User reviews

If what you want is an obvious western view of the history of film narrated by, say, Patrik Stewart, don't watch this.

Cousins Ulster brogue requires a little getting used to and much of this is his (well informed) personal opinion, but if you can stick with the low budget, stylised camera work and editing it is a joy. The descriptions of various styles of cinematography and editing as opposed to film text and meaning is inventive and informative, very different to the often imposed micro analysis you get from film studies text. I loved hearing cousins say things like "...deep space, shallow focus...single take, no fast cutting..." I soon found myself looking at films thinking Cousin-like about what I Was seeing on screen.

I learnt about how different directors and cinematographers influenced each other, how styles emerged, faded, and reemerged. How new directors from different countries, influenced by Hollywood, reshaped those ideas and created new personal films reflecting the psyche of their own nations. Cousin's odyssey is like a poem, his narration is often abstract yet personal. But it is exciting and informative, a different take on a subject history that all to often is written in stone. Refreshing and far from obvious this deserves far more respect than some people give it.

Finally, after six weeks, my endurance finally triumphed over the 900 minutes of Mark Cousin's "Story of Film: an Odyssey", a series of 15 one-hour documentaries starting with the same close-ups that set the documentary's tone of unpredictability to those who expected Scorsese or Tarantino to lead the show: Stanley Donen, Lars Von Trier, Amitab Bachchan, Kyōko Kagawa, Jane Campion and Sharmila Tagore. Not familiar with them? Wait, you've seen nothing yet.

First and immediate impression: it was an extraordinary trip, yet the ending was a bit of a letdown. I didn't expect the sight of people walking in circle, hand-in-hand, in some African town, to close such an epic tour, a tour-de-force as far as documentary is concerned but again, with this constant and sometimes infuriating tendency to surprise you. In fact, the last shot of Cousin's documentary is revealing of both his work's strength and flaw: it guides your eyes toward new horizons, where film-making was expressed to its fullest by artists who took the absence of means as a mean by itself and contributed to mark their country in International Cinema's map; on the other hand, it's a slap in the face of all the movie-buffs giving the most obscure movies the publicity that posterity didn't grant them.

For instance, there had to be a reason why "The Great Train Robbery" was the first film remembered for having used editing as a significant part of the narrative, yet Cousins pays tribute to an unknown movie about firemen. Watching his doc made me feel like the most confused movie fan ever wondering why some indisputable classics got the same treatment than some obscure Russian, Brazilian or Scandinavian movies. Hitchcock borrowed his use of suspenseful sequences and some low angle shots from Danish and German cinema while "Citizen Kane"'s use of backgrounds was inspired by Ozu. No star of the reel invented the wheel, cinema was only the result of a series of innovations, and Cousins' speaks like the advocate of all the pioneers whose creations were shadowed by the cinematic light of glory they generated a posteriori.

But then, as if he was exhilarated by his own subversion, Cousins goes as far as suggesting that "Casablanca" isn't a classic film, but a romantic of some sort... his statement is so bold it flirts with indecent blasphemy, the one that'd convince many viewers to stop watching (that, and from what I've read, an annoying voice-over but I saw it dubbed in French, so it wasn't an issue for me) Sure, the man is entitled to his own bias against mainstream or Hollywood cinema but I tend to agree with the angry crowd that some of his statements were particularly upsetting. Then, I looked at the documentary with more magnanimous eyes, and if in the worst case, it made me raise my eyebrows, in the best, I discovered some little gems I felt the urge to watch as soon as the documentary ended. That 'best case' is the odyssey's reason to be.

And the highlight of this incredible journey was undoubtedly the part about European radical directors in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an insightful introspection into the use of the camera as a social weapon. Generally speaking, the middle section of the film, from the 50's to the early 80's is the best part before the film loses its beat. Although I agree that the digital revolution canceled all the magic and the miracle of Cinema, I expected more flamboyance, something honoring the dream-like escapism it provided. And this comes from someone who's not too much into spectacular blockbuster, but I was probably one of the few to be upset because the film was on the same wavelength than I.

