The Great Train Robbery (1903) User Reviews

Film Editing Is Born

[evanston_dad · 8/10 · 3 January 2006]

It's hard to assign "The Great Train Robbery" a rating, as it shouldn't really be watched as a film the way we watch films now. But from a historical perspective, it's fascinating, and is an excellent example of the use of film editing, an art form then in its infancy and now an award category recognized every year at the Oscars.

Before this movie, it wasn't customary to tell multiple story lines simultaneously, but here, various activities going on in different locations are intercut to create suspense. D.W. Griffith would use this technique much more ambitiously (and combine it with many other developing film techniques) in "The Birth of a Nation" over ten years later, but credit must be given to "Train Robbery" for blazing a trail.

Also, this is the movie famous for the shot of an outlaw shooting a gun directly at the camera. I can't imagine what effect this had on audiences at the time, who were probably diving behind their chairs for cover.

Grade: A

A start that filmmakers should be proud of...

[clockert · 8/10 · 1 February 2004]

As an early film, this film is quite spectacular. Ok, so it's only twelve minutes, but that is twelve minutes of pure action and entertainment. When this film was made, things like special effects were hardly thought of, but notice how well the transgression from person to doll on the "throw the dead guy off the train" goes, and how nicely they have "moved the train" without moving the camera when they leave the locomotive behind.

This movie is probably the best preview to how modern westerns became, at least if you take the best twelve minutes of many westerns, the twelve where people get shot, beat up and alerted. The movie follows it's storyline perfectly, and is easy to grasp the continuance throughout the film, in all, quite a masterpiece that comes highly recommended.

Christian Lockert

Early Western silent film with interesting visual effects

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 9 October 2016]

Despite it's humble and simple origins, this eleven minute silent film is wonderful for it's attempt at telling a story using the Western genre as it's format. The version I saw on Turner Classics contained a number of surprising elements that I wasn't expecting from a picture made in 1903. The first of these was the complete silence of the picture, no musical accompaniment of any kind, making this an unusual, one of a kind experience. Then, when the outlaws in the story blew up the strongbox in the train's mail car, a bright flash of orange and yellow lit up the screen making me wonder how the effect was achieved. Other viewers here comment on the process so I'll defer to those who know better.

The use of color is done sparingly but to wonderful effect, and when I first saw the young girl in red attempting to wake up the injured mail clerk, the first thing I thought of was Little Red Riding Hood. The process is used again on the dresses of the dancing women and during the posse chase when gunshots are highlighted in a colorful powder flash similar to the earlier strongbox explosion. The very last frames of the cowboy shooting directly at the viewer was done in color as well, a neat touch to bring the brief story to a conclusion.

The story itself was a forerunner to all those thousands of B Westerns that were soon to follow in the Thirties and Forties with endless horse chases and gunfights to excite movie goers of all ages. As expected, the bandits get their due in the film as they are all done in by the dance hall posse that quickly assembled to chase down the bad guys. The other main highlight of the picture had to be the crowd of train passengers who were forced off the train at gunpoint during the robbery.

Oh, I shouldn't forget this item of note, it was kind of interesting. When the robbers made their way on the train, one of the engine crew came out to fight off an outlaw, and in the tussle that followed, he was beaten up by the bad guy. The transition that then occurred was kind of neat, because you couldn't tell exactly when the live actor turned into the dummy that was thrown off the train!

It's Easy To See How It Got Its Reputation

[Snow Leopard · 11 April 2002]

It's easy to see why this was such a sensation in 1903, and why today it is still considered to be an icon in movie history. You can enjoy this either as a historical landmark for its use of such a variety of then-new skills, or you can simply watch it for the story. To be sure, the plot is of a now-familiar type, but this is what so many other movies have imitated over the years.

