VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

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

TheLittleSongbird 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 post-Essanay period after leaving Keystone, 'The Fireman' is not one of his very best but is one of his best early efforts and among the better short films of his. It shows a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career, from 1914, The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. Something that can be seen in the more than worthwhile 'The Fireman'. The story is more discernible than usual and is never dull, but is sometimes a bit too busy and manic.On the other hand, 'The Fireman' looks pretty good, not incredible but it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work and not churning out countless shorts in the same year of very variable success like he did with Keystone. Appreciate the importance of his Keystone period and there is some good stuff he did there, but the more mature and careful quality seen here and later on is obvious.While not one of his most hilarious or touching, 'The Fireman' is still very funny with some clever, entertaining and well-timed slapstick and has substance and pathos that generally were not there with Keystone. It moves quickly and there is no dullness in sight. The ending is great fun.Chaplin directs more than competently, if not quite cinematic genius standard yet. He also, as usual, gives an amusing and expressive performance and at clear ease with the physicality and substance of the role. The supporting cast acquit themselves well, particularly a charming Edna Purviance.In summary, very good and one of the best from Chaplin's 1916 output. 8/10 Bethany Cox

CitizenCaine Chaplin's second film for Mutual in June of 1916 was The Fireman. This is a typical occupation comedy; where upon, a comedian assumes the role within the chosen profession and builds gags around the scenarios associated with it. Chaplin plays a fireman who is initially abused by his chief, played by Eric Campbell. Edna Purviance plays the chief's daughter who becomes a pawn in an insurance scheme between her rich father and the chief. The abused Chaplin is actually no less competent than his fellow firemen, who all appear to be Keystone cop clones. The sight gags and slapstick of the first part of the film yield to a more plot-oriented second half. Chaplin's athleticism, which is often overlooked, is highlighted through the film from inside the firehouse to how he rescues Edna Purviance in the end. The film benefits from a balance between its indoor settings and its location shooting. The film's weakness is its repetition of gags and propensity of lingering too long within the fire station. **1/2 of 4 stars.

Katie Malone (armybrat987) I first saw this movie back in January of this year, around my high school's exam time.I was stressed out, so I went looking for movies to watch on the Internet, and I came across this.This was my first Chaplin film; indeed, this was my first silent film, and I must say it made a very good impression on me. I'm more a fan of verbal comedy, but this was unexpectedly funny!However, I thought the butt-kicking a bit incessant and found no humor in it.Other than that, a hilarious film. I give it two thumbs up!

hausrathman "The Firemen," the second of Chaplin's golden dozen of comedies for the Mutual Company, is probably my least favorite of the bunch. It is a typical occupational comedy, where a comedian is placed in a certain job and wrings the comic potential from the various tools of the trade. It's not a terrible film by any stretch of the imagination. There certainly are laughs, and Chaplin does milk some simple gags, like the incessant butt-kicking, a little more successfully than he did at Keystone or Essanay. (For example, in a Keystone comedy, if someone bent over, someone else would automatically kick them in the butt. Here, if you bend over you will still get kicked, but Chaplin makes a little more of it. He will consider the butt, address it as it were, before he makes his kick. It is a small step to be sure, but every step is important.) Chaplin also attempts stretch a little technically with some backward motion gags, but they are obvious and not very funny. Overall, the film suffers because it does not reach the standard Chaplin would set for himself with his later efforts.