Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

He_who_lurks Firefighting films was probably one of the most popular early film genres of the silent era. This is understandable; audiences were normally treated, when this film was made, to short snippets of everyday life: babies being fed, dancers performing, etc. This film is far, far from being the first of these firefighting films (years before, in 1896, Edison made many different films that were static shots of firemen racing to the rescue, and several fire rescue scenes) but this is one of the very first films to actually make a story out of it. Unlike Edison's previous static scenes of fire rescues, this film has multiple shots; nine in all, and manages to tell an exciting story at the same time that can be easily followed.While Edwin S. Porter made some ground-breaking steps in the making of this film, it cannot be denied that the film is a remake actually of James Williamson's "Fire!" drama from 1901. Two years earlier, that film was much simpler: instead of nine shots there are four; the film is shorter with a running time of five minutes instead of seven; the pace itself is faster. Porter's remake is much more elaborate and expanded on Williamson's ideas. The film begins with a postman (I think it's a postman) dreaming about the fire starting through the use of a matte shot. He sounds the alarm, and the firemen come and save the mother and child. It's a pretty simple story but the way it's told is more important. Yes, it is sometimes a drag; I find watching it with music makes it much more enjoyable. While there isn't much to it, it was one of the most well-known movies of its era, and thus is a must-see for silent film buffs.

kobe1413 Edwin S. Porter and his colleagues, James H. White and George S. Fleming, expand their ambitions. While Life of an American Fireman does not compare with the contemporary works of Ferdinand Zecca or George Melie, it shows the workman-like techniques of the Edison company.The film is a straight-forward tell of a fire company responding to a fire. Much of the film is the driving of the fire engines, focusing on the movement and action of the race to the fire. When the firemen get to the house on fire, a fireman, played by co-filmmaker James H. White, races up the ladder, into the room. He rescues a woman and her daughter, then fights the blaze. Interestingly, the same action is then shown again, but from the perspective from outside of the house. This is a less elegant and dramatic way of presenting the action than later directors would employ. As later films by Griffith and Porter himself would prove, cross-cutting between the two locations builds drama and tension.Overall it represents a step foreword for the Edison filmmakers, yet was still far behind the inventiveness and wizardry of the contemporary European filmmakers.

edalweber Kenneth MacGowan in his book "Behind The Screen" discusses this film at length. He was familiar both with the controversial print and the paper print in the Library of Congress.He didn't think that the evidence of the paper print was conclusive.At the time, a movie could be copyrighted only as a collection of still photos, which is why the paper prints were made.For that purpose, it didn't matter whether they were in the final edited form,or even if there was more footage than in the released version.MacGowan thought that a hastily assembled negative was used to make the paper print,with all of the footage shot from one angle together.Porter therefore had more time for final editing without delaying the copyright process.The question is, if the existing copy was reedited, who did it and why? Certainly not during the silent era? by the time such editing became more common, this picture was an obsolete relict of a primitive era.And if reedited then, where are the title cards? They weren't in use in 1903 when the picture was made,but came into general use a few years later. So why "modernize" the movie in one way, but not another? It seems strange that they were not added.MacGowan admits that there is certainly a question about the complex editing, but points out that Porter took exactly the shots he needed for it.And as to why he never used it again, there are two factors. It may have been too advanced and confusing for the audiences of 1903,just as later audiences found the more complex editing of Griffith's "Intolerance" even more confusing.And there is evidence that Edison disapproved of Porter's editing.Edison involved himself in every aspect of his companies' operation, insisting on personally approving each piece of music that went on his records,for example.Which didn't help sales, as he didn't have very good taste.Edison's word was law, and Porter would have bowed to it without complaint. In addition, the Edison Catalogue of that time specifically stated that after the woman was carried out of the room by the fireman, there was a dissolve to the outside of the building,the woman pleads for the fireman to rescue the child, and he returns up the ladder.The copyright version shows the fireman carrying out the mother and returning immediately to rescue the child in one continuous shot with no dissolve to the outside.Since the catalogue is so specific on this point it would certainly seem that there was inter cutting not shown in the copyright print.

Snow Leopard This short feature creates a pretty good sense of excitement and suspense. It seems to have been well-crafted, although the print is not always very clear now. It could almost be called a big-budget picture for its time, due to all the vehicles and equipment that they used in it.The first part of the film might be the most impressive, as the line of horse-drawn fire engines with all of their equipment race to the scene of the fire. The vantage point for the camera is well-chosen, and it does well in conveying the urgency of the situation. As it goes on to show the fire-fighters battling the blaze, the settings are believable, and they also seem rather detailed, although much of the detail is now obscured by the physical deterioration of the film.This was an ambitious effort for 1903. It still works well, and it is also an interesting look at the past.