Lightdeossk Captivating movie !

Jacomedi A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Matho The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

CitizenCaine Chaplin edited, wrote, directed, and produced this film for Mutual in July of 1916 and it stands the test of time, even more so than many of his earlier much funnier films. The reason probably is that the structure of this film, more than any predating it, resembles (however crudely) the basic plot structure of films today. There is a definitive beginning, middle, and end in this film. The film is well edited and written for its time. Chaplin plays a wandering vagabond who tries to make a living playing his violin in public. The film opens in typical Chaplin fashion with misunderstandings and chases punctuated by sight gags and slapstick. There are those viewers who may wander what the tavern scenario has to do with the rest of the film, and the answer is it sets up Chaplin as a resourceful fellow who gets by with his wits and not his fists. Thus when he meets the sad, browbeaten Edna Purviance, it's clear what Chaplin must do to extricate her from a band of cruel gypsies; he must use some good old-fashioned ingenuity. After rescuing her from the likes of the crude, whip-wielding Eric Campbell in comic fashion, the story settles into its melodramatic mode. The film successfully combines bits of comedy, plot, and pathos-inducing drama in a way that previous Chaplin films had not. The result is a rough draft of the Chaplin formula, which he would later reuse to greater effect and success in his longer features. *** of 4 stars.

MartinHafer In 1914 and early 1915, Chaplin did his first comedy shorts. In general, they were pretty awful--with almost no plot and consisting of him mugging it up on camera and hitting people. However, in 1915 he left Keystone Studio and began making better films with Essenay (though there are some exceptions) and finally, in 1916, to Mutual where he made his best comedy shorts. These newer films had more plot and laughs and usually didn't relay on punching or kicking when they ran out of story ideas.This film tells a complete story--more so than almost any other Chaplin short. In fact, in many ways it is reminiscent of some of his later full-length films--in particular, THE CIRCUS. There were two problems with the film, though. One is a pretty lousy plot device on which the whole film relies. A woman was apparently stolen by gypsies as a little girl and later, as an adult, her portrait is painted and the girl's biological mother recognizes this 20-something year-old as her long-lost daughter!!! Talk about unbelievable! The other problem is that in the version I saw from THE ESSENTIAL CHAPLIN COLLECTION, there were no title cards to explain the action. I had to read the box to get an idea of what was occurring! It's a shame, as without these two problems, it would have been among Chaplin's best shorts.

Kieran Kenney What can I say other than that I thought this was just boring and unoriginal. Predictable melodrama done without any original comedy sequences and wooden acting. No wonder so many people think so lowly of silent movies. These primitive, poorly made Chaplin shorts seem to be the only ones available. Meanwhile, all those masterpieces are rotting in their vaults...

bob the moo A pathetic fiddler tries to scrape a living together playing on the street and in bars. He chances upon a gypsy camp where he plays for a pretty young girl. However her father beats her savagely and the tramp helps her escape. When the pair happen upon a painter, events are set in motion to reveal the girl's true parentage.One of Chaplin's Mutual short films this shows him still developing the kindly tramp personae on film. As a result the humour is not yet fully developed although we do get one funny scene of people being hit over the head etc. The plot is as basic as above and is typical of the day - audiences wanted to see the poor people suddenly being elevated to better things, no matter what the device. However from modern views I wanted Chaplin to be funnier and the message to be toned down or at least be more realistic.Overall this will please fans of Chaplin and I think it is one of the first films he directed himself. The cast are good and it's always nice to see the little tramp act done well. However more routines and less aspiration would have been better.