SoftInloveRox Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

He_who_lurks Billy Blitzer's short film "Panorama From the Tower of Brooklyn Bridge" lasts for just near 30 secs but considering the huge panning shot used to film it, it's very impressive and developed. I'm not sure when this was taken as some sources are calling it 1899 while others are saying 1903. Considering that most cameras were static in 1903 and 1899 this one is pretty impressive...though the physical state of the film did bother me the first time I saw it. I'm used to it now though. Anyway, bad condition or none, you still get an idea of what the film preserved and historians should be fascinated by it. And, considering its age, it's not that bad a choice for film buffs at all.

Michael_Elliott Panorama from the Tower of the Brooklyn Bridge (1899)There were countless popular genres at the start of film history. There were the dancing pictures. Comedies dealing with being slapped. There were vaudeville performers doing their acts. Another popular thing was showing panorama views of various famous locations. This one here, as the title clearly gives away, was filmed on top of the Brooklyn Bridge where we're given a 360 degree view of the city. I really enjoy watching these films today because it gives you a great view of what the city looked back in the day. This is pretty impressive as the camera is quite still and manages to give you a good look at everything, although I do wish it had gone a tad bit slower. Still, those wanting to see Brooklyn in 1899, here's your chance!

MartinHafer Hmmm...the date for this film on IMDb is 1899 and the DVD says 1903. Considering how well-filmed this was (from the top of the Brooklyn Bridge), it's impressive for either date--and insanely impressive for 1899 considering how crude the technology was at the time. By 1903, things had improved a bit and innovations were occurring. In 1899, cameras were essentially boxes that were cranked--with no closeups or movement. Even by 1903 this was rare--and yet the cameraman (Billy Bitzer) managed to give a moving panoramic shot--though I think he moved it way too quickly--though considering it was among the first films to even strive for a 360 degree shot, it is to be commended. If you do watch it, try slowing the film down a bit--you'll get more out of it.

lor_ Billy Bitzer's 360-degree panorama capturing Lower Manhattan, as seen from the Brooklyn Bridge vantage point, is available in a very poor quality print transfer on Vol. 5 of UNSEEN CINEMA, the Anthology Film Archives compilation for DVD.This was filmed in 65mm (that's 70mm with room for sprocket holes), meaning a widescreen movie at roughly 2:1 aspect ratio (like THE BAT WHISPERS). IMDb has the wrong ratio listed and lists the film as 1899 while Anthology calls it of 1903 vintage.This brings up an interesting point regarding "lost films". Is a film lost when the proper materials have been lost? Many interesting films, ranging from historical titles to just '60s and '70s sex movies, only exist in battered prints or partial prints after the wear and tear of so many decades, and failure to preserve negatives. The term "lost" is generally reserved for completely lost titles, where nothing has survived.In the case of this Bitzer work, what has survived and is shown on DVD is virtually worthless. I can imagine seeing a 70mm print projected (presumably at Museum of Modern Art) and seeing a crystal clear documentary view, but this poor quality junk presumably from a battered 16mm print does not do the master justice.