Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

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 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

Michael_Elliott How to Make Movies (1918)** 1/2 (out of 4) Charles Chaplin stars in, wrote, produced and directed this short film that doesn't completely live up to the title but it is interesting nonetheless. The film starts off showing Chaplin's studio being built in a time lapse and from here we see Chaplin taking us on what's basically a tour of the studio. This includes a few staged jokes including him catching some laborers sleeping and there's a sequence where a pool is being filled up and of course they get the star wet with the hose. HOW TO MAKE MOVIES isn't really about making movies and there's no doubt that it drags on a little bit but I think fans of Chaplin should enjoy this behind-the-scenes look at his studio. One of the best moments happen when we see Chaplin getting into his Tramp outfit and "turning" himself into the character. Overall this is mainly going to appeal to Chaplin fans who will enjoy seeing this type of stuff. As a "film" its not really impressive as the majority of the jokes don't work and the pacing is just so off where it really seems as if many scenes are missing.

funkyfry Like Maurice Tourneur's "A Girl's Folly" (which only exists in fragmentary form), this is very interesting just as a look into the insides of a movie studio in the 1910s. Since the studio in question is Charlie Chaplin's studio where he ended up making films for UA (and where many producers made films for years afterward), it has considerable historical significance.However the film itself is only amusing for a few chuckles. There's a rather clichéd bit at the end with Chaplin on a golf course. It looks to me like the course in Griffith Park, which is fascinating because it looks different than it does now. A lot more like they just stuck the course down in the middle of the desert. The funniest scene is a brief one where Chaplin is rehearsing his actors and actresses. He keeps showing how to beat up another guy, and the poor guy has to chase after his hat after Chaplin knocks it off and then again after the other actor knocks it off.It's pretty interesting to see Chaplin as such a young man without his mustache -- which is referred to in a title card before he applies it to do his routine as the "Million Dollar Moustache". He looks very handsome here without the 'stache. It's also interesting how "friendly" he is with his secretary and his actresses. At one point he is fussing with his actress' curled hair and momentarily puts the curl in his mouth as if to suck on it.Won't be highly interesting to anyone except Chaplin fans and old time movie fans, but I liked it.

Skeeter700 My understanding is that Chalie Chaplin made this film in 1918 to show the First National Picture Corporation when he signed to produce movies with them. Chaplin would cover all costs of making the movies and in return receive $125,000 per picture plus 50% of the revenues.The loose structure of the film is that a genie has granted Charlie one wish, which he uses to create a film studio. We then follow Charlie as he goes about filming and editing his next picture.Highlights for me are the rehearsal scene and when Charlie dresses up like the little tramp to do some on location filming at a golf course.This film truly plays like a "Behind The Scenes" feature from 1918. While all the situations are staged for comic effect. It is still interesting to see the day-to-day behind the scenes activities such as negatives being developed.The version I watched was Bonus Material on The Chaplin Revue DVD put out by Warner Bros. It had no musical score which really hampered the film. Overall, worth a watch, but far, far from Chaplin's best.