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.
He did do much better than the first film he directed and wrote on his own 'Caught in the Rain', still made very early on in his career where he was still finding his feet and not fully formed what he became famous for. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Caught in the Rain' is a long way from a career high, but has a good deal of decent things about it.
'Caught in the Rain' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and some other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. Things feel a little scrappy and confused at times and Chaplin's directing does betray inexperience.
For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Caught in the Rain' is not bad at all.
While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick.
Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later (some very familiar elements here for Chaplin), 'Caught in the Rain' is mildly amusing, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves reasonably quickly, though not without its dull spots, and doesn't feel too long or short.
Overall, far from one of Chaplin's best and patchy but not bad. 6/10 Bethany Cox
He did do much better than the first film he directed and wrote on his own 'Caught in the Rain', still made very early on in his career where he was still finding his feet and not fully formed what he became famous for. Can understand why the Keystone period suffered from not being as best remembered or highly remembered than his later efforts, but they are mainly decent and important in their own right. 'Caught in the Rain' is a long way from a career high, but has a good deal of decent things about it.
'Caught in the Rain' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and some other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious. Things feel a little scrappy and confused at times and Chaplin's directing does betray inexperience.
For someone who was still relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Caught in the Rain' is not bad at all.
While not audacious, the film hardly looks ugly, is more than competently directed and is appealingly played. Chaplin looks comfortable for so early on and shows his stage expertise while opening it up that it doesn't become stagy or repetitive shtick.
Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later (some very familiar elements here for Chaplin), 'Caught in the Rain' is mildly amusing, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves reasonably quickly, though not without its dull spots, and doesn't feel too long or short.
Overall, far from one of Chaplin's best and patchy but not bad. 6/10 Bethany Cox