This is the 1951 feature made by the British film industry to celebrate the festival of Britain. The film stars a virtual who's who of all the famous British cinema actors of that time, and one of the fun things about this film is trying to identify all of them as they pop up in various cameo roles. The story is the biography of William Friese- Greene, who this film claims invented the motion picture camera and projector. Edison and Lumiere are casually acknowledged as also being motion picture pioneers, but Friese-Greene is claimed to have had the first intermittent mechanism (presumably the Maltese cross) used in today's cinema projectors. It also claims that he invented the biocolour process, where color motion pictures are produced by rotating two color filters in front of the camera and projector (KinemaColour). The lead role is beautifully played by Robert Donat as the quiet intense inventor obsessed with producing moving photographs, and his wife is competently played by Maria Schell. Also appearing in cameo roles are Michael Redgrave, Richard Attenborough, Peter Ustinov, Stanley Holloway, Michael Dennison, the great Dennis Price, the beautiful Glynnis Johns and her father Mervyn Johns, the eccentric Joyce Grenfell, the wonderful Margeret Rutherford, and a host of others too long to mention. The most famous cameo is by Sir Laurence Olivier, as the astonished policeman who witnesses Friese-Greene's first triumph, the projection of moving images of Hyde Park on an improvised sheet screen. This is the most remembered scene of the film, and Friese Greene's excitement at this event reminded me of my own excitement when I first turned the handle on my first Pathescope 9.5mm projector! The film is of great interest to film collectors and movie buffs, containing beautiful shots of old wood and brass magic lanterns and early movie equipment. There are many wonderful scenes, such as the Victorian photo studio where they show customers having to stand absolutely still for 30 seconds to get their photo taken! The film was produced by Roy Boulting, and the beautiful Victorian settings and costumes are sumptuously photographed by Jack Cardiff. My family and friends really enjoyed this movie, it is low key almost like a BBC period drama, but if you are a film collector you will love it. We take the showing of films in our homes for granted these days, and it easy to forget the real struggle by inventors such as Friese- Greene to achieve what seemed impossible at the time. American audiences will of course have to (at least temporarily) suspend their belief that Edison was the sole inventor of the motion picture camera ( in fact Edison was primarily a business man and entrepreneur who copied many of the motion picture concepts developed by Lumiere in France) This film is very rare indeed. I don't think it exists on VHS or DVD,(certainly not in the USA), however Super 8mm film prints do exist, so if you find an S8 print grab it! My particular super 8 print is a 2400 ft Agfa color print, pin sharp with beautiful rich colors and great contrast. The mono magnetic track sound quality is very good for a film of 1951 vintage. Highly recommended, if you can find it.
35 Reviews
A Forgotten Pioneer
bkoganbing5 January 2009
I'm sure it didn't hurt in the resolve of the British film industry to honor one of its pioneers and one who some claim to have been the actual inventor of motion pictures, William Friese-Greene, to have one of his grandchildren, Richard Greene as a film star in his own right. The Magic Box is a fine tribute to someone generally forgotten if known at all to American audiences especially.
Robert Donat brings his Mr. Chips character and weaves it into the character of William Friese-Greene. The story is told in flashback and in reverse order, first by his second wife Margaret Johnston from their first meeting in 1897 through their marriages and then later by Donat himself as he remembers his first wife Maria Schell. But in both remembrances, the thing that stands out is his driving obsession to capture movement on some medium. As Donat eloquently puts it, 'movement is life'.
It costs him dear, he does not get the credit he feels due him, it goes to that upstart Thomas Edison from the USA. Actually fellow Britishers George Alfred Smith and Charles Urban and Frenchmen Auguste and Louis Lumiere and Emile Reynaud all could claim pioneering contributions to the motion picture as well. Friese-Greene was a fine portrait photographer, but spent all his money on his experiments, even selling the patent he took out on his early motion picture camera.
Donat, Johnston and Schell are supported by a massive cast of the best British players doing small parts in tribute and belated recognition to the guy who now is considered if not THE inventor of motion pictures, the founder of British cinema. From Laurence Olivier in the role of an astonished policeman who is the first to see Robert Donat's breakthrough, to Bernard Miles as Donat's stuffy cousin who's worried about having the bite put on him, to young John Howard Davies as the youngest of Friese-Greene's sons, you'll recognize lots of familiar faces.
Still the film belongs to Donat as the obsessed, but touching Friese- Greene who helped give the world a universal medium of entertainment. Donat never gave a bad performance on the screen and Friese-Greene ranks among his best.
Robert Donat brings his Mr. Chips character and weaves it into the character of William Friese-Greene. The story is told in flashback and in reverse order, first by his second wife Margaret Johnston from their first meeting in 1897 through their marriages and then later by Donat himself as he remembers his first wife Maria Schell. But in both remembrances, the thing that stands out is his driving obsession to capture movement on some medium. As Donat eloquently puts it, 'movement is life'.
It costs him dear, he does not get the credit he feels due him, it goes to that upstart Thomas Edison from the USA. Actually fellow Britishers George Alfred Smith and Charles Urban and Frenchmen Auguste and Louis Lumiere and Emile Reynaud all could claim pioneering contributions to the motion picture as well. Friese-Greene was a fine portrait photographer, but spent all his money on his experiments, even selling the patent he took out on his early motion picture camera.
Donat, Johnston and Schell are supported by a massive cast of the best British players doing small parts in tribute and belated recognition to the guy who now is considered if not THE inventor of motion pictures, the founder of British cinema. From Laurence Olivier in the role of an astonished policeman who is the first to see Robert Donat's breakthrough, to Bernard Miles as Donat's stuffy cousin who's worried about having the bite put on him, to young John Howard Davies as the youngest of Friese-Greene's sons, you'll recognize lots of familiar faces.
Still the film belongs to Donat as the obsessed, but touching Friese- Greene who helped give the world a universal medium of entertainment. Donat never gave a bad performance on the screen and Friese-Greene ranks among his best.
Patriotic Flagwaver That Manages to Communicate Some of the Struggles of an Obsessive Character
l_rawjalaurence23 October 2014
Much has been said in other reviews about the subject of John Boulting's biopic, the inventor William Friese-Greene, who spent his life trying to create the eponymous "magic box" that would show moving pictures. Whether he was the first to do so is largely insignificant: the fact that he went largely unrecognized assumes far greater importance.
