Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

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

CitizenCaine This film is often not thought of as one to be included in Chaplin's filmography, but it is a historical record of a brief inside look in Chaplin's studios. Here the film originates with a genie granting a wish for a film studio, which materializes before our eyes. The film was released in early 1918 before Chaplin's first picture for the First National Corporation: A Dog's Life. Behind the scenes footage includes many of Chaplin's stock company, such as Edna Purviance and Henry Bergman. Other footage has Chaplin simply walking around his studios, eating a lemon, looking at his mail, getting into character, and playfully interacting with his stock company. The most interesting aspect of the film illustrates the film processing procedure circa 1918. There are several scenes on a golf course with Chaplin in character interacting with others or by himself. One of these scenes contains what looks to be the last footage of comic foil Eric Campbell who died in December 1917 in an auto accident. The film is not really a Chaplin film per se, but it's an interesting, historic curio in a home movie vein. **1/2 of 4 stars.

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.

MartinHafer This short was an extra from the Chaplin Collection DVD set from Warner Brothers. Since it is an extra, it lacks the music of the rest of the shorts on the DVD and the clips, though interesting, seem much more like a home movie than anything else. While it is interesting to see Chaplin without his makeup and him laughing it up with the crew, it isn't exactly a movie or a short--just an interesting curio. This "filmette" is of more interest from a historical point of view than anything else. It certainly isn't that entertaining and cannot really be compared to his regular theatrical releases. Plus, the film provides very few laughs as there are only a few mildly amusing segments in the film.