The 90's were the ultimate gasp of realistic cinema, with an interesting focus on Iranian Cinema, and a new Danish school of more austere and naturalistic film-making, borrowed from the heritage of Carl Theodore Dryer. As an aspiring film-maker, it comforted me (perversely, I confess) that I can make movies with basic tools and 'pretend' its Art. And in the 2000's the loop was looped, Cinema went back to its roots, understanding that its purpose is to show a form of reality that distorts the real without taking too much distance from it. It's also an extraordinary medium to extrapolate human's deepest fears and emotions, in fact, Cinema is a universe where human is in the center.

With that in mind, you forgive some liberties and analytical shortcuts. Some of my favorite directors were missing, Cassavetes (a quick glimpse on "Shadows" while the father of Indie cinema deserved more), Melville the one who didn't want to part of the New Wave and modernized the film-noir genre, John Huston, and Akira Kurosawa. I understand he's a fan of Ozu, but how can you neglect "Rashomon", the first film without a linear narrative and to use the unreliable narrator device. Did that annoying Christmas baulb metaphor make him lose precious minutes? But I guess out of 900 minutes, with a ratio of 1 learning from each, there are chances some ideas won't be 100% pleasing or even accurate, but remember what they say about education, it's what remains after you forgot everything.

Well, I'm not sure I'll remember everything from that 15-hour exhaustive documentary but there are many new movies I'm familiar with, new insights about the art of filmmaking, as the greatest art-form when it comes to express some emotions, on the use of the human body, a well-made close-up being worth a thousand images, it's about names that has sunk into oblivions but in their way took part the process that lead to the classics we adore now. It's a collective work where every piece of humanity, at any time, had a share of it..

And if only for that, I've got to hand it to Mark Cousins for having enriched my knowledge of Cinema.

If you have an interest in the history of international cinema and don't expect to be spoon-fed then "The Story of Film:An Odyssey" is excellent. Sure, it is Mark Cousins' personal view and he does jump around quite a bit but that doesn't detract from either the entertainment value or the interesting and valuable information in the series.

Of course, if you have no knowledge of the films / directors he is talking about then it no doubt will be rather difficult to follow. The four episodes I have seen have contained a lot of interesting information on the history of world cinema, including the production / finance side, and you can learn about some old classics which I can vaguely remember seeing at film festivals in the 60's and 70's. Highly recommended. Update : I have now watched the complete series of "The Story of Film" and it is a classic, a great resource for those interested in world cinema and thoroughly entertaining to boot.

I understand that Cousins Northern Irish accent takes some getting used to. However, trashing his work because of the narration is too harsh a judgment. I actually watched the whole thing. Twice. I was fascinated by a documentary that tries the impossible: a history of world cinema. The first two episodes alone deal with the era of silent movies. Try to find something else that goes so much into detail! It requires concentration and attention but I kept watching because I learnt something.

The Story of Film is a very personal take on the subject. Cousins often uses phrases such as "perhaps the greatest film ever made" or "perhaps the most innovative film..." And often such phrases refer to a Japanese or Iranian movie that I have never heard of. I am sure a lot of people would disagree. I don't have a problem with it. In the opening sequence of every episode, he says that he follows the Odyssey of film makers who are not driven by box office success. If you want to see the history of Hollywood Blockbusters, "The Story of Film" is the wrong program. If you want to know what kind of films were made in the 1980s behind the iron curtain in Eastern Europe, now you are in the right theatre.

Leaving all criticism on Cousins narration, possible inaccuracies or highly subjective opinions aside, here is a man talking who has probably more forgotten about movies than most people ever knew about the subject.

An excellent education in the history of cinema. It is of course just the view of one person, Mark Cousins, other people might have a different opinion as to the most significant films in the history of cinema. But that doesn't invalidate Mark's view with his wide breadth of knowledge. See the connections between previously unrelated films and film-makers.

This series concentrates on the films and film-makers that have shown a passion for the medium and which advance new techniques. There aren't many run-of-the-mill films included in this series and when they are included it's just by way of comparison with the real subject of that particular lesson.

The series also takes a truly global view, looking at films and film-makers from around the world. It doesn't just focus on American and European films and film-makers like so many other series do.

It was first presented on BBC, as were a lot of superb series. The episode covering the 1910s is as good as anything similar and much better than most.

