meezer3 I knew little about the Fair, even though I was aware it took place in my city back in the late 1800's. This film is packed with all the information you could possibly give to someone in the time allowed. I first got hooked on Chicago history and Architecture after reading the book "Devil in the White City". I have seen articles from that period of time at the Chicago Historical Society and have been to Graceland cemetery to see the graves of the Architects how planned and helped build the Fair and many of the buildings that still stand in downtown Chicago. So when the film started I already had some insight into the circumstances and people responsible for bringing the Fair to Chicago. I knew that one of the buildings still stood, the Museum of Science and Industry, having gone there many, many times as a child but never could even imagine the scope and size that the Fair entailed. Now when I venture into that part of the city my imagination will see, in my minds eye, the ghostly beauty of the buildings that once were there and the people who attended it. I think it is a wonderful film to watch. A little long and drawn out, but still filled with the Magic that once was the "White City" of Chicago.

whynot2 My interest in the 1893 Chicago World's Fair was stoked by a read through Larson's recent bestseller ' The Devil in the White City', and abetted by a flip through 'The Chicago World's Fair of 1893: A Photographic Piece'. For someone similarly interested, this documentary is well worth the time and effort; for the more casual audience, it might be worth sticking on a channel should you click by; I'm not sure it warrants a purchase or rental. Amongst the pros, the roughly 2 hour show presents a wealth of imagery of and about the event, primarily period photographs and drawings, fleshing out Larson's descriptions of the illusory grandeur of the event and grounds; the referenced book focuses on architecture and, if I recall correctly, is limited to 93 images. In other words, the value is in the wealth of imagery. My criticisms echo those of others. I found the period material to be interesting, but found the inclusions of modern footage of animals and fish, and re-enactments, shot in brilliant, bright color, to be jarringly disjunctive. I'll state my prejudice: I am not a fan of re-enactment to begin with, and the ones in this production just don't seem to fit. The narration Gene Wilder is adequate; but definitely not as captivating as a Mark Steel, James Burke or Morgan Freeman. Or, come to think of it, some of my better teachers. It does appear that this was an attempt to gain a bit of celebrity panache. There are also way to many shots of beer steins. You'll know what I mean if you watch it.A couple of side notes: I listened to some of the commentary and was frankly puzzled. I'm not sure that the concept of a commentary isn't a bit redundant in a documentary, and the commentary provided here really just provides an alternative (or additional) narrative about the fair. It is annoyingly unmatched to the images on the screen: additional discussion of the Chicago labor riots are on screen as the commentators discussed previous Paris expositions; fund-raising commemorative stamps are discussed over unrelated images of Wild Bill Hickok, and what appears to be a first hand account of a visit to the fair is recited over the re-enactment of the mayor's assassination. I visited the 'Art at the Fair' special feature. My options included 'with music' or 'with commentary'—selecting the latter revealed that this is where the producer and writer chose to discuss their sources for material in general. I might have thought that the commentary might have dealt with the 'Art at the Fair'. The 'Art at the Fair' special feature provide, without commentary, an illustration of how the pendulum swings. This feature is shown as rated PG for nudity and violence. The art on general display at the fair included a lot of fully nude and frank statuary and paintings, albeit in a classical style. It amused me to contemplate this brazen display, requiring a PG warning in 2009, in this age of morbid horror over 9/16 of a second of breast exposure. In summary, the content of this documentary rates something like 4.5 out of 5, with respect to its ability to satisfy my curiosity. The presentation of the material warrants something like a 2 out of 5, for an overall total of 6.5 or 7.

Xerxes2004 As a history buff, I looked forward to a well made, engaging documentary about this fascinating event in American History. What I got was marginally engaging and clearly made with a budget in mind. Thanks to my avid watching of The History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. I know what to expect from a well made historical documentary. This movie, if it can even be called that, simply doesn't compare.The movie consists of period images, artwork, promotional material, maps, and many other visual representations of the Colombian Exposition set to period music. The best part about this technique is the clear organization as we travel across the fair grounds from building to building exploring the varied elements that made up the Colombian Exposition. You really get a good idea of what it must have been like to get off at the purpose built train station and walk into the fair grounds. The flaw in this technique is its monotony. After the tenth building, one wonders how long till we reach the exit. The narration by Gene Wilder was clearly an attempt by the producers to add some pizazz to the production values. Why else would they put his face so prominently on the cover of the DVD? So... if you are interested in this specific historical event then by all means rent or borrow this DVD. If not, save yourself the 2 hours.Cheers!

Shira Dotnet Beware of documentaries that value the producer's fantasies more highly than their commitment to accuracy! At least one INTENTIONAL error in this film makes me question the integrity of the entire thing. The live-action footage of the belly dancer completely misrepresents how the women at the Columbian Exposition would have dressed and danced in 1893. Although the vintage still photos ALL show the dancers wearing blouses, with their midriffs and upper arms covered, the modern-day footage shows the dancer with a completely bare midriff and a horrid enormous navel jewel.For those who care, the bra as we know it was invented in 1913 (according to patents issued), and the "jewel in the navel" idiocy was invented by Hollywood after the Hayes Code was instituted in the 1930's. So why did the producer force these anachronisms into a documentary about an 1893 event? I am told that the dancer tried to push for wearing historically-correct costuming, but the producer, Mark Bussler, insisted on a "1970's James Bond" look. If Bussler knowingly insisted on a 1970's look for one of the elements of his "documentary" about 1893, what other inaccuracies did he knowingly insert into it? He completely destroyed the credibility of this entire project by depicting the dancer with a look that was 80 years out of context.For a historically-accurate description of the dancers at the Columbian Exposition, don't view this documentary. Instead, see the book titled Looking for Little Egypt by Donna Carlton.