The story-telling is very good, and it is almost not even necessary to add 'for its time', because much of it still holds up quite well. It tells an action-packed story with plenty of detail, and it uses a good variety of effective techniques to increase the excitement, suspense, and realism. From the motion effects in the scenes inside the train, to the occasional use of color tinting, to the use of outdoor scenes, almost everything works nicely. There are only a few occasions when can you tell that it is almost a century old. There are even things like some basic cross-cutting and a pretty good panning shot. There is plenty to see, and it's worth watching more than once to see what else you can notice.

Never rob a train just before lunch!...

[AlsExGal · 7/10 · 20 July 2021]

...Because people with low blood sugar make bad decisions. It's what they do. First the robbers go in guns drawn but faces NOT covered, to deal with the depot office boy. He does seem bored at their presence. But then they hit him over the head and tie him with the world's skinniest rope. It seems like they are getting a train schedule from him and don't seem worried he can identify them. At this point the clock on the depot wall reads fifteen minutes until noon. That's why I say the robbers should have eaten lunch first. The clock reads the same time when the employee is found after the robbery. I doubt he lay there for exactly 24 hours.

Then the robbers board the train. This time, when they deal with the man in the baggage compartment, the robbers do have their faces covered. This baggage fellow must be the same one in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, because he locks up the money - it's not HIS money - and shoots it out with the robbers and is killed. And what is it with that open door on the compartment? If money just fell off the train he could have been fired! But instead he has been fired at and has died.

Next the robbers take control of the locomotive and stop the train. I see the point of this, as you don't want to jump off of a moving train. But then they rob the passengers. There seem to be about 100 passengers and only four robbers. Now really. This is the old west or at least the old pseudo west. Is it worth it to pick up whatever change is in the passengers' pockets when you already have bags of money to chance such odds? Especially in the days when both men and women often carried concealed guns and might take a shot at you?

But the robbers take off unharmed to horses they left nearby. Someone fetches the Union Army - who I guess have had nothing to do since the end of the Civil War but participate in square dances such as the one shown - and the pursuit is on. Either they have the Lone Ranger to look on the ground and say which way the horses went, or the Union Army gets extremely lucky and catches up with the bandits. I'm sure the local sheriff was upset to be left out of this posse. And such has been the tug of war between local and federal government ever since.

Now I realize I am doing this early film an injustice by poking fun of it so, but the real fun is in the watching of this early attempt at film narrative. Up to this point films were actualities - either actual events such as a fire or the tearing down of a building, or reenactments of short historical events such as the beheading of Mary Queen of Scots. This was made by the Edison company, which ironically lost out in the competition of filmmakers as movies became longer and more sophisticated.

A Truly Historic Masterpiece!

[bsmith5552 · 10/10 · 24 February 2004]

I just saw "The Great Train Robbery" in its entirety for the first time and I was truly amazed. Its hard to believe that the film is over 100 years old. It was shot from a stationary camera but it employs many of the cinematic techniques that have since become commonplace such as cross-cutting, the chase, the shootout etc. VCI Entertainment has released a marvelous 100 Year Anniversary Edition of the film in two versions...a completely silent version from the print owned by the U.S. Library of Congress and a second version with added music, color tints and sound effects.

Briefly, the story (filmed in the "wilds" of New Jersey), centers on four bandits who subdue a station agent (to keep him from sending out an alarm) and then climb aboard a train when it stops to take on water. Two of the bandits proceed to the mail car, kill the agent and make off with the loot. The others take care of the engineer and his fireman. One can imagine what the early audiences must have thought when one of the bandits suddenly throws the fireman off of the train. The cutting from the live action with the bandit and the fireman to the obvious dummy was quite innovative for the time.

The bandits then line up the passengers and rob them killing one of them as he tries to escape. They then ride the engine down the tracks to their waiting horses. Meanwhile the town folk are alerted at a local hoedown and form a posse to go after the robbers. What follows is a great little chase scene and the final showdown between the good guys and the bad guys, where you know who get what's coming to them.

