Diagonaldi Very well executed

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

Benas Mcloughlin Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

MisterWhiplash The great thing about this film is that these filmmakers, whether they had seen it or not, had the kind of movie that the Lumiere brothers happened to catch in mind - the Train coming in the Station that basically birthed cinema in 1895 - and they decided 'we can do a step further.' Now, it's not that the whole film is only the car coming at the camera, and we first see a horse and buggy go by the "person" sitting or standing in the road. It's a very basic feeling that the crux of this film does - terror - but it also is more primal, which is helplessness.The whole 1 minute is meant to express a feeling, and whether you really feel it or not (it IS 116 years ago now), it does have a visceral impact: it's hard to not believe the car is going to kill "you" in place of the camera, since we're the camera-eye. This is one of the major accomplishments of cinematic grammar: if you can get an audience to feel something by how the camera is in place and how the frame is set in just such a position (and in this case there's even some odd text that comes over black in the last few seconds), then you win at cinema.

Michael_Elliott How It Feels to Be Run Over (1900) I really love to watch these older movies but, to be honest, very few of them really stand out because the majority of them either feature someone dancing, boxing, walking, standing around or just doing something that we've seen in other films. This one here is at least original and lives up to its title. The camera is set up at the end of a road when we see a carriage go by. We then see another carriage coming straight towards the camera and crashing into it. This gives you the idea of being ran over.Funny? Not really but at least the film was somewhat creative and especially when compared to other films from this era. I really don't think the film was all that funny but I can imagine it scaring a few people who saw it back in 1900.

Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) I have to say this 45-second black-and-white silent short movie from 115 years did not do too much for me. I prefer most of the director's other works that I have seen. Cecil M. Hepworth is one of Britain's very early filmmakers and here he asks the audience the question in the title. well how did it feel? Watching this did not feel too good. A bit of a nothing movie and the final twist does not really save the thing either. Maybe it would have been more interesting without the massive spoiler in the title. I'm not sure. But I am sure that this is a pretty weak film for 1900 looking at with what the likes of Méliès, Lumière etc. and even Hepworth himself already came up with. Mostly superior to this very forgettable 4 seconds.

MartinHafer Although movie houses were quite popular in 1900, most of the films were really dreary and uninteresting--the people then just didn't know any better! Most films actually consisted of about a minute's worth of ordinary and mundane activities (such as street scenes, babies, people working, etc.) and the audiences were thrilled. The modern notion of a film was still at least two years away with LE VOYAGE DANS LE LUNE--an early full-length film (14 whole minutes) with real sets and a plot! In this light, then, it's understandable why this little film is so little and so less than inspiring when seen today--and at least it's creative. The camera appears to have been placed in the road. A wagon and then a car approach the camera and ultimately the car appears to run over the camera person. That's it! Nothing more. We're done. Bye.