Someone complained about the narration, spoken and written by the Irish Mark Cousins. I found it utterly charming and extremely perceptive.

Cousins has spoken close to the microphone so his voice doesn't sound loud as he casually reels off his observations. And it's true. The terminal contours of every utterance curl upward, as they do in parts of the American South, so that they sound like a series of questions. "The source light is on the screen? A gap opens in the curtains like a Vermeer painting?" I was enthralled. The writing is dispassionate but full of insights and is sometimes quite funny. Harold Lloyd was turned from a Chaplin imitator into a nerd with black-rimmed glasses, but "a ballsy nerd." The emphasis is on directors that most Americans haven't paid much attention to, although film critics have. I'd seen Carl Theodore Dreyer's "Joan of Arc" before, two times, but Cousins was able to point out one or two of the reasons I found it so impressive.

The clips he's chosen to show from the silent movies of the era are longer than we usually see them, and they're picked to illustrate a specific point that Cousins is trying to make.

It's different from any other "film histories" that I've seen -- different in the sense of more involving, more informative, less repetitive, more original in its editing and narration.

At least in this episode, he hasn't much to say about modern Hollywood products. I understand why.

Why do the IMDb robots (currently) feature a 2-star review for a series that's rated 8-stars? A shame. Hire better robots...or humans!

The complaints about Mark Cousins' accent are specious at best, moronic in practice. If you're looking for a PBS documentary style, please steer clear. Nothing against PBS, but this series has a voice and it's not just the accented narration. It's also the interstitial video work that provides a very personal take on the history of cinema.

Yes, the rising inflection is not your normal, bland American voice-over. It's distinct and nuanced and, to my ears, warm. OK, enough with the narration non-issue.

For anyone who's wanted a sweeping Film 101 course on the mechanics and effects of this infant art form, this is, to my knowledge the best you will get. Scorsese has attempted this in recent years and has had some ad hoc success (his PBS biography on Elia Kazan was a high point). What Cousins accomplishes is a poetic exposition on the grammars of the medium in a highly selective, yet globally inclusive trajectory of its history.

The most telling and powerful tool in his belt is the way he's able to jump from the 1920s to the 1970s or 2000s, when he's explaining the inventions of technique and the matrix of influence from progenitors to the next generation. For example, to hear one of Ozu's actresses talk about his manner of direction is invaluable. His simple, somewhat comic video-quality recreations of the "180 degree" rule (as well as those who love to break it), makes all YouTube studies obsolete, and somehow doesn't disrupt the unworried, well-paced narrative.

Good work, Mr. Cousins. Love your other films as well.

p.s. Calling him just a film critic and historian does a disservice to this series as well as his other film work. He's a director. And that's why this film doesn't feel academic. Thankfully.

Even though I'm a longtime IMDb user, I've never written a review here. However, I felt compelled to write one after watching the 15 episodes of Mark Cousins' odyssey through film. Most of the reviews here seemed to focus only on his narration, or the reviewers didn't seem to have endured the 900 minutes of Cousins' work (which is completely understandable). My opinion on the series changed as the episodes went by.

First, the narration. Cousins' voice didn't annoy me that much. Maybe because I'm not a native English speaker (even though I was following what he was saying, cause I watched it with German subtitles - and my English is much better than my German!). But he's definitely not the best narrator around. Its not about the accent. He lacks emotion in his voice. He basically says everything with the same tone of voice. But that's far from being my main problem with his approach.

One thing can't be denied: Cousins has a tremendous knowledge of cinema. Maybe the best thing about The Story of Film is how it encompasses basically the whole globe. I'm basically ignorant about African cinema, for example; Cousins showed me a lot of stuff I didn't know (not only about African cinema). It's refreshing to see such a global approach. And the movie clips are mostly superb - they're the main reason of the six stars out of ten.