Planned to celebrate the Festival of Britain in 1951, THE MAGIC BOX recognizes the achievements of someone who spent just about everything - time, money and effort - on his work. Director Boulting alternates between scenes in Friese Greene's (Robert Donat's) laboratory, with domestic sequences involving his wives Edith (Margaret Johnston) and Helena (Maria Schell). Although a devoted husband, Friese-Greene is so obsessed with his work that he neglects his family; as shown in several sequences where he begins to talk excitedly about his discoveries, while remaining oblivious to his wives' complaints. In one sequence, for example, Edith has to remind him that he has missed an important concert at which he was supposed to be the soloist; to avoid any embarrassment with the conductor (Muir Matheson), she had to fill in for him. Sometimes his wives sacrifice their own health to support him; Helena is shown in close-up crumpling a medicinal prescription in her hand as she travels home by coach. In her view it's far more important to encourage Friese-Greene's work than to cure her congenital heart condition.
Boulting adopts an equivocal view of Friese-Greene's work; although obviously an innovator, his obsessions caused pain and suffering in his family, and led to the break-up of profitable partnerships such as that with rich northern business person Arthur Collings (Eric Portman), which could have secured Friese-Greene's financial future.
The film is structured in double flashback, showing us how Friese- Greene's life, and enabling Donat to give a virtuoso performance in the title role. This most underrated of British actors was particularly good at portraying tortured souls (remember GOODBYE MR. CHIPS (1939)), and he manages to communicate the pain lurking at the heart of Friese-Greene's soul, once he realizes the damage he has done to his family. Boulting is fond of using the quick close-up to register his emotions.
As well as being a celebration of the inventor, THE MAGIC BOX celebrates the British film industry by offering roles to virtually all the major stars (and supporting actors) working in the studios at that time. The film offers fans the pleasure of identifying people in the smallest roles, and enjoying scene-stealing cameos such as Margaret Ruthferford's irascible dowager telling Friese- Greene's first employer Guttenberg (Frederick Valk) off; Joyce Grenfell at her toothiest as a member of Edith's choral society; Sidney James and William Hartnell as a pair of World War One army personnel; and Laurence Olivier in his famous cameo as a London police officer marveling at Friese-Greene's invention.
Thematically speaking, Eric Ambler's script might be a familiar one, but that does not prevent viewers from enjoying the film as a celebration of a long-forgotten figure as well as British films as a whole.
Planned to celebrate the Festival of Britain in 1951, THE MAGIC BOX recognizes the achievements of someone who spent just about everything - time, money and effort - on his work. Director Boulting alternates between scenes in Friese Greene's (Robert Donat's) laboratory, with domestic sequences involving his wives Edith (Margaret Johnston) and Helena (Maria Schell). Although a devoted husband, Friese-Greene is so obsessed with his work that he neglects his family; as shown in several sequences where he begins to talk excitedly about his discoveries, while remaining oblivious to his wives' complaints. In one sequence, for example, Edith has to remind him that he has missed an important concert at which he was supposed to be the soloist; to avoid any embarrassment with the conductor (Muir Matheson), she had to fill in for him. Sometimes his wives sacrifice their own health to support him; Helena is shown in close-up crumpling a medicinal prescription in her hand as she travels home by coach. In her view it's far more important to encourage Friese-Greene's work than to cure her congenital heart condition.
Boulting adopts an equivocal view of Friese-Greene's work; although obviously an innovator, his obsessions caused pain and suffering in his family, and led to the break-up of profitable partnerships such as that with rich northern business person Arthur Collings (Eric Portman), which could have secured Friese-Greene's financial future.
The film is structured in double flashback, showing us how Friese- Greene's life, and enabling Donat to give a virtuoso performance in the title role. This most underrated of British actors was particularly good at portraying tortured souls (remember GOODBYE MR. CHIPS (1939)), and he manages to communicate the pain lurking at the heart of Friese-Greene's soul, once he realizes the damage he has done to his family. Boulting is fond of using the quick close-up to register his emotions.
As well as being a celebration of the inventor, THE MAGIC BOX celebrates the British film industry by offering roles to virtually all the major stars (and supporting actors) working in the studios at that time. The film offers fans the pleasure of identifying people in the smallest roles, and enjoying scene-stealing cameos such as Margaret Ruthferford's irascible dowager telling Friese- Greene's first employer Guttenberg (Frederick Valk) off; Joyce Grenfell at her toothiest as a member of Edith's choral society; Sidney James and William Hartnell as a pair of World War One army personnel; and Laurence Olivier in his famous cameo as a London police officer marveling at Friese-Greene's invention.
Thematically speaking, Eric Ambler's script might be a familiar one, but that does not prevent viewers from enjoying the film as a celebration of a long-forgotten figure as well as British films as a whole.
A biography of one of the true first inventors of the cinema.
David3-D30 March 1999
A brilliant biography of one of the virtually unknown inventors of modern motion pictures. The historical aspects are incredibly well researched and detailed (look at the film credits)-- down to the reproduction of a beautiful example of his first twin-lensed motion picture camera, which was stereoscopic (which proved not be be practical until the introduction of polarized projection at the 1939 World's Fair). This film was made as a showcase piece for the 1951 "Festival of Britain" at the current location of the Royal Festival Hall and the Museum of the Moving Image on the banks of the Thames in London, England. What remains of the original Friese-Greene camera may be seen at the Science Museum in London. For those interested in the history of the cinema, and its earliest experiments, this is a "must see" film. Historical footage is brilliantly incorporated into the story. Although the presentation is a little bit slow by today's standards, it remains a fascinating and unique film. For related topics see the book "The Missing Reel", by Christopher Rawlence, about the other unknown film pioneer, Louis Aime Augustin Le Prince.
Wonderful Robert Donat!
dbdumonteil24 April 2005
A first-class actor ,playing a character from his youth to an old man,with the same talent:he is as convincing as the mischievous boy who takes photographs unbeknown to his boss as the old man who tries to save the seventh art from the moneychangers in the Temple . The film has an unusually inventive construction:it is roughly made of two flashbacks ,but the first one takes place after the second one."The magic box" tells the story of a pioneer of the cinema who died in dire straits ("that's the price for a seat for pictures" )His destiny resembles that of Georges Méliès who ended his life selling candies in a railway station and who never complained about his fate.Geniuses often die unnoticed.The cinematography is splendid with tasteful colors ,the dialog does not forget humor (Donat:"Enjoy yourselves!Schell:"We're going to the church!!"),and there are very powerful scenes:the concert where Schell sings a moving solo "Where is he?I know not!I know not!";an ecstatic Donat showing his film to a constable .The cast is incredibly various and includes such luminaries as Laurence Olivier,Margaret Rutherford,Peter Ustinov,Stanley Holloway and more ,all in supporting parts or even often cameos.
