I've been spending a lot of time lately going through and watching all of Chaplin's oldest short comedies that he made for Keystone and Essanay, and with only a few left before I get into the 1920s I decided to jump ahead and watch this one, which is reportedly the last true silent film that Chaplin made, since there were elements of City Lights and especially Modern Times that were clearly moving toward the sound era. The first thing the struck my is how much better looking the film is, and the second thing that struck me is that, other than the length and thickness of the plot and story, it is remarkably similar to his earlier films. In a good way, of course.<br /><br />By now, Chaplin had reached a point in his career where he was a major film star, so of course this movie is much bigger, much more ambitious than the 10 or 20 minute films he was churning out a decade before. He plays the same person, the little tramp out of the job, out of money and out of love. Maybe this is just me, but I really think that the parts of Chaplin's films where we see the tramp before the story has started going are generally some of the best parts, because we get quick looks at the tramp's personality  what he does with himself when nothing's going on. He's usually just hanging out, spinning his cane or browsing casually without a care in the world. I sometimes wonder what Rowan Atkinson would be doing if there had been no Chaplin to inspire his own famous character.<br /><br />There is a very clever opening to the movie, as Chaplin twice finds himself the victim of pick-pocketing, once when another man's wallet is slipped into his pocket, and another time when that wallet is stolen from him before he realizes he has it. Luckily, a police officer sees the second thief and returns the stolen wallet to the thoroughly astonished tramp. When he goes to spend some of his new money, the real owner catches him and, as can only happen in a Chaplin movie, the ensuing chase makes him a star.<br /><br />I especially love how much more complex the movie is the its shorter predecessors. It is clearly a big-budget 1928 Hollywood movie, with high-flying stunts and even special effects (yeah, special effects in a Chaplin movie!!). There are plenty of charming and effective sight gags, including his famous tight rope scene with the monkeys, and a sweet love story that calls to mind the similar love story, and how it played out, from The Tramp, back in 1916. If the oldest two-reelers are too rough or uninteresting to you, this would be a great film to see to check out Chaplin's early work. It's similar in countless ways, but is cleaner and has a much more engaging plot. Excellent show!<br /><br />Note: The IMDb trvia page mentions that this is the only one of Chaplin's feature films not mentioned in his autobiography, because of "problems with the film, not the film itself." I understand that his studio burned down during production and that he suffered a nervous breakdown during filming because of personal problems, but do any of his dissatisfactions have anything to do with the actual film? If you know please email me, this movie is definitely something that I would think he would be proud of!