Raetsonwe Redundant and unnecessary.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Michael_Elliott Kiss, The (1900) *** (out of 4)Edison remake of their 1896 film has a younger couple holding one another and smiling as they kiss for just under fifty-seconds. I'm not sure if this was the first remake or not but it's interesting to compare the two versions. From what I've read this film was released without any controversy, which is rather funny as this one is a lot dirtier than the original, which was banned in countless cities. The biggest difference is that the couple here are a lot younger and do a whole lot more kissing and cuddling up. On its own there's nothing too special about this film but it does remain interesting when viewed and compared with the original. Fred Ott, from Edison Kinetoscopic Record of a Sneeze appears.

MartinHafer This film is a re-make of the 1898 film THE KISS (also called the MAY IRWIN KISS). This original film was considered 'dirty' or 'offensive' because it was the first commercial film to show any sort of intimacy between a man and a woman. In many locales, it was actually banned despite being a very innocent film. Both films were made by the Edison Studios and are extremely similar. Each lasts less than a minute and consist of a couple kissing. However, as this film was made four years later, the kissing is much more prolonged and intense and the couple was also more attractive. Apparently, the original film generated enough interest to merit a sequel but due to the passage of time, this version generated little controversy.It's really hard to rate a film only lasting about 45 seconds, but I score it relatively low because it is do derivative.

Snow Leopard Though not particularly noteworthy in itself, this remake of "The Kiss" is historically of some interest in comparison with the original version. The content is only slightly different, but the responses that the two movies received are interesting. Whereas the 1896 version was met with widespread comment and controversy, inflaming public opinion and permanently changing the careers of the two performers involved, the remake seems to have come and gone with comparatively little disturbance.In comparison with the earlier version, this movie has a different, younger-looking couple, and has a somewhat different feel to it, with the actors seeming a bit more playful and flirtatious than the couple in the original. The degree of intimacy still seems about the same, and if anyone was concerned about the 1896 movie, you would think that they would object to this one also.But perhaps what caused the original controversy was not really the content itself, but the newness of motion pictures. The permanent, re-playable nature of a movie, the intimacy (compared to a stage production) of a mid-range close-up, and the completeness that a movie offers, were all brand new in 1896, but were getting to be a little more familiar in 1900. It still happens today that things that once seemed shocking on film don't seem so outrageous once they become a little more common.

Andreas Moss Thomas Edison did this little clip which is kind of interesting, because you'd think the first movie ever where someone is kissing would be a young couple, and somewhat more, um, passionate. Instead we have a cuckoo old couple here! Doesn't really look like they're kissing... Its like they just attached their lips together and think they're kissing. And they TALK while doing it as well! Nuts. Thats the worst part of it. They seem to be discussing something quite strange while kissing.They look like mad people. Huge fishes or something. I think this is my favorite of the Edison clips, because it to me just clearly states he was EITHER all about science and no romantic at all OR he was just plain weird. Either one is great. A great, great man.