How prophetic the pioneer's last words were!
How prophetic the pioneer's last words were!
Inventing History
Cineanalyst21 December 2007
This biopic of inventor William Friese-Greene was based on Ray Allister's book "Friese-Greene: Close-up of an Inventor". Allister used the recollections of the inventor's family and friends for his biography. Such sources have oft proved unreliable, and this is such a case. Brian Coe and other historians have since debunked some of the myths invented by Friese-Greene and perpetuated by his family, friends and biographers. The mythical result here, in this film, is that Friese-Greene appears as the primary inventor of motion pictures and cinema.
The climax of "The Magic Box" has Friese-Greene projecting his film taken at Hyde Park to a policeman. The film-within-the-film is not the actual photographs taken by Friese-Greene, but the invention of the makers of "The Magic Box". This first film appears in a condition that would rival the Lumière programs of some six years later; the flickers and jitters are unrealistically light. Moreover, it would be the first multi-shot film, preceding by about eight years the earliest such films that I've seen or read of. The first part, which takes place in the park, with a man and his son approaching the camera, is followed by the so-called scene of leisurely pedestrians, open-topped buses and hansom cabs with trotting horses. In this last part, however, which doesn't exist today, appears within "The Magic Box" as a scene of curious observers looking at the likewise observing camera.
Allister, however, has reprinted six frames of the first part of the subjects. Others have surmised that this film was taken at about four or five frames per second. The film within "The Magic Box", however appears to have been photographed at least at 16 frames per second, which is generally acknowledged as the minimum speed for the illusion of motion. Moreover, the Hyde Park film probably wasn't seamlessly projected; the film wasn't even perforated. Two frames each were also photographed at a time, which explains why, as you can see in "The Magic Box", Friese-Greene's camera features two lenses. This was because the film was a stereoscopy attempt; that is, Friese-Greene thought he might be able to produce three-dimensional images by overlapping two simultaneously photographed frames. Allister has also reprinted four frames from another film by Friese-Greene--a street scene taken in Chelsea. This film is perforated, but still appears to have been photographed at probably no more than five frames per second.
On a further historical note, Friese-Greene is said to have given some public demonstrations of films, although he doesn't seem to have been too successful with them. Later, he gave public showings of Birt Acres's films, which seems an indication of his own incomplete work on motion pictures. Additionally, Greene's former business partner Arthur Collings did go on to become one of Britain's earliest filmmakers; he was giving public performances of his films in late 1896.
In short, the movie industry demonstrated itself incapable of rendering even its own history accurately. This isn't necessarily a knock on the quality of "The Magic Box", though. I've come not to expect accurate history lessons from movies (and, sometimes, not even from books). Interestingly, and probably more accurately, Friese-Greene's life is depicted throughout the rest of the film as an indebted and failed inventor, who lost his family and, it would seem, part of his sanity. The flashback storytelling structure is accessible. The fictionalized, climactic moment of success, as a dramatic, self-reflexive scene is quite moving. The film, in general, is absorbing, and the production values are topnotch. Friese-Greene's camera, other pre-cinema trinkets and the originally slow process of taking photographs are well rendered. I also liked the fairground scene where they catch a glimpse of three Lumière films projected within a tent. Its history is inaccurate, but "The Magic Box" is nevertheless an inspired look back at the beginnings of the art form.
The climax of "The Magic Box" has Friese-Greene projecting his film taken at Hyde Park to a policeman. The film-within-the-film is not the actual photographs taken by Friese-Greene, but the invention of the makers of "The Magic Box". This first film appears in a condition that would rival the Lumière programs of some six years later; the flickers and jitters are unrealistically light. Moreover, it would be the first multi-shot film, preceding by about eight years the earliest such films that I've seen or read of. The first part, which takes place in the park, with a man and his son approaching the camera, is followed by the so-called scene of leisurely pedestrians, open-topped buses and hansom cabs with trotting horses. In this last part, however, which doesn't exist today, appears within "The Magic Box" as a scene of curious observers looking at the likewise observing camera.
Allister, however, has reprinted six frames of the first part of the subjects. Others have surmised that this film was taken at about four or five frames per second. The film within "The Magic Box", however appears to have been photographed at least at 16 frames per second, which is generally acknowledged as the minimum speed for the illusion of motion. Moreover, the Hyde Park film probably wasn't seamlessly projected; the film wasn't even perforated. Two frames each were also photographed at a time, which explains why, as you can see in "The Magic Box", Friese-Greene's camera features two lenses. This was because the film was a stereoscopy attempt; that is, Friese-Greene thought he might be able to produce three-dimensional images by overlapping two simultaneously photographed frames. Allister has also reprinted four frames from another film by Friese-Greene--a street scene taken in Chelsea. This film is perforated, but still appears to have been photographed at probably no more than five frames per second.
On a further historical note, Friese-Greene is said to have given some public demonstrations of films, although he doesn't seem to have been too successful with them. Later, he gave public showings of Birt Acres's films, which seems an indication of his own incomplete work on motion pictures. Additionally, Greene's former business partner Arthur Collings did go on to become one of Britain's earliest filmmakers; he was giving public performances of his films in late 1896.
In short, the movie industry demonstrated itself incapable of rendering even its own history accurately. This isn't necessarily a knock on the quality of "The Magic Box", though. I've come not to expect accurate history lessons from movies (and, sometimes, not even from books). Interestingly, and probably more accurately, Friese-Greene's life is depicted throughout the rest of the film as an indebted and failed inventor, who lost his family and, it would seem, part of his sanity. The flashback storytelling structure is accessible. The fictionalized, climactic moment of success, as a dramatic, self-reflexive scene is quite moving. The film, in general, is absorbing, and the production values are topnotch. Friese-Greene's camera, other pre-cinema trinkets and the originally slow process of taking photographs are well rendered. I also liked the fairground scene where they catch a glimpse of three Lumière films projected within a tent. Its history is inaccurate, but "The Magic Box" is nevertheless an inspired look back at the beginnings of the art form.