The closing shot of actor George Barnes emptying his six shooter at the audience is perhaps one of the most famous shots in cinematic history. One can only imagine the effect that it must have had on the early audiences. I had always thought that this shot was at the beginning of the film. Early western pioneer "Broncho" Billy Anderson plays four roles in the film including one of the bandits.

Most of the scenes are filmed in medium to long shots. You don't really see the actors faces (except for Barnes as noted). But it is still a very good film for this or any time. It tells a complete and believable story in about 12 minutes and sets the stage for the many classic silent films that were to follow.

A truly historic cinematic experience.

The first landmark of American cinema.

[barhound78 · 7/10 · 27 August 2006]

Considered by some to be the first ever western, Edwin S. Porters 1902 short is arguably the first landmark movie of American cinema.

By modern standards it is incredibly simplistic. A group of outlaws burst into a telegraph office and force the operator to send a false message before tying him up and proceeding to hold up a train and its passengers. They escape but the telegraphed operator is discovered and a posse gives chase, culminating in a gun battle finale.

What set this film apart at its time is the use of narrative to tell a story. Following Lumieres' Le Voyage Dans La Lune the previous year, Porter crafts an enjoyable tale that set standards for what was to follow in their respective genre. Hold ups, gunmen, posses, horseback chases, shoot-outs they're all here and tied together coherently and with the confidence to not simply follow the outlaw protagonists from A to B. The film may not boast special effects or any intellectual layers, but it did set a template of basic cinematic language. Similarly, the final shot of a gunman blasting directly into the camera* is an iconic moment that brought audiences directly into the firing line.

The Great Train Robbery may not seem much more than a curiosity to some now, but it is more than that. Simple but enjoyable and a must for all film lovers.

Formation of Cinematic Narrative

[cjosephlyons · 9/10 · 8 August 2003]

I enjoy this film even though it is very old and compared to today's cinema, very limited in its attempt at realism. But today's cinema would not be what it is without the original innovation of cinematic devices by Edwin S. Porter, one of films first masters. His progress in narrative construction and his work in special effects techniques astonished audiences like never before. His work was limited specifically because he used the static camera affecting the impact of each of his shots. His unique and influential editing style allowed the audience to take part in the action of the film, not sitting idly watching it. The movie is 12 minutes long and is considered the first narrative film in history. The most exciting scene is when the gangsters raid the train station and rob the train. The train is a really well done mat-shot of a train pulling into the station, frightening the audience in their seats. I personally am most excited by the final closing scene of the gangster shooting his gun, aiming it directly at the audience. This audience point of view shot makes me feel like the narrative of the train robbery enticed me to cheer for the Sheriff, and the angry gangster shoots at me because I was cheering for his enemy. This film and this sequence of the gangster shooting the audience was solidified in cinematic history when Martin Scorsese pays homage in 'Goodfellas', with Joe Pesci gun barrage and sinister look.

The Greatest Parting Shot

[wes-connors · 7/10 · 12 November 2007]

Masked bandits enter a railroad office, and tie up the telegraph operator; they are planning "The Great Train Robbery". When the approaching train makes its pit stop, the robbers jump aboard. The bandits find their booty in a box, which they blow up, after a bit of shooting. Next, the bandits force the train passengers to lineup, and loot their valuables. Meanwhile, the railroad operator has recovered, and rounds up a posse; then, they go after the robbers…

A landmark Edwin S. Porter film, with future western star Gilbert M. "Broncho Billy" Anderson. The lasting image, and film highlight, however, is Justin D. Barnes firing away, in the film's closing seconds. It still packs a punch, since the final shot is so unexpectedly different from the rest of the film.

******* The Great Train Robbery (12/1/03) Edwin S. Porter ~ Gilbert M. Anderson, Justus D. Barnes, Walter Cameron

Historic action/crime thriller. A must-see for all film buffs.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 10/10 · 6 September 2000]

The Great Train Robbery was filmed only a couple of years into the 20th century, and when you watch it, its age is quite obvious. However, when you watch movies like this, you need to transport yourself back to the time period in which it was created and kind of watch the film through eyes that haven't been subjected to spectacularly visual films like The Matrix or Terminator 2.

