I respect the opinion of James M. Haugh, however I don't think he realises that this film was made by a pioneer film maker 110 years ago! The only acting then was stage/live acting. They had not yet understood the difference that we now Identify as styles of acting suited to Screen, which differs from live performance. Whether or not the camera was a stage prop or not, the action of knocking it over and the reaction of the characters is stylistic of slap-stick comedy. If it isn't funny now, that doesn't mean it wasn't then. We have become immune to most visual stimuli because we have grown up with it all around us. If you look at all the latest blockbusters, they are intense in all ways these simple early films were not. This is for two reasons. First they were pioneering film in Lumiere's time, and all that was produced was experimental and considered cutting edge at the time, they did not have computers to edit the film nor the ability to produce the elaborate special effects we are now familiar with. Secondly, due to us being accustomed to modern film techniques we need more elaborate effects to achieve the same impact as what may have been received by the audiences in 1895. The example of the train film is excellent. For us to watch it, we can't imagine how audiences in Lumiere's time could have panicked. The film was silent too. Nowadays no one would panic even with the best techniques, sound effects and so on (maybe in 3D we might feel something). Think about it, try and realise how much it would take to recreate the same amount of panic in an audience with an image of a train hurtling towards the viewers in a movie theatre? Then understand that in 1895 most had never seen a movie before, they were used to different styles of entertainment and lived different lifestyles to us. Remember it was 1895, we are in 2005! I give Lumiere 10/10 for effort and remarkable skill in pioneering film making. Without people like him, we would not have made it this far in Film making.