A respectful look at very early cinema
adamscastlevania225 October 2014
(63%) A quite quaint dramatisation of one of the first ever inventors of a camera with motion capture capability. The story itself is one of quite strong sadness as poor old Friese-Green struggling to keep his, and his families, head above water while he works away below stairs on his invention. Everything is as you'd expect from a well made early 50's British movie with a capable cast with a few big names making an appearance, and it is quite an insight into the inner workings of late Victorian/Edwardian photography and life in general. Anyone with interest in either early cinema or British classics (or both) should give this a hunt down.
A beautifully filmed and acted British gem with 60 film stars
grahame1219 April 2012
A beautifully filmed and acted British gem. I have the Studio Canal release which I think is very good for picture and sound.For its age the colour is excellent, perhaps due to William Friese-Greene. As you are watching it you have to keep pausing and rewinding to see which film star you thought you saw in the crowd. It is amazing; the cover says "SEE 60 FAMOUS FILM STARS". How the director got so many stars to appear, some for just a few seconds is astonishing. If you get the chance watch this film. I am a Margaret Rutherford fan and was delighted to see her cameo role here. It was only short but adds to my collection.
Entertaining but could have been better
aljoclark28 October 2015
The most notable aspect of this film is the enormous number of famous actors, some of whom I didn't notice but saw them on the cast list. Older viewers will enjoy looking out for them. The acting is therefore generally very good.
I have two main criticisms of the film. First, the story is shown out of sequence, and would have been just as good and less confusing if shown in the correct sequence. Secondly, it is not accurate, being a strange mixture of fact and fiction. For example, at one point he meets William Fox-Talbot, who died when Friese-Green was only 22! If a biographical book made such a claim it would be strongly criticised, but for some reason which I have never understood it is perfectly acceptable in the cinema.
So watch it purely for entertainment., but for biographical facts go to Wiki or elsewhere.
I have two main criticisms of the film. First, the story is shown out of sequence, and would have been just as good and less confusing if shown in the correct sequence. Secondly, it is not accurate, being a strange mixture of fact and fiction. For example, at one point he meets William Fox-Talbot, who died when Friese-Green was only 22! If a biographical book made such a claim it would be strongly criticised, but for some reason which I have never understood it is perfectly acceptable in the cinema.
So watch it purely for entertainment., but for biographical facts go to Wiki or elsewhere.
The Magic Box is Magic ****
edwagreen16 May 2009
Superb film often overlooked when we talk about the accomplishments of the late Robert Donat. Donat proved to be a fine character actor and too bad that he died so early; otherwise, there would have been more brilliant performances in store for him.
This film is the autobiography of William Friese Greene, who by the account of this fine film, made the moving picture literally move by camera.
The film is splendidly detailed and boasted a cast of every well known British star of that period.
If you blink an eye, you don't realize that the film goes back to his first marriage. Notice that nothing is really said about what happened to his children from both marriages.
Friese Greene was a kindly, devoted inventor who should never have married. He allowed his work to neglect his responsibilities as a husband and father. The man was a dreamer and Donat captured every movement of that dream.
This was certainly a stellar film.
This film is the autobiography of William Friese Greene, who by the account of this fine film, made the moving picture literally move by camera.
The film is splendidly detailed and boasted a cast of every well known British star of that period.
If you blink an eye, you don't realize that the film goes back to his first marriage. Notice that nothing is really said about what happened to his children from both marriages.
Friese Greene was a kindly, devoted inventor who should never have married. He allowed his work to neglect his responsibilities as a husband and father. The man was a dreamer and Donat captured every movement of that dream.
This was certainly a stellar film.
Robert Donat shines in nice biography of inventor William Friese-Greene...
Doylenf5 January 2009
For all of his dogged determination to succeed, William Friese-Greene never quite established himself firmly in the public's mind as the inventor of the first motion picture camera, THE MAGIC BOX. That honor seems to rest with Thomas Edison. But as the film goes on to suggest, it was "Willie" who developed the first camera similar to what motion picture cameras use today. The film gives credit to Edison and other inventors with Greene as "one of the first pioneers." The story is told slowly, with flashbacks, and captures the time and customs of a bygone era with careful attention to detail. And for added interest, almost every small role is played by one of Britain's most famous actors. Keep an eye out for Margaret Rutherford, Kay Walsh, Joan Hickson, Laurence Olivier, Leo Genn, Eric Portman, Richard Attenborough, Glynis Johns, and others.
Maria Schell, as one of the inventor's wives, wears a perpetual smile or grin on her face which always irritates me--let's face it, she's never been one of my favorite actresses and unfortunately she's in a good many of the scenes. I wish another actress had been cast in the role of his understanding first wife.
It's an interesting story, well told and extremely well acted by most of the cast with Margaret Rutherford standing out as one of the photographer's best customers and Laurence Olivier doing a fine job as the policeman called hurriedly to Donat's laboratory to witness motion pictures taken in Hyde Park and staring at the screen in amazement.
Donat's illness shows in many of the early scenes where he's supposed to be a young man, so that he looks more natural in the age make-up sequences as an older chap. The age make-up makes him resemble Mr. Chips again. I thought the ending was overly sentimental and not the way I would have preferred the story to conclude.
Well worth viewing.
Maria Schell, as one of the inventor's wives, wears a perpetual smile or grin on her face which always irritates me--let's face it, she's never been one of my favorite actresses and unfortunately she's in a good many of the scenes. I wish another actress had been cast in the role of his understanding first wife.
It's an interesting story, well told and extremely well acted by most of the cast with Margaret Rutherford standing out as one of the photographer's best customers and Laurence Olivier doing a fine job as the policeman called hurriedly to Donat's laboratory to witness motion pictures taken in Hyde Park and staring at the screen in amazement.
Donat's illness shows in many of the early scenes where he's supposed to be a young man, so that he looks more natural in the age make-up sequences as an older chap. The age make-up makes him resemble Mr. Chips again. I thought the ending was overly sentimental and not the way I would have preferred the story to conclude.
Well worth viewing.
So many reasons to be moved by this film
jromanbaker29 December 2019
It is almost 2020 and I wonder what a young audience would make of this film. There are so many bland super heroes who cannot act out there that I doubt if the language of film as portrayed here so miraculously would cross the border of time that divides us from 1951. How would they see the great cameo of Laurence Olivier's policeman ? In those few minutes he would have shown the audience back then Darcy and Heathcliff, and the beauty of his face and his subtlety in performance and his power of presence.How many would have heard of the truly greats like Margaret Johnston, Robert Donat and Eric Portman out of a list of so many others ?