The biggest problem, however, is called Mark Cousins. Be warned, this is not "The Story of Cinema". This is "The Story of Cinema according to Mark Cousins' point of view". Fair enough, the man wrote and directed the whole thing. But his choices became more and more puzzling to me, as the episodes went by and the story entered the 1970s. I was curious about how he'd treat the classic period of horror movies, for example; how the genre produced some of the most daring (and influential) films of the past 50 years. Surprise! He only mentions "The Exorcist". No "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", no "Carrie" (hey, De Palma is only mentioned by name), not a single mention of the Italian giallos. Another example: animated films. There's one "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" here, one "Toy Story" there - and that's it. Again, not a single mention of Hayao Miyazaki, for example; or Pixar ("Toy Story" is only mentioned because it's the first completely digital animated film). I know it'd be practically impossible to cover everything movie-related, but to almost ignore two genres is, in my opinion, baffling.

And as the series came to a close, another thing got on my nerves: Cousins' love of superlatives. The man LOVES superlatives. On the last two or three episodes, basically every film he puts on screen is "one of the best this", "one of the most that". I ended up laughing whenever he said it - and I even laughed at things that shouldn't be laughed, like the beauty of the final shots of "Breaking the Waves".

In the end, Cousins left me exhausted. I didn't watch The Story of Film, I watched Movies Mark Cousins Thinks That Matter. It felt like talking to someone who has obviously a great knowledge, but should learn one or two things about persuasion. As a viewer, Mark should leave me salivating for these amazing films I didn't know. Instead, he just sounded repetitive, without arguments. Several movie clips spoke for themselves; I'll definitely be checking some of the stuff he showed. But I doubt I'll be checking any more stuff Mark Cousins produces.

The title itself lays Cousins open to the criticism that he's attempting the impossible in a single series length project (Odysseus took ten years!). However, where he does succeed is in providing an expert, personal and highly coherent exploration of cinema's technological innovations and artistic and commercial developments. He is impassioned and articulate and his journey goes way beyond the western mainstream and reveals how narrow our experience of cinema actually is. It's been a joy to see tantalisingly brief clips from films I'd only previously read about and Cousins' examination of the craft of film-making is fascinating and genuinely revelatory. The interviewees are well-chosen and all are able to provide insights into film itself rather than superficial autobiography. I found Cousins himself to be a warmly enthusiastic guide and his narration a welcome relief from the ubiquitous and tedious celebrity voice-over.

The series is not a history of Hollywood and will disappoint those who are looking for such, but for anyone with a genuine interest in world cinema it's a treat. I've been entertained and educated by an expert who's introduced me to films and directors I'll now be seeking out. It's the best kind of film education and the sort of thing TV does so well - I'll miss it when it ends.

This series is very comprehensive given the scope of its subject. I guess that's obvious since there's fifteen episodes to cover a little over a century. Cousins (writer, director and narrator) chooses to focus on films, people and events that only an academic would and so the pacing can come off as uninteresting and sloppy; take it more as a study than an object of entertainment.

The first thing you'll notice (and perhaps be irritated by) is Cousin's narration. It is a candid voice-of-God style that has very little character or dynamic range. If you're capable of getting over this, you will be rewarded (I think).

Obviously, this was intended to be Mark Cousins' magnum opus and labor of love. His "brilliant insights" into the vast panorama of worldwide cinema history offer little more than the equivalent of a college elective course in Film Appreciation. Whether it was pure ego, jealous guardianship of his precious concoction, budget restraints or all three combined which led him to make the gigantic blunder of casting himself (or allowing himself to accept the role) as the presenter/narrator is anyone's guess.

The entire series should be redubbed by a professional voice actor.

Apparently, he fancies himself to be filmmaker in his own right despite being unskilled in the craft.

Apart from some beautifully restored and crystal clear film clips from the earliest years of the motion picture industry, it is mostly a "been there, done that" journey down memory lane with Mark Cousins as your inept "Mr. Know-It-All" museum docent. That Irish upspeaking, sing-song, leprechaun inflection is enough to provoke the hurling of a brick at the TV screen.

Did I mention that Mark Cousins has no talent for voice work? Is that how he normally talks on the phone?

Mark, next time, assign the voice track to one or more professionals. You ruined your own pet project!

"Talk amongst yourselves." ~ Linda Richman.

Well let me admit I bought out of this one after three hours, at the point where the word "Sound" comes up in big letters.

