to devise a much longer filmstrip, which -- with sprocket holes -- could be fed into and out of the praxinoscope so as to display a much longer sequence of images. A dedicated artist, Reynaud painted his drawings in bright elaborate colours, and affixed them to the transparent filmstrip via a flexible clear gelatin. Unfortunately, Reynaud's technical innovations did not allow for the permanence of his art. As the gelatin aged, it hardened and cracked while turning opaque. The heat of his projection lamp corrupted the delicate colours of his images. The sprocket holes tore easily. The very act of projecting his filmstrips contributed to their destruction. This seems to have been the single greatest reason for Reynaud's commercial failure: the tremendous amount of labour, time and money expended on creating one of his filmstrips could not be recouped in the very small number of projections (for paying audiences) which it would sustain before deteriorating.'Poor Pierrot', running slightly less than 15 minutes, is a fairly conventional harlequinade. In a garden lit by a crescent moon, the rivals Pierrot and Harlequin vie for the love of the fair Columbine. Harlequin has a baton, which he uses to frighten Pierrot and chase him away. End of story.The great appeal of Reynaud's films was in their novelty (which nowadays can only be estimated) and their visual beauty (for which we have little surviving evidence) rather than in their (necessarily) extremely simple stories. Consequently, I shan't hazard a guess as to a quantified rating of his films' worthiness. Instead of rating 'Poor Pierrot' on a scale of one to 10, I'll lament the deterioration of Reynaud's films and his final embittered act of destroying most of their surviving remnants. Better grease up the time machine, set it for 1910, and rescue those strips which Reynaud threw from the Saint Michel Bridge.