I have seen this film twice and so much went into it and Donat's speech at the end has resonance for the barbaric way we have often used that magic box of illusion. I have slight reservations of the order of the narration, but it may have been too depressing to have followed a linear structure. The first half is harrowing and moving, and perhaps the optimism of 1951 would not have accepted it as an end. A film of great beauty and integrity.
Story of an early film pioneer
blanche-23 February 2009
There were undoubtedly many people working on some of our most important inventions around the time they became prominent. William Friese-Greene spent his life working on the motion picture camera, and though he isn't the official inventor, he is someone who contributed his work to what became the final product. His story is told by an all-star cast (even in tiny roles) in 1951's "The Magic Box" starring Robert Donat and Maria Schell.
Greene held the first patent on a motion picture camera, and financial problems, by which he was beset his entire life, caused him to sell his patent for 500 pounds. He also created a "Biocolor" system which won in a lawsuit against a system called Kinemacolor. This early color process was too expensive for commercial use, however.
From what I can gather, Greene had good ideas that weren't very practical, and the film is basically about how he went from a highly successful photographer to a bankrupt inventor, and how his obsession with film and color controlled his life. Not mentioned is the fact that his son Claude Friese-Greene became a cinematographer and was very prolific in British films until his death in 1943. He continued to develop his father's color process and produced a series of travelogues in the 1920s using this system.
Robert Donat is excellent, but the film is not very interesting except to spot all of the huge British stars in minor roles, such as Laurence Olivier as a bobby.
Some people are fairly dismissive of Friese-Greene, and his place in the creation of the moving picture is controversial. There's no question that today he is considered an early pioneer in moving pictures and in working with color. He was in touch with Edison regarding his work, and just because the credit goes to the individual who makes a product commercial is no reason to ignore the work of others. If this film makes people aware that a credited inventor isn't always the only inventor, so be it.
Greene held the first patent on a motion picture camera, and financial problems, by which he was beset his entire life, caused him to sell his patent for 500 pounds. He also created a "Biocolor" system which won in a lawsuit against a system called Kinemacolor. This early color process was too expensive for commercial use, however.
From what I can gather, Greene had good ideas that weren't very practical, and the film is basically about how he went from a highly successful photographer to a bankrupt inventor, and how his obsession with film and color controlled his life. Not mentioned is the fact that his son Claude Friese-Greene became a cinematographer and was very prolific in British films until his death in 1943. He continued to develop his father's color process and produced a series of travelogues in the 1920s using this system.
Robert Donat is excellent, but the film is not very interesting except to spot all of the huge British stars in minor roles, such as Laurence Olivier as a bobby.
Some people are fairly dismissive of Friese-Greene, and his place in the creation of the moving picture is controversial. There's no question that today he is considered an early pioneer in moving pictures and in working with color. He was in touch with Edison regarding his work, and just because the credit goes to the individual who makes a product commercial is no reason to ignore the work of others. If this film makes people aware that a credited inventor isn't always the only inventor, so be it.
This film took 30 years to Develop!
thejcowboy2224 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For the first time in my life I was recently married, 23 and unemployed. My wife was working and I was home watching TV. A British movie came on, The Magic Box which caught my interest immediately . The frustrating life of film innovator William Freese Greene (Robert Donat). The real inventor of color motion pictures. Yes there will be debates that will go on for a time about who invented the motion picture projector and who put in the patents first. But the 100 percent perspiration and dedication of one man shines throughout this movie. Despite bouts with money and marriage problems our inventor chap continued to persevere in his quest for a beautiful finished product. Earlier I watched the original Good Bye Mister Chips starring Robert Donat in the lead. What paralleled these two pictures was the similarity of Robert Donat playing different ages throughout the picture. As in the film Mister Chips you see Donat as a young Freshman Professor at a boarding school and as the film wears on he ages well into his early eighties. In this movie Donat starts as an elderly man at a London conference and the film flashes back showing a younger spry apprentice photographer. Our movie starts with the fore mentioned conference with the older Greene speaking to fellow businessmen in the film industry. Greene's stands up frustrated as he wants to make his message about the innovations of filming but the crowd was saturated with money hungry businessmen interested in complacency. Silent black and white movies being the norm rather than technical advances stressed by Greene. The response from his peers was complacent at the very least. Greene sits himself down and ponders his past. Greene's story flashed back in time as a young studio portrait photographer for a man called Maurice Guttenberg (Frederick Valk). Guttenberg and Greene have a falling out. Greene insists on shooting a picture his way. Greene and his new bride venture out on their own. Green opens his own photography business and slowly makes a solid customer base. With the money and the help of businessman, he invests it all on developing a color film with quite a few failures along the way but persistence pays off as he finally develops a celluloid that could handle a movie projector. One night Greene sets up his makeshift projector. Greene is excited about a scene he filmed in Hyde Park earlier in the day. Greene is about to run the film but there's no audience. He calls down to the street where a Bobby is walking his beat.The Bobby is played by the exemplary Actor Sir Laurence Olivier. Greene tells the befuddled Officer to sit and watch the bed sheet on the wall. Greene runs the film to the amazement of the confused constable as he runs to the sheet and tries to grab the images. This movie has so many cameos of Iconic British cinema actors. Here are some familiars, Leo Genn, David Tomlinson, Peter Ustinov and Michael Redgrave. I always like the acting of Robert Donat and his soft spoken approach. When this movie was released it was a box office flop but to me it was informative and poignant.
A Terrific Movie
falon19 December 2001
The most enjoyable and very emotional scene was when Robert Donat (Wm. Friese-Greene) finally succeeds in producing moving images on a sheet he's hung in his studio...he runs like a madman into the street in the middle of the night desperate to find someone to witness this miracle. Who does he find? Sir Laurence Olivier..a Police Constable . Donat ushers him into his lab, sits him down and proceeds to ramble on about what he's invented. Sir Laurence, the ever vigilant and cautious policeman thinks he's some kind of nut and slowly reaches for his night stick..that's when Robert Donat flicks on the first moving pictures of Hyde Park...Olivier is flabergasted..gets up moves to the sheet and looks behind it.."That's Hyde Park!' After rambling some more Robert Donat breaks into tears..finally explaining what he has accomplished..Olivier replies "You must be a very happy man"..a terrific scene and one I'll never forget. A cameo appearance by Lord Olivier and a very memorable scene.
A New Vista.
rmax3048236 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie stars Robert Donat as William Friese Greene who more or less invented the movie camera and thus made available those things being commented on at IMDb.com.
