Apparently, this film is comprised of eight shorter films from 1896, which were not copyrighted until 1902, hence the date discrepancy. As such, I can't understand why IMDb users have been so hard on this film. Afterall, this appears to be one of the first films with a plot, produced in an age when films consisted of no story - simply men sneezing, families walking around a garden or the electrocution of an elephant. Why such a low rating, then?!
Perhaps it is the lack of car chases, explosions and gun fights. 'Rip Van Winkle' might just appear dull and boring to today's audiences, its historical significance forgotten. I - for one - enjoyed it. This film had a story to tell, unlike many of its time, and, despite the primitive production values, it told the story reasonably well.
Perhaps it is the lack of car chases, explosions and gun fights. 'Rip Van Winkle' might just appear dull and boring to today's audiences, its historical significance forgotten. I - for one - enjoyed it. This film had a story to tell, unlike many of its time, and, despite the primitive production values, it told the story reasonably well.