Edwin Porter made a ground-breaking film with The Great Train Robbery. Sure, the scenes were very simple and the film is so blurry that you can't make out a single face (this is also a result of the total lack of close-up shots), but in 1903 people watched this film and were stunned. It was hugely successful because it was one of the first films in the world to be made that actually told a story. Previously, films were made mainly to show off the technology of the "moving picture," and the public loved them because they had never seen such a thing before. But when Porter came along with The Great Train Robbery, the path of motion pictures changed dramatically because people began to realize that these films could tell stories just as well as they could show water lapping on the beach or factory workers getting off of work or people jumping into a lake. These were the type of films that were made in the 1890s and early 1900s. The Great Train Robbery is an extremely short film, but it is an interesting story that is made even more fascinating because of the fact that everything that happens on the screen happened nearly 100 years ago. It's like looking at a piece of history.

Here's where cinematic story-telling began

[Red-Barracuda · 7/10 · 9 November 2010]

The Great Train Robbery is one of the landmark films in the development of narrative cinema. It tells the story of a group of bandits who climb aboard a train and rob it; they make their escape and are then chased by law enforcers and end up in a shoot-out. Up until this film, cinema was mainly at best a means of depicting visual trickery. What this movie did that was revolutionary was to tell a relatively complex story involving a number of different locations. Of course, from a modern perspective it is as simple as can be, but in the early years of the medium it just wasn't immediately obvious how to use this new technology to tell a story. It took a while for early audiences to understand what techniques such as cross-cutting actually meant. This film was extremely important in putting together some of the early basic cinematic story-telling devices in a way audiences could comprehend. And not only that, it introduced, via its story of a group of bandits robbing a train, some of the key ingredients that would go on to form an indelible part of genre cinema. The film ends on a scene that was more in keeping with the more gimmicky films of the time, when we are confronted with an actor who fires his gun directly at the camera, or at the audience. I imagine this would've caused a bit of consternation among some of the earlier cinema-goers. Despite this being the most famous part of the film, it's only fair to say that The Great Train Robbery is much more significant as a key work in the development as cinema as a narrative medium. It's enormously important in the history of cinema.

Action, Adventure in this Early Drama

[Lugosi31 · 10/10 · 14 June 1999]

This film was made in 1903 and was the longest one to date: twelve minutes. It has a clearly identifiable plot and this is that a band of four outlaws wreak havoc on two trains and the people on them. They are rather skilled criminals but, in the end, ... This movie is a must-see if you are interested in the dawn of the cinematographic age.

The Beginning of Cinema

[framptonhollis · 7/10 · 29 January 2016]

After films like "A Trip to the Moon", it was discovered that the new artistic medium of film could tell stories. By the time "The Great Train Robbery" was released, cinema was changed forever.

The final shot has always been considered one of the most memorable shots in cinema history. In it, a cowboy is looking straight into the camera, holding a gun. Then, all of a sudden, he shoots right at the screen and the film ends. It's fun to note that this shot was payed tribute to in the acclaimed crime film "Goodfellas".

"The Great Train Robbery" is, without a doubt, one of the earliest crime films and one of the first films with a regular narrative.

For 1903, it is really thrilling and well made. It's full of action, adventure, and inventive/influential filmmaking, there were very few films like it at the time!