It's received splendid reviews over the years and on this site as well, and it's easy to understand why. The story has Friese Greene and his family suffering for his obsession with the camera. He sacrifices everything for it and his wife and friends chip into the pit. In the end, he dies at a public meeting in 1921 while trying to speak to the audience about developing art, preserving history, and putting money-making on the back burner. The audience must examine his body to find out who he is because he's an old man, long forgotten.
For lagniappe, we have brief appearances by just about every well-known name in the British film industry at the time, from Lawrence Olivier as a wary police constable to Muir Mathieson as a conductor.
So I hate to say that I found the biography a familiar one. Man persists in his pursuit of the invention. Sells everything. Suffers multiple tragedies. Wife gets sick and dies. Friends desert him. But he carries on until his goal is achieved. A cinematic biography wouldn't be a cinematic biography without these formulaic elements. What would you prefer -- a five-minute movie in which a man is inspired by an idea, goes down to the basement, puts some device together, sells franchises at an immense profit, marries some suitable mate like Paris Hilton, and settles down to happily raise five chubby children and a dozen thoroughbred horses? It's well acted and nicely directed by John Boulting, but similar stories have been better told. The Warner Brothers' biopics of the 30s -- starring people like Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Ehrlich -- were equally well done if more crudely presented. "Lust for Life" was more gripping. If William Friese Greene was really like Robert Donat in temperament, he was comparatively dull, although mighty lucky to have a wife who looked like Maria Schell. She has a dazzling smile that, when it appears, seems to cause all the features of her face to light up at once.
For what it's worth, towards late middle age, Friese Greene bemoans the fact that the contemporary encyclopedia entry doesn't even mention his name. (Wikipedia does now.) There were a number of people working on the idea around the same time and, the human mind being what it is, a single "inventor" is called for. Today that name is Edison. I wish Friese Green had won the gold medal because Edison was something of a rat. He patented everything he could get his hands on, including the inventions of people working in his own laboratory, not in pursuit of a dream but in order to make money. He fought it out with Westinghouse over who had the rights to the juice in the electric chair. The depths of Edison's avarice were plumbless.
It's received splendid reviews over the years and on this site as well, and it's easy to understand why. The story has Friese Greene and his family suffering for his obsession with the camera. He sacrifices everything for it and his wife and friends chip into the pit. In the end, he dies at a public meeting in 1921 while trying to speak to the audience about developing art, preserving history, and putting money-making on the back burner. The audience must examine his body to find out who he is because he's an old man, long forgotten.
For lagniappe, we have brief appearances by just about every well-known name in the British film industry at the time, from Lawrence Olivier as a wary police constable to Muir Mathieson as a conductor.
So I hate to say that I found the biography a familiar one. Man persists in his pursuit of the invention. Sells everything. Suffers multiple tragedies. Wife gets sick and dies. Friends desert him. But he carries on until his goal is achieved. A cinematic biography wouldn't be a cinematic biography without these formulaic elements. What would you prefer -- a five-minute movie in which a man is inspired by an idea, goes down to the basement, puts some device together, sells franchises at an immense profit, marries some suitable mate like Paris Hilton, and settles down to happily raise five chubby children and a dozen thoroughbred horses? It's well acted and nicely directed by John Boulting, but similar stories have been better told. The Warner Brothers' biopics of the 30s -- starring people like Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Ehrlich -- were equally well done if more crudely presented. "Lust for Life" was more gripping. If William Friese Greene was really like Robert Donat in temperament, he was comparatively dull, although mighty lucky to have a wife who looked like Maria Schell. She has a dazzling smile that, when it appears, seems to cause all the features of her face to light up at once.
For what it's worth, towards late middle age, Friese Greene bemoans the fact that the contemporary encyclopedia entry doesn't even mention his name. (Wikipedia does now.) There were a number of people working on the idea around the same time and, the human mind being what it is, a single "inventor" is called for. Today that name is Edison. I wish Friese Green had won the gold medal because Edison was something of a rat. He patented everything he could get his hands on, including the inventions of people working in his own laboratory, not in pursuit of a dream but in order to make money. He fought it out with Westinghouse over who had the rights to the juice in the electric chair. The depths of Edison's avarice were plumbless.
Makin' "Pitchers"
dsewizzrd-121 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Richard Attenborough, Ronald Shiner, Sidney James, Margaret Rutherford, Googie Withers, Thora Hird, Marius Goring, Stanley Holloway, Eric Portman, Dennis Price, David Tomlinson, Peter Ustinov, and just about every other contemporary British actor have roles in this film about the life of the British inventor of the motion film camera, produced for the postwar "Festival Of Britain".
William Friese Greene, a dedicated and spendthrift inventor starts work as a photographer's assistant and then starts his own studio. He starts a partnership with a Scottish man which he later falls out with. His first wife dies and he re-marries but after some period, she divorces him.
William Friese Greene, a dedicated and spendthrift inventor starts work as a photographer's assistant and then starts his own studio. He starts a partnership with a Scottish man which he later falls out with. His first wife dies and he re-marries but after some period, she divorces him.
Somewhat tragic biopic of a forgotten figure
Leofwine_draca27 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
THE MAGIC BOX is a 1951 biopic from the Boulting Brothers. The subject of the film is William Friese-Greene, a man whose invention of a moving-picture format saw him contributing to the development of early cinema, although he is very much a forgotten figure today. As such, this film is surprisingly downbeat and plays out as a tragedy at times. It's very realistic, harshly so, in fact, and details poverty, oppression, and the impact of turgid real life on one man's dreams. However, a succession of endless cameos from about half of all the famous faces of the era keeps it watchable, and Robert Donat - of THE 39 STEPS fame - delivers a winning performance as the protagonist.
The idealist's tragedy
clanciai26 January 2021
This became a favorite film of mine the first time I saw it (in black and white) 45 years ago, and it has remained unchallenged in that top position ever since. It's not just a biopic of a forgotten inventor, but it is a major tribute to the entire arduous process of the entire invention of film, which was hard work with many disasters on the way for 50 years until it became a fully developed industry. The film begins there, as the inventor in 1921 is on his way to a film meeting, where he thinks he still might have something to say, he is more than 65 and very fragile, and on his way there he visits his divorced wife, who left him with five sons as she realized he would never succeed in realizing his enthusiastic dreams, as he was constantly too much ahead of his time. When her colleague in the shop where she is working asks her, if she could not consider returning to such an amiable man, she answers, that such a hopeless idealist should never risk getting other people involved in his life, which would only compel them to constantly worry about him.