Here are all the familiar titles and talents being trotted forth once more, this time in murky dupes spaced by some quite nice travel shots, that they thrash for no particular reason other than to get the running time up or justify the plane tickets. Poor Stanley Donen figures at intervals without saying anything notable - probably because he wasn't asked to.

We get to the end of the silent section without seeing a cowboy. Florence Lawrence has a (not bad) section. Bronco Billy Anderson doesn't. The writer-director-pundit ticks off the eight (count 'em) national industries that provide the qualities he can't find in Hollywood and, once again, we never set foot in the Balkans or the Hispanic nations. Ruan Lingyu stands in for Shanghai, three of the thirty "Expressionist" films for six hundred German titles.

You sit there waiting for the kind of "Hey, that makes sense!" moments that you got in the US CINEMA BBC series or the breath catching quality of the images in Enno Patalas' METROPOLIS documentary.

I don't know which is more depressing, this series or the much touted critics poll that an English magazine called Sight & Sound just ran again. Suspect achievements are lauded. Making notable talents invisible is endorsed.

"The Story of Film" is showing in segments over a period of weeks at the NW Film Center in the Portland Art Museum. I wandered into the three segments that mostly address the period between 1969 and the mid 1980s, complacently figuring I'd view a lot of footage I'd already experienced in my youth. I was terribly mistaken, and that's why I feel the previous reviewer is unfair to Cousins's project.

Given the comparatively minuscule budget for a job this grandiose in concept, I believe Cousins has done admirable work. He rarely appears on camera, he gives a tremendous amount of attention to so-called Third World filmmakers, and he has gathered an amazing though perhaps idiosyncratic series of on-camera interviews by directors, actors, and other commentators. For this viewer, who had seen hundreds of old films and brand-new movies in the 1980s that have since become iconic, I was astounded by the array of interesting films he unearthed from India, West Africa, China, and the old Soviet Union. (Where the hell am I ever going to get my hands on a copy of "Repentance" or "Come and See"?)

Yes, though the pacing doesn't feel rushed from moment to moment, you still feel left a bit breathless by all the ground covered. I appreciated the occasional visual examples of the points Cousins tries to make about particular filmmakers or nations' approach to movies: changing the filter shading or positioning of the horizon in sample footage before your eyes. In the particular section I saw, I appreciated his efforts to put the work of new filmmakers in historical and political context: a comparison between the eyes of David Lynch and those of President Reagan made me smile. Even if you don't agree with Cousins's judgments, they're worth thinking about . . . and it's just a great thing that somebody has the cojones to attempt a retrospective on this scale.

Right off you see that the narration is so distorted that you have to use subtitles to understand what the narrator is saying as he has a horrible speech impediment (It sounds like a character out of Brigadoon.)

The selection of examples and the descriptions of film techniques are specifically picked by Mark Cousins Born May 3, 1965 - Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. Explains the accent.

We could write a book about what he missed or misinterpreted in this TV series. However before turning it off or dissing his presentation, remember the main purpose of viewing it to get a unique prospective on The Story of film. And not to have a documentary that regurgitates what we always know and think.

It is separated into 15 episodes. Each episode is so packed with information and visuals the they could have split it into 30 episodes and give us time to think and research in-between each episode.

I have seen most of these movies. However, I come away with a different interpretation or feel. Then there are some movies I missed. The real shame is that with so few episodes you only get the tip of the iceberg.

You may notice that as the series moves on you get some of the same screen shots to depict a different emphasis on a different type of filming. I would have preferred a presentation where they stayed on the same film clip and made all the different comments at that time. It is just personal but I do not like soundbite presentations.

Again, this is a Mark Cousins view of film. However, I feel that all my favorite films and film types were passed over. I think many of the pictured directors and producers had better films to express what we are looking at. He also seems to have a negative view of Hollywood for some reason.

The bottom line is this is still a good addition to your film collection.

Obviously there was not enough budget for this immense task. So the maker had to cut expenses and had to do many things himself. Just because you know a lot about film doesn't make you a good cameraman or even a narrator. But instead of leaving it just to an idea. He grabbed what he could and went on an odyssey. And he probably thought that film lovers would see that and understand it. He also would have thought that film lovers would appreciate his personal way of doing things, just as many of the filmmakers he portrays do things their very own way. But No! IMDb reviewers are much more interested in Hollywood conventions that in anything else. So considering the obvious lack of resources, money and most likely time, I would consider this a masterpiece to those with an open mind who are not constricted to National borders to find out about the origin of film style and technique.

