Pretty Good

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

"Diabolical Pickpocket" is a film by the Spanish filmmaker Segundo de Chomon, and is notable for its clever use of effects. While some effects here were clearly invented by the French filmmaker Georges Melies, Chomon puts these effects into a film that tells a story, while most of the time Melies normally just used these effects to put on a magic show. It's good he's doing this, because in all honesty I think Chomon actually knew how to work with movie magic far better than Melies, in terms of film grammar and such.The film is about a pickpocket who is magical. This guy can disappear, turn into a stack of bricks, unravel into a carpet, etc. Thus he has no trouble evading the police of Paris, who can never catch him. That's all there is for plot but at least it's not just a lot of special effects in a magic show. This film is one that can still be funny and worth seeing today, especially for younger kids, 5 or 6 years old. If you like silent films, then this one is worth seeing.(Note: As kekseksa has pointed out, Segundo de Chomon made three pickpocket films around the same time. I've seen two of them. That film that one reviewer was saying he'd seen but didn't know its title is likely "Pickpocket Ne Craint En Pas Les Entraves", the third in the series (he's reviewed the other two in the series). This one I have not yet seen).

There is a loose series of three films by De Chomón that feature the same character (he always wears the loud check suit and is always on the run from the police). This film is the first of them and here the Pathé catalogue compares the character to Arsène Lupin, but it is followed by Le Voleur invisible and Pickpock ne craint pas les entraves in 1909, I imagine in that order because the first of the films, which is also a kind of parody of the H. G. Wells novel, evidently decided De Chomón (assuming he directed all three films) to shift the scene to London, so that, whereas in the first film Pickpock has been chased by French policemen in the two sequels he is chased by British coppers.There is, I think, a change in the actor although he looks quite similar and wears the same outfit. He is somewhat taller. I have a feeling that in this film it is the comedian André Deed playing the part but Deed defected about this time to Italy (not returning until about 1912). If I am right in believing this to be Deed, then the other actor is likely to be Paul Bertho, who also took over Deed's most famous comic series, "Boireau", while he was absent in Italy (where he played a character called "Cretinetti") and therefore most probably bore some resemblance to Deed.De Chomón was not the first to borrow from The Invisible Man; Gaston Velle had already made a film called Les Invisibles in 1906 about a man who discovers the secret of invisibility and uses it for thieving. De Chomón regularly worked as cameraman for Velle, so would certainly have known of the film.I hope this helps the gentleman who recalled having seen another similar film. But the whoel series seems to have been ultimately based (like so many of the trick films) on the work of Méliès - two lost films of 1899 - Force doit rester à la loi and Pickpocket et Policeman. There is also a Parnaland film of 1900, Le Cambrioleur insaisissable, which is very similar.A very similar film was made even later in Italy for the company Itala in 1913,called Più forte che Sherlock Holmes/Stronger than Sherlock Homes by another French-born comic Emilio (Émile) Vardannes, who played a comic character called Totò. This story is framed as a dream where a crime-enthusiast imagines himself as a policeman chasing an equally elusive thief (played by Vardannes). It is again basically a trick film, supposedly directed by Giovanni Pastrone but once again filmed by Segundo De Chomón who was now working in Italy (and would be one of the cinematographers for Pastrone's great 1914 epic Cabiria). Apparently it was originally released in two episodes although only one short abridgement survives.

This film by Segundo de Chomón is a hoot--fun throughout and an early silent that STILL is entertaining over a hundred years later. Using his familiar stop-motion, he constructs a very funny film about a criminal who is having a wonderful time eluding the police. It seems the crook somehow is magical and can appear, disappear, change into other objects and much more. Every time the police think they've got the man, he cleverly evades them using his amazing skills. However, it is a film best seen and not talked about--so get a copy from archive.org (it's free to download since it's in the public domain) and see it yourself. I really think you'll enjoy it immensely.By the way, I saw another similar film. Perhaps it was by the same director, though back in those days filmmakers stole each other's work all the time (and the same can be said of Chomón). If you know what this other film it, drop me a line. Thanks.

Here's yet another fine trick film made possible by the camera-work of Segundo de Chomon, the man to whom Pathe turned whenever they wanted to take a chunk of Georges Melies' market away. Here he does Melies one better in a film that was much copied.It's a film in which a pickpocket constantly escapes the flics, and the technique for the camera tricks is fairly obviously: stop the camera, remove the actor, have the other actors come on and start the camera again. Still,l the variations are numerous and keep you interested in how he's going to do it this time and, more interesting from a technical viewpoint, there are several scenes that were shot on site -- not in the studio, where people like Melies had all the factors under control. Definitely still funny, it's well worth your time. Pretty good for something more than a century old.