Me Likey Choo Choos

[film-critic · 3/10 · 10 May 2008]

Edwin Porter's 1903 short film entitled "The Great Train Robbery" bursts onto the screen with so much excitement and ingenuity that one prepares to be blown away by another pioneering early film. Just like Melies' "A Trip to the Moon", critics have hailed this as being the film that introduced the western genre into modern cinema. In my eyes, they were right. It had everything from the planning, the actual heist of the train, the murder of an unwanted civilian, and that looming final scene that makes you realize that these villains mean business – it was all monumental for its time. From here to Eastwood, every western filmmaker has used Porter's image in some form or another to create their own story. One cannot say that this film didn't open the door, but the struggle comes from the story itself. The genre was defined by Porter, but outside of its initial excitement – there really isn't anything to grapple onto. Perhaps I am jaded by the cliché modern westerns and their haphazard messages, but how can something be cliché before being cliché? To me, "The Great Train Robbery" seemed forced, untraceable, and unsurprising.

Unlike Melies, Porter tells a very linear story. Robbers change the course of a train, rob it, then shoot at random people just to prove they are the true villains, and the final scene ends like any predestined film, without any surprises or glitches, and that looming man with a gun to your proverbial face. It is bland. Porter's film is boring. In the edition I watched, there was an addition of color near to the end to emphasize emotion, which felt cheap and was not encouraging to the filmmaker, or to the viewer. The issue remains that while it is important, Porter's film has been borrowed time and time again, it has in effect become diluted. The story itself does not carry the emotional powerhouse it once has. Unlike Melies early film, I cannot watch this again. I know what has happened, I know there is very little missing from behind the scenes, and that finally it is just what it has set out to be – a simple story leading from point A to point B to point C. This issue is not only my gripe with this film, but also the strongest element to see in such an early film. While it was dull, the fact that it told such a strong narrative – that our characters were characters with motives and drives, was outstanding to see. In an era where nonfiction films seemed mainstream, this broke the mold. Again, not that I am jumping on the prophetic bandwagon about this film – it is an important film – it just isn't a great film.

Overall, I was eager to jump into this film to see where the roots of the western genre were planted, but I was equally as happy to leave this film behind. Porter is a talented director, and G.M. Anderson obviously went on to be very successful in the created field, but I just wasn't in awe of the film. I wasn't expecting big budget effects like Melies work, nor was I expecting a duplicate of "A Trip to the Moon", but I did want to see the same creativity, exploration, and originality. I felt Porter played it safe, if that can be said with such an early film, but I couldn't feel the excitement as our villains did their evil deeds. I wasn't rooting for anyone, and the final conclusion proved that the kitschy-ness of it had worn off minutes after the film started. It was pioneering, but not monumental. "The Great Train Robbery" has lost its space in the time capsule of cinema.

Grade: ** out of *****

Pioneer work possible birthplace of Western

[pooch-8 · 30 July 1999]

Arguably the first motion picture to employ the milieu of what would quickly become known as the Western genre, Edwin S. Porter's The Great Train Robbery was a smashing success with audiences (dozens of film history texts report with glee how viewers shrieked with fear and delight when a tightly-framed gunslinger pointed and fired directly at the camera) and made remarkable strides toward the establishment of longer, more narratively developed films. Porter's cutting was also among the most sophisticated to date, as multiple locations and events were suffused with a previously unseen urgency. Based on actual events, The Great Train Robbery ignited the imaginations of the scores who saw it -- making the movie one of the earliest examples of sensationalized, fictionalized screen adaptations taken from historical precedent.

A nice watch but only for academic reasons.

[peergynd · 6/10 · 2 March 2022]

A fantastic film for its era but today you'll not miss much if you don't watch it.

The effects are plausible and for director's perspective doesn't seem like a movie from 120 years back.

Still, the plot is very simple, the characters faceless and in my opinion, knowing today's cinema, this film hasn't much to tell or to give to the viewer -except from cinema students- in addition to other films of that time that can stand in the lists of the best of all time.