Keep in mind: Odyssey means a daring trip to find something while confronting dangers and solving problems along the way. Getting there is more important then how. Story means a series of thought s and events chained together in a very personal way.

So let go of any pre-judgements and learn from this series about the incredible history of film, told in a very personal way.

I'm just enjoying my second voyage into film with the excellent Mark Cousins. Don't pay any heed to the criticisms of his narrative style, and his Ulster brogue; the only reservation I would have on that score is that sometimes I get so transported by his seductive tones, that I stop listening to what he is saying and just get transported by the sound of his voice (bit like Alistair Cooke). Hence this is my second watching of the series. It's worth not paying too much attention on a first watching of this epic and just let this vast wave of cinema wash over you. I'm sure I will go back to the series again and again just to follow up on some of the directors and titles from around the world which it has introduced me to. The wonderful way that so much cinema has been pulled together and shown in context with each other making some sense of the history of cinema on a world scale, without showing any favour towards one country or culture. It truly is about as all encompassing as any treatment of the subject could be. At the same time Mark Cousins narration always keeps you entranced, it's pure poetry and full to the brim with delightful insights. I can not recommend this enough.

When the narrator began to speak I sat up in my chair and paid attention. No screwing around--this guy is speaking intelligently. And no apologies. No attempt to make it comfy for the fools in the audience. It's just him and me, having a conversation about film. A good conversation.

If some viewers are alienated by this, and can't follow it--tough. Go away if this is over your head. Wow. That was refreshing. After the past decade of watching The History Channel and PBS dumb down everything, making medieval armaments into a back-yard competition suitable for a tailgating party, or taking Napoleon or King Richard III and making them into mini-celebs, complete with "secrets" to be revealed (yow!) it felt like a cool drink of water after a long walk in the desert to actually hear a man speaking intelligently WITH NO REGARD FOR THE SLOW KIDS. I felt a warm glow in my heart. I felt a kind of bliss. I know that somewhere somebody is upset because it makes them feel bad to know that they'll never get it. And I know that a mere TV show shouldn't make people feel bad like that--in theory.

But is that really my problem? Should I care?

I never would have discovered the incredible films of Claire Denis without this series. I would not have been aware of the work of Yasujiro Ozu. I would not have bothered to see the masterpieces of Tarkovsky. I would have missed out on a real education on film. My understanding of film has been genuinely expanded, exponentially, by the work of Mark Cousins. This series is gold. Solid gold.

PBS used to show this kind of material, back when "American Experience" was "THE American Experience," and "Masterpiece" was "Masterpiece Theatre." What happened to that stuff? I used to enjoy watching Bill Buckley sparring with various "liberals." Now, anything intelligent is anti-American? How did this happen? We need more TV series like The Story of Film--many, many more.

While I can abide Cousins' anti-Hollywood viewpoint and I can abide the political slant to his series, I cannot abide his trumpeting of the film Hyenes directed by Djibril Diop Mambéty, without even mentioning that it was based on a play by Swiss writer Frederich Durrenmatt. Not only that, but there was a previous film version, The Visit, directed by Bernhard Wicki in 1964, starring Ingrid Bergman and Anthony Quinn. While Mambety created a brilliant film, he did not pull this film out of a vacuum by himself. It was an adaption and Cousins should have made us aware of this fact. It calls into question the veracity of the entire series, which I had enjoyed up until now. I'll need to watch the rest of the series with a far more critical eye.

