What makes it different from others?

One of my all time favorites.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Chaplin gets involved with his landlady and her husband and a comedy of errors ensues and is revealed by the landlady's son before it's all over. This is another typical Keystone production filled with some sight gags, particularly on the tennis court, goofiness, exaggerated mannerisms, and out of place scenes which have nothing to do with anything. Chaplin's scene with the ice box is a case in point. We've seen his drunken bit a bit too much by now. As it is, these early Keystone films were largely experimental with performers feeling their way and ad-libbing through films, trying to find what's right for audiences and maybe discover something new. This film does nothing new for Chaplin. *1/2 of 4 stars.

Star Boarder, The (1914) ** (out of 4) Lower Keystone short features Charles Chaplin playing the landlady's pet, which doesn't sit too well with the other tenants and it certainly doesn't go over well with the woman's jealous husband. While this film doesn't really work it at least features a couple funny sequences with Chaplin doing his magic. Even though we still don't see the Chaplin the world would end up loving, these early shorts at least show him growing as an artist. One of the better scenes in the film is when Chaplin is trying to learn how to play tennis. The facial expressions of anger are quite funny as is another scene where Chaplin notices the woman's husband is standing behind him yet he tries to play dumb as if he didn't see the husband. The rest of the film is pretty weak without too many laughs, although the ending is a pretty nice kicker.

For about the first two thirds of The Landlady's Pet ( that's the real title, by the way - The Star Boarder was the former title, but ultimately it was changed) it seems that it is going to come across as three distinctly separate parts - the first third, where Charlie is the "star boarder," the landlady's favorite lodger to the chagrin of her jealous husband, the drunken scene, and the obnoxious son's disruptive magic lantern show.But as soon as the lantern show begins it becomes clear that it is going to tie the rest of the film together, which is something that Chaplin wasn't doing much during that first year making Keystone short comedies for Mack Sennett. The drunken scene is sort of a straggler, it doesn't seem to have any reason for being there other than that Chaplin can do it so well (so well, in fact, that Robert Downey Jr. included it as part of his performance in the phenomenal 1992 film about Chaplin's life), the conclusion of the film and the tying up of loose ends is a welcome surprise.Watch for Gordon Griffith, a mainstay in Chaplin's earliest films, stealing the show as the landlady and her husband's obnoxious son. It's easy to see why Chaplin kept casting him in his films!

This is a film from Chaplin's first year in films. During this VERY hectic year, he churned out film after film after film for Keystone Studios and the quality of the films are, in general, quite poor. That's because the character of "the Little Tramp" was far from perfected and the films really had no script--just the barest of story ideas. While some Chaplin lovers might think this is sacrilege, all these movies I have seen are pretty lousy. Yes, there are some cute slapstick moments but barely any plot--absolutely NOTHING like the Chaplin we all came to love in his full-length films of the 20s and 30s.Compared to other Keystone Chaplin films I have watched, this one is slightly better because it has a little more plot. And, it is fun to see the jealous husband and Charlie fight in the end. But, that's really about all there is to the movie. Certainly this is NOT an artistic of interesting film.