I love this movie so much

the audience applauded

Excellent, a Must See

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

In reviewing another Edison film made the same year (The Magician), I have pleaded for people not to patronise the past. Respect for the past means (at least) two things. It means appreciating that the context is not necessarily the same. Watching a film about thieves wielding a vacuum cleaner to comical effect, for example, made in the 1900s, one needs to appreciate that the vacuum cleaner was a new invention. But it also means treating the films made with a genuine critical eye (as the audiences themselves did) and making clear distinctions between films that are good and films are that are bad (or at any rate very much less good).This film, like The Magician, was one of a series made by the Edison company in 1900. The are quite evidently intended to emulate to a certain extent the trick films being made at this time by the French pioneer Georges Méliès. They tend nowadays to be automatically attributed to Edwin S. Porter although there is, as far as I know, no very strong evidence to support this (the Library of Congress makes no such attribution).The relevant Méliès films in this case are La Salle à manger (1899) and Le Repas fantastique (1900). The first of these, if it does survive, survives only in a rather poor copy which looks as though it may not be Méliès' original film (see my review of this title) but the latter exists in a presentable version and, while not amongst Méliès' best films, is a fairly representative example of his more pedestrian work.The reviewer who suggests that Porter (if Porter it is) is attempting to do something a little different from Méliès is not wrong but those differences are almost entirely negative and make for a very dull and uninteresting film.In the first place, Porter (or whoever made the film) is clearly not an experienced illusionist and deviser of spectacles in the way that Méliès was and was for quite some time before ever he made a film (many of his films area actually cinematic (but very distinctly cinematic) "remakes" of his own earlier stage spectacles). His notion of magic is rather limited to the caricatural production of birds and rabbits (in The Magician it appears to be a duck), a silly cliché that Méliès knew to avoid.Secondly there is a kind of apparent "naturalism" in this series of sub-Méliès films (there are seven or eight of them altogether) but it is not really "naturalistic" acting; it is simply non-acting and rather inappropriate to the genre. Méliès and his British counterpart Walter R. Booth (for producer R. W. Paul) both had contacts with local music-halls and variety theatres and "borrowed" seasoned performers for their films and the difference is notable. In The Magician, for instance, a magician just comes on and does his act(the duck) but, like the diners and the waiter in this film, he is really just going through the motions in front of the camera. The notion of "over-acting" does not have much meaning in relation to this particular "non-realistic" genre of film and a rather lifeless execution of the required movements makes the films fall flat. The best of the US series are probably the two "Uncle Josh" films (Uncle Josh in a Spooky Inn and Uncle Josh's Nightmare)where the yokel is probably played by the stage-actor Charles "Daddy" Manley, who certainly plays the part in a 1902 "Uncle Josh" film (Uncle Josh at a Moving Picture Show).Porter would go on to be an important director of films in very different genres but these early attempts to emulate the work of Méliès if they really are by Porter (which I think improbable)are really very poor.

An Animated Luncheon (1900) *** (out of 4) Clearly wanting to capture the spirit of a Georges Melies film, this Edison picture has a couple sitting down to be served at a restaurant and everything is going as normal until their food arrives and the animals, still very much alive, jump out. At just a minute there's certainly nothing ground-breaking here but I must admit that the film was rather charming in its own way. I've seen quite a few Melies rips in my life and the majority of them are quite lame and can't capture that "magic" of the French master. While this film isn't a complete success I thought the effects of how the animals came to be were quite good. Yes, it's easy to see how they're done with today's eyes but I'm sure those in 1900 were quite happy with it.

In the late 1890s and up to almost WWI, the Frenchman, Georges Méliès, made a huge number of wonderful short films that were significantly better than his competition. Instead of the usual dull 30 seconds to a minute and a half of static filming of mundane subjects (such as the work done by the Lumiere brothers or Edison), his films abounded with great camera trickery and wild stories. This was probably inspired by the fact he was a magician and then a film maker. His work was so popular that soon other film makers copied his films. Some made broad copies in the style of Méliès whereas others copied the films nearly exactly--never crediting the source--though they were invariably inferior films.In this case, AN ANIMATED LUNCHEON is clearly inspired by Méliès. In fact, the man shown in the film is clearly a magician and you assume the lady is his assistant. Like Méliès, the camera is stopped repeatedly so that rabbits and other things can "magically appear". A very good film indeed for 1900 but not quite up to the standards of Méliès.

'An Animated Luncheon' is one of the early 'trick' movies which explored the narrative possibilities of film to achieve effects which could not be done as easily in the live theatre. Many of the best films in this genre were devised by the Frenchman Georges Melies; quite a few other early trick films are blatant imitations of Melies's work: 'An Animated Luncheon' has a look and feel entirely of its own, not resembling Melies's films.IMDb's web page has reprinted Vitagraph's synopsis of this film, which is largely accurate but leaves out a few details. The man and woman who enter the restaurant are both wearing elaborate tall hats. The man politely doffs his hat and hands it to the waiter, whereupon the hat flies out of the waiter's hand and hangs itself on the overmantel. The gentleman seems naturally surprised by this, but the waiter never bats an eye. After the couple are seated, the lady's hat flies off her head and also attaches itself to the overmantel; later, the gent's hat disappears, but this seems to be a tech error.Two things greatly impressed me about 'An Animated Luncheon'. One is the entirely naturalistic acting of the performers. When some hens fly across the table, the diners' shocked behaviour is entirely believable and understated, not remotely like the hyperactive histrionics of so many early films. Secondly, the technical skill of the special-effects engineers is impressive. I saw no jump cuts, no strings nor wires. Excellent! So many films from this early period now seem ludicrous to modern jaded audiences, but 'An Animated Luncheon' should continue to impress and entertain.