BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Michael_Elliott Fatal Mallet, The (1914) *** (out of 4) Chaplin, along with two other guys, fights for the affection of a woman. Instead of using their fist the guys instead throw bricks at one another. This is a very funny film that has some outrageous violence that makes for a good time.A Busy Day (1914) ** (out of 4) Chaplin plays a woman(!) who gets tired of her husbands and decides to fight with him in public. This here really doesn't have a single funny moment but it's still interesting to see Chaplin playing a woman.Caught in a Cabaret (1914) *** (out of 4) Chaplin is mistaken as a Greek Ambassador and must keep a girl's family from finding out. This one here is a real riot with some wonderfully funny fight scenes but the real highlights are the title cards, which feature some very funny one-liners. Also of note is that this storyline would play a big part in future Chaplin films.Knockout, The (1914) *** (out of 4) To show off his braveness, Fatty Arbuckle challenged a professional boxer to a fight. Fatty is funny as usually and like the above film, this one here gets the laughs from violence ranging from punches to items being thrown. Chaplin has a small but funny cameo as the referee.

Michael DeZubiria The Fatal Mallet is full of unexplained, unnecessary, and gratuitous 1914 violence, like most of Chaplin's films for Keystone, but at least the plot is very easy to follow because it stays simple and doesn't try to tell more of a story than the technology of the time would allow. It begins with a lot of brick throwing between Chaplin and a man and wife (the wife does most of the throwing), until ultimately Charlie and the man are engaged in a brawl. Meanwhile, the wife finds another man, a huge brute of a man who is unaffected by Charlie and the first husband hitting him on top of the head with bricks. When he fails to notice that anything is happened, the two love scorn men are forced to regroup and come up with a new plan while the new guy makes his affections known to the woman.The two enemies now working together allows Chaplin to do some of his usual tricks and pranks but to actually have a reason to do them this time, and ultimately it turns into a brawl that is every man for himself, since they are all enemies to begin with. Chaplin's love of falling into the lake and throwing other people into the lake is certainly not forgotten here, but among the films of the time, I think this one stands out as one of the clearer and more entertaining ones, even though so much of it is the same as so many others.Also of note here is what I think might be the first appearance of a small boy in an important role in one of Chaplin's films. I say important role, however, only to mean that there is a kid in more than a background role. I am not sure if it is more disturbing than amusing, but I would lean toward amusing just because, even though the kid shows up just long enough for Charlie to punt him off screen like a football, he is clearly having a great time and his imitation of Chaplin's backwards fall is uncanny. Certainly not the best, but this is among the better of Chaplin's Keystone comedies.

Igenlode Wordsmith Rather to my surprise, I actually quite liked this one. Considering that I don't care for slapstick, that the entire plot of this film consists of people hitting each other, and that I'm not Charlie Chaplin's greatest fan, this was extremely unexpected; but in fact, there are good things to be said for a film that consists of nothing whatever but a single, simple gag ingeniously elaborated. Mack Sennett gets better and -- dare one even suggest it in such a context? -- more subtle results here by simply staging repeated variations on a theme than he would have done by throwing in the semblance of a plot (or what passes for one in Keystone territory), let alone by introducing more characters or invoking the Keystone Kops...Despite or even because the whole film is occupied by hitting people over the head, there is scope for some finer detail, such as the shifting alliances of convenience between the various opponents as old grudges are overlaid by more immediate opportunity, and moments of realisation: my favourite was the sequence where Mack Swain comes to and realises that he has been locked in with a Mack Sennett who is going to be *very* angry when he wakes up... and the way that his knees (all that is visible) shake beneath the sackcloth while he tries to hide. But I felt that the player who really shines in this film is Mabel Normand, who has the advantage over the men of being on the receiving end of less constant violence, and thus can really milk her outraged reactions when her suitors' attacks accidentally spill over. The little sequence at the beginning where she sweet-talks Charlie into a close approach after he kicks her in error -- only to knock him unexpectedly flying with the full strength of her diminutive frame -- is laugh-out-loud funny, which is more than can be said for much of Keystone's standard fare.

MartinHafer In 1914, Charlie Chaplin began making pictures. These were made for Mack Sennett (also known as "Keystone Studios") and were literally churned out in very rapid succession. The short comedies had very little structure and were completely ad libbed. As a result, the films, though popular in their day, were just awful by today's standards. Many of them bear a strong similarity to home movies featuring obnoxious relatives mugging for the camera. Many others show the characters wander in front of the camera and do pretty much nothing. And, regardless of the outcome, Keystone sent them straight to theaters. My assumption is that all movies at this time must have been pretty bad, as the Keystone films with Chaplin were very successful.The Charlie Chaplin we know and love today only began to evolve later in Chaplin's career with Keystone. By 1915, he signed a new lucrative contract with Essenay Studios and the films improved dramatically with Chaplin as director. However, at times these films were still very rough and not especially memorable. No, Chaplin as the cute Little Tramp was still evolving. In 1916, when he switched to Mutual Studios, his films once again improved and he became the more recognizable nice guy--in many of the previous films he was just a jerk (either getting drunk a lot, beating up women, provoking fights with innocent people, etc.). The final evolution of his Little Tramp to classic status occurred in the 1920s as a result of his full-length films.The entire plot involves Charlie bonking Mack Sennett on the head with a mallet repeatedly. That's all,...really.