First off, yes, Mark Cousins is quite the character. The Irishman has a heavy accent, his idiosyncrasies need to get used to, and he makes the one or the other factual mistake in a gargantuan task covering no less than the world wide development of film in all kinds of directions within 15 hours. Piece of advice: Get over it. Because above all Cousins' passion for the subject clearly shows and makes his "Story of Film" saga essential viewing for anyone even remotely interested in motion pictures, novices and pros alike. However, be prepared that this is not a mere history of film, no conventional preaching/heavily analyzing documentary à la Scorsese's "Personal Journey Through American Film", where everything is laid out as clearly as possible before you. Rather this is a journey seen through the eyes of a film lover like you and I, a film lover, who focuses on key points regarding innovations of filmmaking technology or directorial creativity that advance the medium's development. Cousins, as filmmaker and critic, weaves an intricate impressionistic tapestry of the medium, he observes, points out, shows connections, helps you to see and think yourself. And the latter is what film is all about. The documentary also sketches the defining moments across the globe when film is being used for the first time and then transformed effectively by the various cultures, moments when new lines of thought are born in order to inspire whole generations of movie makers. Ranging from Hollywood's closed romantic realism over Japanese classicism, Russian avant-garde, life reconquering the screens via Italian neo-realism, you've got the French Nouvelle Vague, the Iranian New Wave, Bollywood and African curiosities often completely unknown to the rest of the world.

No other film about film is as encompassing and bold as this one, taking a holistic approach, fiercely intent on expanding the horizons of its viewers. And it succeeds - if you let it. The famous ones, the unknowns, the forgotten directors - you get all your introductions here. Cousins aims for showing you what's out there in terms of film, how these works relate to the world around them, the traditions they have emerged from and how looking beyond the rim of your cinematic teacup will help you to appreciate the phenomenon of motion picture to the fullest. The series - or the 15 hours monster film if you prefer to see it that way - is best enjoyed as the perfect companion piece to Cousins' own 500+ pages book "The Story of Film", written before he set out on his actual world wide journey to visit locations and filmmakers. And if you are as passionate as Cousins regarding film you're likely to return to this fascinating story - wanting more.

A fascinating insight into the evolution of the art form known as film, from the very first medium of moving pictures through the latest in digital technologies. The narration can sometimes be tedious, and the content occasionally boarders on snobbery BUT it does not detract from the sheer wealth of information delivered. A must see for anyone interested in film.

Look, I get it. The creator has an insane depth of knowledge, a flair for putting historical progress in sequence and relation, and for digging out very obscure historical cinematic fact to educate the viewer.

I understand different ways of telling a story; the avant-garde, the alternative; breaking boundaries and forcing new ways to look at experienced subjects. Sometimes, this works. Sometimes, as it is here, the result is disaster.

Just because it's different doesn't mean it's good.

The material is spectacular. The presentation is horrifyingly flawed. An incredible story, presented by film, can be either brilliant or awful; in contrast, a boringly simple story can be brilliantly expressed or spewed out as worthless junk. The history of film is neither simple nor uninteresting. Here we have excellent material, brilliantly researched, and presented in a way that only the heartiest of viewer could possibly endure.

This documentary has great resources but is cut incorrectly. The idea of cutting between vintage clips and poorly filmed analogues just doesn't work. It is confusing, disruptive of continuity and frankly boring. It seems to me that the director/editor is trying to 'dumb down' the material to explain it. Never do that in a documentary - use the source material to show the detail, explain it clearly but simply by narration. Assume the viewer is just as smart or smarter than you. At some point, this disjointed and moreover 'pablumized' (copyright my term) presentation wears on the viewer.

The narration is beyond annoying (yeah, I know - some people find it difficult, some find it astonishing - unless an element is broadly appealing it risks being pretentious, uncommunicative, and ANNOYING ). There is no way this 'experiment' in English narration works, because it is largely unappealing no matter how much a given snob might think it is great. Put yourselves into the shoes of the broader audience - can you really say 'this narration is effective!'? It's like telling yourself that boiled jackrabbit is just as good or better than a Godiva chocolate; it may be to you, but not to most people.

The soundtrack seems like rushed afterthought. The scoring is choppy, shallow and uninspiring, and distracts from instead of enhancing the presentation.

Overall, the viewer is inspired not to seek out classic and important film, but to check their phones for the latest marketing from Target. Painful.

If the creators would REALLY like to educate the film going ignorant, they would hire an inspired editor, a gifted narrator, a knowledgeable, a deeply experienced musical director and a judicious producer to make it the watchable masterpiece it could be.