The First American Motion Picture Was an "Eastern" Western

[romanorum1 · 10/10 · 3 August 2009]

What do these famous persons have in common: Buffalo Bill, Bat Masterson, Wyatt Earp, Charlie Siringo, Frank James, Annie Oakley, Cole Younger, and "Yellowstone" Kelly? They were still alive in 1903, and they had a lot of living to do. Perhaps they saw this wonderful movie, which was inspired by a Wyoming train robbery by Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch in 1900. The Great Train Robbery, produced by the Edison Studios, was filmed in the wilds of New Jersey. The title sums up the feature, but the train bandits get their comeuppance within twelve minutes. It is only fitting that the historic first motion picture in America was a western. A bandit shoots at the audience at the beginning or end of the feature, depending upon the prints (which vary). "Broncho Billy" Anderson, who regularly acted for almost two decades, had several roles. He may have been the first American movie "star," in the loose sense of the term. Great fun!

The Birth of the Western

[alfCycle · 7/10 · 27 April 2017]

This film is very simple and straight forward. By today's standards there is nothing remotely new. However, when looked at in the context of the time it was released, it is easy to see how influential this movie would become. So many future films, particularly westerns, can be traced back to the basic formula of this movie. The final scene of Goodfellas even has an homage to this film. Apparently, audiences at the time jumped out of their seats with fear at the last scene, which I can understand for a person who had never seen a movie in their life.

Recommended to anyone interested in the history of film making.

7/10

...but that's just like, my opinion, man

# Of Times Watched: Once

Groundbreaking piece of history

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 9 August 2006]

THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY is one of the first "modern" movies because there is a definite plot as well as scenery, a coherent story and suspense. While this is also true of the even better French film, Le Voyage dans la lune that was shot a year earlier (1902), other than that, "movies" were almost exclusively plot less (they just turned on the camera and recorded mundane activities), or had no beginning, middle AND end--they were just snippets of action. At a whopping ten plus minutes, this movie was significantly longer than the average film as well (which often lasted less than one minute).

On the plus side, it was and is still pretty watchable, with decent indoor sets and outdoor scenes, lots of action and some inventive camera-work. On the negative side, some of the action scenes were really, really lame--even for 1903! For instance, when the two men are fighting on the train, it's very obvious that the man is switched with a dummy and the dummy is tossed over the side--it really could have been done a lot better. BUT, because it is such an early attempt, I can forgive this!

Not to be confused with Crichton novel or movie (web)

[leplatypus · 7/10 · 21 July 2018]

The titles are the same as the content for sure but Crichton was set in Victorian Britain in 1864 while here it's America! It's amazing how baby cinema had already create his own visual langage and in less than 10 years: the movie is dynamic, the angle are inspired (it's nearly VR on the top of the train) and maybe the difference with BTF3 or Indy 3 is only the issue of sound and score! For sure i waited the moment when those bandits would be caught because i couldn't imagine a Doberman movie at this time! Moral is safe! The final shot of this bandit shooting the audience at close range is fantastic because it embodies truly what is cinema: a virtual reality filling you with emotions ranging from all the spectre, good to bad! Sure, the action is crude, limited but it's like videogames: the first games invented everything and today games are just the old games done with better technology! At last, with this movie, i finally reach my destination also because i have now watched 1 movie by year between cinema birth and mine! I really expected that this earlier movies would be boring but they surprise me to be as good (or even better) than today ones and with as talented people: Méliès, DW Griffith, Mary Brian, Louise Brooks and German productions...

One of the Oldest Films I've Ever Seen

[ctrout · 10/10 · 28 January 2005]

As the title of this summary states, this is one of the oldest films I've ever seen. But that doesn't take away from how well it was made. It's probably the best film of the '00s and you'll probably agree with me about that.

The plot is very simple, yet it's very interesting too. A clerk at a train station is held up by four bandits who are trying to rob a train. They tie up the clerk and threaten the train operator. Then they take all the money from the train. Meanwhile, a little girl finds the clerk and warns the sheriff. He forms a posse and an incredible climax occurs.

The last shot of the film is probably the most memorable and it's been imitated many times. I won't give it away because the film is so good, but I'll say that when you see it, you'll probably find yourself thinking that you can remember seeing that before.

