What makes it different from others?

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I found this Emile Cohl film an odd mixture of proscenium-arch reality and doodling. We see individuals or items on a stage, which are transformed into drawings. They undergo a series of transformations in the manner of Cohl's better known works, and eventually the drawings were transformed back into real objects, which in their turn were turned into drawings.....And so forth. I was puzzled. Was I looking at artistic doodling here? Freudian psychoanalysis? A precursor to surrealism or Dadaism or even the sort of scriptwriting that Quentin Tarrantino does, in which he lifts striking images from old movies and writes a script that connects those images? Or was it simply a matter of Cohl having moved to Eclipse as a distributor and them demanding something to put in their latest catalogue? Well, it's too late now to ask any of the people involved.