Wordiezett So much average

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Sean Ramsdell First of all, no I'm not going to poke fun at his accent (that's the least of my worries).Pros: The history of world cinema is the only strength I can think of outside interviews and extensive use of film clips (especially Third World cinema from Africa to Iran).Cons: Definitely opinionated-the one scene that drove me crazy is where he considers Top Gun as an example of bad commercial cinema while Blue Velvet represents good personal cinema but really both are awesome in their own merits, there are some films I can do without (Lars van Trier, Pasolini, In the Realms of the Senses) for a person with OCD, I didn't like the ending which is less than hopeful.

waterbaby-84748 I chose to watch the series because I know very little about film, and this seemed a good place to learn its history. I am finding it very educational. Some other commenter mentioned the many films he left out. I don't mind because I am familiar with most of the Hollywood classics. I am enjoying the more little known films and foreign films in this documentary that I never would have known about otherwise. But.....that accent. Holy moly. I can't bear to listen to him anymore. Another commenter said that he watched it with the captions turned on. I find that to be an excellent idea. I am going to try it because his accent makes me want to stick something sharp into my eyeball to distract me from the irritation. Dear Mark Cousins, should you ever decide to make another documentary, please hire a narrator. It's not your strong suit. Sincerely, One-eyed film reviewer

adam wardknott If what you want is an obvious western view of the history of film narrated by, say, Patrik Stewart, don't watch this. Cousins Ulster brogue requires a little getting used to and much of this is his (well informed) personal opinion, but if you can stick with the low budget, stylised camera work and editing it is a joy. The descriptions of various styles of cinematography and editing as opposed to film text and meaning is inventive and informative, very different to the often imposed micro analysis you get from film studies text. I loved hearing cousins say things like "...deep space, shallow focus...single take, no fast cutting..." I soon found myself looking at films thinking Cousin-like about what I Was seeing on screen.I learnt about how different directors and cinematographers influenced each other, how styles emerged, faded, and reemerged. How new directors from different countries, influenced by Hollywood, reshaped those ideas and created new personal films reflecting the psyche of their own nations. Cousin's odyssey is like a poem, his narration is often abstract yet personal. But it is exciting and informative, a different take on a subject history that all to often is written in stone. Refreshing and far from obvious this deserves far more respect than some people give it.

mielr I guess enough has been said about Cousins' dreadful narration (if you'd like listening to a sine wave in an endless loop, however, then this will be right up your alley), but the major flaw of this documentary is that it commits the cardinal sin of filmmaking: it's boring. God, it's boring. It might be dull enough to make some film buffs want to abandon their hobby forever. Shouldn't a documentary about film be...fun? Brian Doan stated in his critique of the 15-part, 17-hour film, "Why, when faced with the prospect of watching yet another episode in order to finish this piece, did I sigh and trudge up to my office, as if headed into certain doom?" I couldn't have said it any better. Still, I also watched the entire series, figuring (after 5 or 6 episodes in), I've already lost several hours of my life I'll never get back, why not just finish myself off?! Seriously, though, I was hopeful that something interesting or exciting would happen in this seemingly interminable epic. The production quality is also a bit pedestrian, with many insipid and irrelevant insert shots that pad the documentary between actual movie clips. One could forgive Cousins' that, I guess, due to a low budget. But, since when in filmmaking has a low budget stifled creativity? Then there's Cousins' own apparent biases (OK we get it! You LOVE African movies and HATE Hollywood musicals, comedies and dramas!) and I won't even begin to get into his political bias.Too many influential films are never given a mention (though, I understand this documentary was cut down to a fraction of it's original length!), while other important films (like Fritz Lang's "Metropolis") are mentioned- but barely. Cousins' also makes some peculiar comments in the film. For instance, he (several times) refers to specific characters as "Catholic" (presumably using the non-secular definition of the word) or "Protestant." First of all, how does he know this? Secondly, even though he's from Northern Ireland, did he not foresee that people in less denominationally-obsessed parts of the world, would find that strange? He also makes several flubs that clearly reveal his lack of familiarity with American culture and its relationship to and reflection in American filmmaking. There are some bright spots, of course. Cousins' penchant for African, Iranian, Asian and Eastern European films will certainly revive interest in them and introduce them to audiences who probably would have never heard of them otherwise. The array of interviews with actors and insiders was impressive (seeing Claudia Cardinale was a particular treat!) But, unfortunately, the cons outweigh the pros in this lengthy "love letter to the movies." With the TCM airing bringing this to so many people, this was such a missed opportunity, that it's a shame. So is the 17 hours of my life I'll never get back.