The director, Edwin S. Porter, was more influential to me than D.W. Griffith. So that's saying a lot about him because Griffith is sometimes considered to be the father of full length feature films. But I still say Porter is up there with the best. Enjoy The Great Train Robbery.

Interesting, but laughable

[Jesster-3 · 6/10 · 23 December 1998]

This 15-minute film is obviously a pioneer of a medium new to the turn-of-the-century world and I was impressed with the innovation of shot-framing for the time period. The shot set-ups for many scenes helped to make the picture more exciting considering that the camera would not be moved during shooting. For instance there are scenes filmed from on top a moving train and from a forest road where bandits and their pursuers gallop toward the camera's positions while firing at each other. Early movies before this were not nearly as innovative in setting up shots, even as basic as they seem to us now almost a century later.

I commend this movie also in attempting stunts and fight scenes. I had to laugh though when a bandit is fighting a engineer on top of the locomotive car roof and once he beats him unconscious the live victim is replaced with a stuffed man-sized dummy and thrown overboard with a casual fling by his abuser. Also, the bandits make what I thought to be a very clean getaway far ahead of any possible pursuer (commandeer a locomotive engine to the mountains, flee on foot into the mountain woodlands, meet up with their waiting horses) but somehow the posse heroes catch up with them the very next scene from belatedly finding out about the train robbery the bandits pulled off.

Anyway, it was an interesting and unintentionally amusing film. Far more exciting than all the other turn-of-the-century films I've seen on the Library of Congress website (loc.gov).

Famous image, famous film

[Polaris_DiB · 9/10 · 7 September 2005]

Here is the famous film so beloved of film freaks and homaged by directors.

The earliest work in narrative is also one of the most dazzling early works. It's violent, high-paced, and colorful. Yet what makes it really worth the the bother to find is its creativity, at least at the time.

So far, all the narrative techniques had not yet been developed, such as close-ups and the like. This film had to tell a whole story using what little experience it had, so it does it well. Firstly, double-exposures helped replace the standard wide-shot and also were used as special effects. Secondly, most of the action is contained to relatively small environments, so the filmmakers used a lot of depth in the frame to widen it and make it seem more real. Thirdly, color was used.

It's also the film that has the famous image of the cowboy shooting at the screen, even if that image is largely useless by today's need for narrative arch.

It was meant to dazzle, not to make sense. The fact that it can still dazzle today is what helps people understand its quality.

--PolarisDiB

Primitive western film was a trail blazer...

[Doylenf · 6/10 · 2 April 2008]

It's almost impossible to review a twelve minute western made in 1903 from a modern standpoint and a knowledge of all the western classics that would follow. But since director Porter had to work with primitive technology, his little film still impresses today.

A touch that seems inspired is having the gunsmoke and occasional spurts of dust tinted red, as well as the final shot aimed at the screen (something Alfred Hitchcock may have borrowed for one of his films).

Briefly told, it's the simple story of a train robbery that is almost successful until the four men are hunted by a posse. A stationmaster is shot and tied up, while outside his window we see a train moving into the station--a wobbly special effect ahead of its time. The little girl who eventually removes his binds is amusing in the way she uses silent screen technique to indicate panic by looking upward with outstretched arms.

Considering when it was made, it's astonishing that the director/cameraman/writer was able to do what he did here.

Origin of the western genre

[azuremorningsky · 5/10 · 29 April 2010]

The Great Train robbery is an interesting little silent film barely over ten minutes long which details the robbery of a train by a group of outlaws and then retaliation by the posse sent out to capture the outlaws. While the film is alittle underwhelming from a modern day perspective i would argue that the film is important historically and can be seen as the precursor to the modern western genre and as far as i know is the first film to break the fourth wall (when the cowboy shoots the audience in the beginning of the film). Furthermore, the camera work and editing was unique for the time in which it was filmed. That being said i would only recommend this film to film history buffs or silent film enthusiasts.