Charlot marquis

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 better than 'Cruel, Cruel Love'. 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. 'Cruel, Cruel Love' is a long way from a career high, although among the better very early Keystone comedies.

'Cruel, Cruel Love' is not as hilarious, charming or touching as his later work and a good deal of other shorts in the same period. The story is flimsy and the production values not as audacious, the humour only amusing and lacking freshness at times and parts a touch scrappy and occasionally convoluted.

For someone who was relatively new to the film industry and had literally just moved on from their stage background, 'Cruel, Cruel Love' 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. His character is not one of his most likeable though

Although the humour, charm and emotion was done even better and became more refined later, 'Cruel, Cruel Love' is mildly humorous, sweet and easy to like, though the emotion is not quite there. It moves quickly and doesn't feel too long or short.

Overall, far from one of Chaplin's best but not bad at all. 6/10 Bethany Cox

Chaplin famously churned out an enormous number of short comedies for Keystone during his first year in the film-making business, and while the majority of them are pretty sad comparisons to the later films that he would become famous for, Cruel, Cruel Love definitely ranks as one of the less memorable. A lot of people complain about these early comedies, no doubt because Chaplin is known as one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and yet the films he made in 1914-1915 are most definitely not the greatest films of all time, but this one gives a clear look at what a lot of people are turned off by.

Chaplin does not play the tramp, but some sort of bizarre jerk with a hideous mustache and what appears to be an unenviable future. Like in many of Chaplin's early comedies, this one devolves into a widespread kicking and punching match by the end of the film. This has been going on for months by this point, and I believe that Chaplin was just giving his audience what they wanted at the time, but this is the first time that I have gotten the feeling that he is just running out of ideas.

I think Chaplin may have been progressing past what he would later refer to as the good old days when films could just be slapped together in a park, and so he tried to do something different, try on a slightly different characterization for a while, but unfortunately it just doesn't work. The film as a whole comes off as a bit of a disjointed mess, Chaplin makes some faces that I could have gone the rest of my life without ever having seen, and his heart is clearly not in it. Just his feet and his fists.

Cruel, Cruel Love works almost exactly like Romeo and Juliet. Well, with a happy ending, that is.

Charlie is a Lord wanting to marry a girl, but she thinks he's cheating with the maid. Charlie is so disappointed and unhappy he tries to poison himself. When the girl finds out nothing happened between the maid and Charlie she wants him back... so Charlie is calling the medics what to do next.

When he finds out he only drank some water (well, I think that's what it is) he is kicking some butts in the end just for the sake of it.

Early Chaplin short, in which he isn't the tramp for a change, has some moments but really isn't as funny as most of his work.

5/10.

'Cruel, Cruel Love' is one of the better efforts of Chaplin's early Keystone works. It seems to me that those films where Chaplin wasn't playing The Tramp were usually better from that period. The story is a classic romantic fable - after a little misunderstanding, the Lord's (Charles Chaplin) fiancee (Minta Durfee) calls off the engagement. Broken-hearted, the Lord is about to commit suicide. The Lady's gardener explains what caused the misunderstanding, and she rushes to help her loved one. The Lord's butler watches that mess and gets a nice bellyful of laughs.

Although the film is simple and offers very little inventiveness, it is still funny enough, and as a viewer, it is easy to care about the characters and the story. Gags and stunts were barely above the average of that era's slapstick. Chaplin managed to show his true genius as an actor - when his character was thinking he will die and hallucinated about hell - those facial expressions when he realized that all the world is over for him. Amazing.

I also started to pay the attention to the sets they used and noticed how the homes of the characters look very similar. It is because they used the same set, but with little redecoration, they made it look like another location.

'Cruel, Cruel Love' is more than barely watchable - it is enjoyable.

I don't know if I should've put a question mark after "Great Man,"--I saw Chaplin and the "Gold Rush" and "The Kid" I think it was on TCM, years ago & thought it was extremely funny then had not watched for years.

Usually--unless it's Lon Chaney--or something dark & grisly, I'm not sure how to speak about a silent comedy; unless it's Buster Keaton & I don't think he's funny. I guess the only litmus test I can use is watching it again & laughing my posterior off, which I did with this film.

I can see many mixed reviews here, but the plot is so simple & screwy, I had to convulse. Chaplin seeing demons or karate-kicking everybody in his path had snot spilling from my nose, so obviously this man is legend. Look forward to more of these....