That marriage is shown in a flashback with some terribly heartbreaking scenes, as when three of their sons decide to relieve their parents of the burden of having to support them by enlisting for the war (1915), and we never learn what happened to them. She ends her story by telling her colleague, that she never really knew her husband and that his real life was before she met him. Then we learn all about that real life, with Maria Schell in one of her most lovable roles as his fragile wife who sacrifices everything for him including her life; which years were dominated by his constant struggle to invent a real film camera, which finally succeeds, but then they are ruined and all is lost.
In the final scene he finally reaches the film meeting, which is very turbulent, but he finally rises from his chair and demands to say something. His message is: "Don't destroy the idealism of film making, which is its only power and meaning." He sees clearly that the movie business is going into a formidable materialistic industry, which he feels will destroy the meaning of what he and other idealists sacrificed their lives for.
It is the ultimate masterpiece of John Boulting, although he and his brother together made a long list of masterpieces, generally marked by deep humanity and compassion unique in films, and here Robert Donat makes his finest performance, although he only made precious ones. The fate of the inventor who is blind to everything except his purpose and idealism and visions, who constantly gets hit hard by reality and rejected by fate into bankruptcy and almost the gutter, is heartrending and unforgettable, which makes this film, a unique documentation of the essence and very soul of film-making, one of the most important films ever made.
Missed opportunity
vitachiel28 December 2009
This film left me puzzled. What was the reason for the strange scene setup? Why not just present the movie in straight chronological order instead of telling the story by rather far-fetched flashbacks? The main story line is derived from a flashback that lasts for half the duration of the entire film!
The story of film inventor Friese-Greene is told mainly from the viewpoint of his two successive wives, starting with his later wife. The film starts off when Friese-Greene is already approaching the end of his life when he visits his wife who has separated him. From then on, she begins to tell about the time she lived with him (when he already had put his invention into practice). By now, Friese-Greene was a bankrupt debtor who vainly tries to expand and innovate his cinematic ambitions and we see how he brings his family along with him in his downfall.
The second part of the movie focuses on the start of his career as a photographer and his gradual success in creating the moving picture. This is the most intriguing part of the movie, where we witness the birth of a new era. However, it is regrettable that we already know what is going to come of our hero; this way all that we observe somehow leaves us with a bitter aftertaste. And it detracts from the overall 'suspense'.
I guess that the main reason for this awkward order of life events is the fact that the interlude between the death of his first wife and his meeting his second is left undone. And this is unforgivable because this is also the period Friese-Greene brought his new invention to public attention. The recurring attention at his failed recognition lies in this period; also it would be nice to see how this totally new experience took place.
What we are left with is a tolerable movie about a man who is blind with ambition and therefore also blind to the people who love him and the people who he is indebted to. The acting, camera work and soundtrack are all fine. As said, the major setback is the screenplay: deplorable.
The story of film inventor Friese-Greene is told mainly from the viewpoint of his two successive wives, starting with his later wife. The film starts off when Friese-Greene is already approaching the end of his life when he visits his wife who has separated him. From then on, she begins to tell about the time she lived with him (when he already had put his invention into practice). By now, Friese-Greene was a bankrupt debtor who vainly tries to expand and innovate his cinematic ambitions and we see how he brings his family along with him in his downfall.
The second part of the movie focuses on the start of his career as a photographer and his gradual success in creating the moving picture. This is the most intriguing part of the movie, where we witness the birth of a new era. However, it is regrettable that we already know what is going to come of our hero; this way all that we observe somehow leaves us with a bitter aftertaste. And it detracts from the overall 'suspense'.
I guess that the main reason for this awkward order of life events is the fact that the interlude between the death of his first wife and his meeting his second is left undone. And this is unforgivable because this is also the period Friese-Greene brought his new invention to public attention. The recurring attention at his failed recognition lies in this period; also it would be nice to see how this totally new experience took place.
What we are left with is a tolerable movie about a man who is blind with ambition and therefore also blind to the people who love him and the people who he is indebted to. The acting, camera work and soundtrack are all fine. As said, the major setback is the screenplay: deplorable.
The Magic Box - An Obsession of Images
krocheav26 February 2019
The strange story of William Freeze-Green - one of the earliest designers and patentees of a working Cine Camera. Was he the man who first perfected the moving picture camera or to establish the beginnings of colour cine photography...will we ever truly know? This fellow was so obsessed with his photographic innovations that he overlooked many details of his daily life. Did others take advantage of his absent-minded, blinkered lifestyle or was he just too obsessed to notice? Robert Donat is terrific as Mr Freeze-Green (but then, he's terrific as anyone he plays!) Wonderful Award winner, Maria Schell gives her usual warm performance as one of his, mostly penniless, long-suffering wives and mother of his children. Then there are all those curious guest roles by an endless list of top line British performers - too many to name here.
While this film is a marvellous and tragic historical character study, it can also be at times, curiously aloof in some aspects. It's longer than it needed to be and the flashback style of telling its story can be slightly confusing (or might this be attributed to the re-release editing?) The muted British Technicolor creates a nice period atmosphere - showing the wonderful sets & impeccable cinematography of Jack Cardiff to their best advantage. For followers of the many performers or those with an interest in the early developmental history of motion Pictures, this is worthy of some study. Not great but very good and the ending leaves the viewer with a high degree of sympathy.
Note: The original Cinema running time was 118mins - DVD release runs approx: 104mins
While this film is a marvellous and tragic historical character study, it can also be at times, curiously aloof in some aspects. It's longer than it needed to be and the flashback style of telling its story can be slightly confusing (or might this be attributed to the re-release editing?) The muted British Technicolor creates a nice period atmosphere - showing the wonderful sets & impeccable cinematography of Jack Cardiff to their best advantage. For followers of the many performers or those with an interest in the early developmental history of motion Pictures, this is worthy of some study. Not great but very good and the ending leaves the viewer with a high degree of sympathy.
Note: The original Cinema running time was 118mins - DVD release runs approx: 104mins
A decent film but not a great one
GusF2 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Released to commemorate the Festival of Britain, this is a fairly entertaining, if heavily fictionalised and romanticised, account of the British cinematography pioneer William Friese-Greene, who is nowhere near as well remembered as his more successful contemporaries Thomas Edison, the Lumière brothers and the true inventor of cinematography Louis Le Prince. Rather appropriately given the subject, the film has beautiful colour cinematography and it is well directed by John Boulting but the script is not as strong as it could be as it is not very well paced. I did not really see the point in telling the film out of chronological order. It begins with his second wife Edith recounting their troubled marriage before the elderly Friese-Greene recollects his early career and his life with his more supportive first wife Helena.
