...at each new view. because it is more modern than you imagine. and new details are sources of seduction. a story almost perfect. because it has the gioft to present the basic traits of an ideal western, you feel the action and the only close up is legendary. short, a masterpiece.

I would say watch this movie with the intention in mind that film had only really existed for about 15 years maximum considering I've seen footage from the 1880's. I will say that back then there was no story to speak of with any movie at the time and I don't think many people saw the potential for what it could do. So this gave birth to film editing. I will say the plot is really nothing special but being that this is the first go at editing in history I thought I should talk about the technical elements. I was impressed by how much this felt like it was The Wild West and I also liked how many people they took in to get this made when at this point, film was just a cheap amusement to the public eye. But there are some weaknesses with it, To say the number of robbers in the robbery is inconsistent is an understatement. First there's 2, then 4, then 3 it's a mess. That and I don't know what the significance of the last shot is. It's one of a guy in a stationary location that has nothing to do with what has been seen looking directly at you and firing a gun. I guess because back then editing was a new concept that they could get some of the cheap amusement side of it that it was at the time at the ending but I don't think it ages well. All in all, I would say watch it if you're a fan of westerns or want to know about film history.

First let me say this is an excellent film for 1903 and a must-see for film buffs. However, many people (including fellow IMDb reviewers) mistakenly credit this film as being the first use of editing, the first narrative story, first use of different scenes, first use of super-imposed images or the first use of any of the film techniques used. It is not the first of any of those things. If you want proof of that just spend a while searching on youtube and you will see many earlier examples of all those things. What it did do was to advance the use of editing, film technique and storytelling in cinema.Probably the first film edit was in 'The Execution of Mary Queen of Scots' way back in 1895. Incredible film edits and super-imposed images, some more advanced even than any in this film, are to be found in dozens of earlier films by the likes of Georges Melies, James Williamson, G.A. Smith, Walter R. Booth and others. Some of those edits are to carry off a visual trick but others are to tell a story. There are many earlier films with a narrative and cutting between different scenes such as Melies 'A Voyage to the Moon', 'Cinderella', 'Bluebeard' and numerous others. Strictly speaking it is not even the first western as 'Cripple Creek Bar-room Scene' was a western scene filmed years before.This film was not a 'first', but it was one of the earliest American films to use many of the techniques, one of the first films to combine all those elements to make a cohesive, compelling story and it advanced the use of these elements to make one of the very best films made at that time. It uses the editing , moving between different scenes to tell the story and uses the techniques to further the narrative in a more effective way than other films made up to that point. The story is interesting and would have been very exciting to audiences. It still holds the attention for a modern day viewer. It is well made with only a couple of duff moments where something could have been done better. The action and storytelling techniques are the best executed of any film made at the time. Funnily enough though, I would also say this was not first in the list of best films ever made up to 1903. For my tastes I would say 'The Little Match Seller' by James Williamson, although shorter, was the best film made at that time as it uses clever cinematic techniques to great effect and is emotionally impactful even today. 'The Great Train Robbery' is probably my second favourite of its era out of the hundreds I have seen though. It is a great example of what was possible in early cinema and advanced the artform, especially in America. It was probably the most influential film in taking cinema to greater heights.

This film is like wine. The older it gets, the better the nostalgia. Why would anyone dislike this movie? Of course, to our generation, it's basically dated, but back then it was such a leap forward in film-making. There wasn't that much movies as there is now. It's hard to judge a movie based on a modern understanding of it; after all movies over a century of cinema having touched almost every subject imaginable. I've always wondered what the people who made all these original films would think of the films today, with all the technological advancements. It really is quite amazing to see material like this film still being watch today. To truly analysis a film like this, one must look back at the time, in which it was shot and find the real truths. Myth number one: it's the first movie ever made. The Great Train Robbery is not the 1st. Asking what was the first movie ever made is a bit like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. It's hard to give a definitive reply. If you consider Edison's Kinetoscope shorts to be movies, the first movies were from 1893, not 1903. Some historian claim that the first ever video footage was 1893's New York Fire Brigade footage. There might a film that earlier than that. The earliest celluloid film was shot by Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince using the Le Prince single-lens camera made in 1888 call "Roundhay Garden Scene". The short films of the 1870s Praxinoscope were and they were seen mostly as acts in vaudeville programs. The film back then, could be under a minute long and would usually present a single scene, authentic or staged, of everyday life, a public event, a sporting event or slapstick. There was little to no cinematic technique, usually no camera movement, and flat compositions reminiscent of the stage. It wasn't until 1890 that film had more of a story. The narrative cinema started with 1895 L'arroseur arose, follow by 1902 'A Trip to the Moon' and 1903's 'Life of American Fireman'. So when the Great Train Robbery came into production. It wasn't anything near new. About it, being the first western. It might be. I do know, it was first western -- filmed in New Jersey. Another myth about the film is that Thomas Edison made it. First off, Thomas Edison didn't really invented film-making. The very first patented film camera was designed in England by Frenchman Louis Le Prince in 1888. Edison took the invention and his work shop improve upon it. William Kennedy Laurie Dickson, a Scottish inventor and employee of Thomas Edison, designed the Kinetographic Camera. Thomas Edison wasn't anywhere near this movie. It was written, directed, and produced by Edwin S. Porter. The closest he came was his company distributed the film. I give Thomas Edison, some props, as he did know how to market the film. Inspired by Scott Marble's play "The Great Train Robbery" (1896); the ten minutes long movie, depicts a group of criminals robbing a train and its passengers, escaping in the uncoupled locomotive, and being pursued and killed by a posse recruited from a local dance hall. Apart from the title card and the famous shot of an outlaw firing at the audience, the film consists of thirteen shots, taking place in three interior and a variety of exterior locations. There are no famous silent film inter titles. It was one of the longest narrative films produced. The movie was ground-breaking in the milestone of film making. It contains early uses of what would come to be standard cinematic techniques: composite editing (via multiple exposure), location shooting, intercutting between simultaneously-occurring scenes, cutting within the same scene to compress time, and camera movement. Some prints were also hand colored in certain scenes. The movie was surprising very violent; this was way before any Hayes Codes was established. I was deeply move, how realistic, the movie was to the real life era. It wasn't the same corny Westerns film that came out in the 1930 thru the 1950. It wasn't the over the top, Spaghetti Western of the 1960s & 1970s. This film look like it came from that era. It indeed posed and acted in faithful adaption. I love the fact, that the final shot of a gun being fired toward the camera had a profound effect on audiences. As cinema was in its infancy, many people who saw the film thought that they were actually about to be shot. I can sort of see why. It did had a quite a jump in quick shots. Imagine what that would have been for people who have not yet developed the 'it's only a movie' instinct. I love how the movie influence other future works like the James bond series, with the gun barrel sequences. The final shot is also paid homage in Martin Scorsese's 1990 film, 'Goodfellas' & Ridley Scott's 2007 film 'American Gangster'. In 1990, The Great Train Robbery was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant'. The movie is in the public domain due to age. Most copies are incredibly well preserved. Others could have wear & tear. In my version, the night scenes were a little too dark. Another fault is that there was no original soundtrack. Films from this period were accompanied by whatever the pianist, organist, orchestra decided to play for the most part. It was later in the silent era when scores were written specifically for the film and many of those no longer survive. Overall: it's historical valuable, and fun to watch. A must watch for any silent film fan.