Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors.
From his period after Mutual, the "filmette" 'How to Make Movies' is more a Chaplin curio than a must see and to be seen really for historical interest and completest sake for anybody wanting to see everything Chaplin has done. As said a number of times, his post-Keystones efforts showed a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career. The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. After Mutual the style had properly settled and the cinematic genius emerged. Other efforts of his from this period and year had much more of a sense of that than seen in 'How to Make Movies'.
'How to Make Movies' is far from bad. It is interesting, like with the footage and rehearsal scene, and informative like with the negatives, though not really what one would think reading the title. A few parts are amusing like with the golf course.
It looks quite good and shows a good deal of technical advancement since Chaplin's Keystone period, with it being clear that Chaplin was taking more time and not doing as much in one year. Liked seeing the behind the scenes footage of Chaplin's regular actors, which interested and charmed.
On the other hand, do have to agree that 'How to Make Movies' is more informative than funny. Outside of a few amusing moments, there is not much funny here where some of the material feels familiar and the timing isn't sharp enough. Some have said that the pacing is an issue and cannot disagree here either, not everything gripped me.
It does drag at times and at other points things feel jumpy structurally, giving the sense of incompleteness or parts intended to be there but weren't.
Concluding, not easy to rate or review. For while it was far from bad, there was nothing special or exceptional here. 5/10 Bethany Cox
From his period after Mutual, the "filmette" 'How to Make Movies' is more a Chaplin curio than a must see and to be seen really for historical interest and completest sake for anybody wanting to see everything Chaplin has done. As said a number of times, his post-Keystones efforts showed a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career. The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. After Mutual the style had properly settled and the cinematic genius emerged. Other efforts of his from this period and year had much more of a sense of that than seen in 'How to Make Movies'.
'How to Make Movies' is far from bad. It is interesting, like with the footage and rehearsal scene, and informative like with the negatives, though not really what one would think reading the title. A few parts are amusing like with the golf course.
It looks quite good and shows a good deal of technical advancement since Chaplin's Keystone period, with it being clear that Chaplin was taking more time and not doing as much in one year. Liked seeing the behind the scenes footage of Chaplin's regular actors, which interested and charmed.
On the other hand, do have to agree that 'How to Make Movies' is more informative than funny. Outside of a few amusing moments, there is not much funny here where some of the material feels familiar and the timing isn't sharp enough. Some have said that the pacing is an issue and cannot disagree here either, not everything gripped me.
It does drag at times and at other points things feel jumpy structurally, giving the sense of incompleteness or parts intended to be there but weren't.
Concluding, not easy to rate or review. For while it was far from bad, there was nothing special or exceptional here. 5/10 Bethany Cox