The always effortlessly charming and charismatic Robert Donat is excellent in the role of Friese-Greene, a good and well-meaning man whose obsession with perfecting moving pictures leads him to neglect his family though not out of any malice. His performance is without a doubt the highlight of the film. After him, the strongest cast member is Maria Schell as Helena. Margaret Johnston is quite good as Edith in her more sedate scenes but goes badly over the top during the character's emotional breakdown. The film is notable for featuring many great British actors in cameo roles: Richard Attenborough, Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov, Michael Hordern, Michael Denison, Michael Redgrave, Thora Hird, William Hartnell, Sid James, Joyce Grenfell, Marius Goring, Stanley Holloway, Kay Walsh, Joan Hickson, Glynis Johns, Miles Malleson, etc. I was very glad to finally see Attenborough's wife Sheila Sim in a film, having seen her husband and her brother Gerald in so many recently! Many of the actors in the film later turned up in films that Attenborough directed, incidentally.
The best scene in the film is the very funny one in which Friese-Greene tells a policeman, played by Olivier in probably the most normal, down-to-earth role of his very long and impressive career, that he has invented the motion picture but the way that he phrases it makes it sound as if he had committed a murder! The final scene in which Friese-Greene dies unrecognised and forgotten at a film conference is quite moving.
Overall, this is a decent film but not a great one. If you want to watch a film about the 19th Century pioneer of a technology which we now take for granted, I would recommend the considerably better (and more historically accurate but still fictionalised) "The Story of Alexander Graham Bell" starring Don Ameche.
The always effortlessly charming and charismatic Robert Donat is excellent in the role of Friese-Greene, a good and well-meaning man whose obsession with perfecting moving pictures leads him to neglect his family though not out of any malice. His performance is without a doubt the highlight of the film. After him, the strongest cast member is Maria Schell as Helena. Margaret Johnston is quite good as Edith in her more sedate scenes but goes badly over the top during the character's emotional breakdown. The film is notable for featuring many great British actors in cameo roles: Richard Attenborough, Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov, Michael Hordern, Michael Denison, Michael Redgrave, Thora Hird, William Hartnell, Sid James, Joyce Grenfell, Marius Goring, Stanley Holloway, Kay Walsh, Joan Hickson, Glynis Johns, Miles Malleson, etc. I was very glad to finally see Attenborough's wife Sheila Sim in a film, having seen her husband and her brother Gerald in so many recently! Many of the actors in the film later turned up in films that Attenborough directed, incidentally.
The best scene in the film is the very funny one in which Friese-Greene tells a policeman, played by Olivier in probably the most normal, down-to-earth role of his very long and impressive career, that he has invented the motion picture but the way that he phrases it makes it sound as if he had committed a murder! The final scene in which Friese-Greene dies unrecognised and forgotten at a film conference is quite moving.
Overall, this is a decent film but not a great one. If you want to watch a film about the 19th Century pioneer of a technology which we now take for granted, I would recommend the considerably better (and more historically accurate but still fictionalised) "The Story of Alexander Graham Bell" starring Don Ameche.
Just Found WIllie's dialogue hard to follow
sankey481 February 2012
My wife and I enjoyed the movie immensely. As a former projectionist at Macquarie University in Sydney who was supposed to be taught 35 and even 70 mm projection I was wondering what size that film was that Willie came up with. Looked about 140mm to me!! I related to his excitement in dragging the Bobby in in the middle of the night to see his 'pieste resistance' pardon my spelling. I believe all of us who are creators of some kind or other are like Willie..all forgetful and obsessed with the project at hand. I appreciate the other reviewer in straightening it out for us about the second marriage which we knew must have happened from the beginning of the movie, but never got aired again throughout. I would be interested in the missing fifteen minutes spoken of by the other reviewer as well. I presume the movie we are now seeing is a colourised version - not sure how long ago that was re touched. I am surprised seeing the movie has been re processed that Sub titles were not added as we could have understood Willie a lot more and even some of the other very fast speakers as well. maybe down the road someone will decide to add subtitles..if they do PLEASE make it in Region 2 or 4 thanks.
Better Than Average Revisionist History Film - The Magic Box
arthur_tafero23 May 2021
It was Lumiere, a Frenchman, not Greene, the Englishman, who invented moving pictures for mass audiences. However, despite this attempt at revisionist history, which has excellent acting and production values, we can forgive the director and writer who tried to make an entertaining motion picture about Greene in 1951. Like Greene himself, this film is a magnificent failure, and a box office flop. However, I found it to be quite entertaining. Films do not necessarily have to tell you the reality of a situation; they just need to be interesting to view. This film is a case in point. Robert Donat, one of my favorite actors, does an admirable job of capturing the compulsive behavior of Mr. Greene. Greene sacrificed his family, friends, and personal life for the sake of invention. In my opinion, that was too high a price to pay to move forward the process of motion pictures. If he could have mastered the art of moderation, he would have had a much more satisfying life. His life is more of a tragedy than a statement of great success. Although it is very interesting to view. Recommended.
A very difficult subject for a film
planktonrules7 June 2009
In hindsight, I wonder why they chose to do a biography of William Friese-Greene. After all, on one hand, it isn't firmly established that he did create motion pictures (this can also be claimed by several others as well). In addition, his work with color cinematography (for which he is most famous) was mostly a failure. But most importantly, he was not a particularly nice person. He apparently was a bit of a Schizoid Personality or perhaps had Asperger's Syndrome--emotional disorders where an individual has extreme difficulty relating to or caring about others. He was so obsessed with his work, that according to the film he was a terrible father and husband. The bottom line is that THINGS were much more important to him than people. In other words, he was a jerk--at least as portrayed in the film.
So what's left? Why watch the film if the man's inventions had limited impact and he was a pretty detached and self-absorbed individual?! No matter how well the film was made (and it was decent--but not outstanding even with this amazing cast), it was severely hampered at the onset. Overall, passable but that's all. At least it was filmed in color...just not using Friese-Greene's process.
So what's left? Why watch the film if the man's inventions had limited impact and he was a pretty detached and self-absorbed individual?! No matter how well the film was made (and it was decent--but not outstanding even with this amazing cast), it was severely hampered at the onset. Overall, passable but that's all. At least it was filmed in color...just not using Friese-Greene's process.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
