PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Baxter Martin "Kids Auto Races At Venice" (1914, Lehrman) This film marks the second film Charlie acted in and the first time we would see the famous 'tramp' character. It's six minutes of Charlie at a racing cart/box/derby race thing walking onto the racing track and in front of the cameraman. He is constantly shoved or knocked out of the picture. It's neat that the film gives us the 'camera' eye as well as a couple of other points of view. So we get to see Charlie intentionally blocking the camera and getting manhandled for it repeatedly. Charlie is like a fly that won't shoo. But, alas, six minutes of one routine is a bit much. And yet, this film is as much a part of our film history as any other 'important' picture. It's 1914 dudes!!

Michael DeZubiria There is some disagreement over whether or not this is really the first film in which Chaplin performed as the beloved Tramp, since apparently Mabel's Strange Predicament was filmed a month earlier (although released two days later), but the interest of the film as the first time that audiences saw his famous character, as well as the fact that he was clearly still learning about it himself, remains clear. This was long before the times of screenplays and film scripts, and it is clear from watching the film that it is completely ad-libbed, but what is also clear is not only the talent but also the symbolism and the foreshadowing of Chaplin's later career, which Chaplin could not even have known he was doing himself.A lot of people have made the mistake of judging this film based on the quality of Chaplin's later work, which is ridiculous not only because the film was made during such an embryonic period of film history, but also because less than a half a year before it was made, Chaplin was acting on stage in England and knew absolutely nothing about film-making. Only a few years before this film was made, a film that depicted a group of people simply walking past the camera or people jumping into a lake was considered successful. The very thought of a "moving picture" had itself not lost its sense of being a novelty, so this film, if anything, was ahead of its time.What is also worth noting is that, in the world's first look at Chaplin's most famous character, we get such a clear sense of his love of the crowd and his desire to be in front of the camera. It is very important when watching these early films to keep in mind the historical context in which they were made, and not only the films made by Chaplin but from anyone else who was making them during this period. This is the very beginning of film-making in Los Angeles, a rare look at one of the cinema's biggest talents literally learning his talent on camera in a young Hollywood. To write the film off because of simple comedy or time-damaged quality is absurd.First of all, I am immediately fascinated by the film because of the fact that it was filmed in Venice, California, where I lived until about two months ago. Nothing is recognizable, since it was filmed 90 years ago and most of the setting is covered by crowds of people, but it should also be noted that Chaplin is literally trying on the costume which would soon make him one of the most famous people in the world, and in this six-minute comedy he is wandering around in a film learning his own act. That people today immediately demand high-budget quality from a film like this is ludicrous, to say the least.It's also interesting to consider the fact that, while the film is very, very simple and the improvised comedy is not complex in any way, it is also very real and fits perfectly as an introduction to Chaplin as an actor and the Tramp as an everyday character. Watch any live, on-location news broadcast today and look at what any jerk standing behind the camera is trying to do, and the realism of some guy at the auto races, the Tramp, wandering in front of the camera and mugging makes even more sense. It's also interesting to see the people in the background, curious about this new film thing, obviously staring directly at the camera and watching the filming.Chaplin, as he did in Making A Living, his first film, plays a bit of an unlikable character, but only unlikable as compared to what the Tramp would later become. He was a cheat and a swindler in Making A Living, while here he is just an annoying passer-by who won't go away. The film is book-ended by odd clippings of a note to "his best girl," and it is unclear why he "made tracks for the track," but for whatever reason, he was there and made it his mission to be in front of the camera of an increasingly irritated cameraman as much as possible.The cameraman that Charlie is constantly blocking is played by Henry Lehrman, who directed the first few of Chaplin's comedies and with whom Chaplin never had a very positive relationship, either on screen or off. So many people are immediately put off by the technical crudity or stylistic simplicity or physical decay of films like this, but I think that they are even more fascinating for reasons like this. Filmed more than 90 years ago, it is still a clear look at Chaplin's budding career, both on and off the screen.Only a few months later, he would begin directing his own films and his nearly unmatched career in film-making would be launched. Anyone with even a mild interest in film history or silent films should not miss this one, as it is a major landmark in cinematic history and the career of one of its biggest stars. For those of you that demand complex plots and polished film-making, maybe you should stick to watching modern film.

tavm Kid Auto Races in Venice is historical in that it marks Charlie Chaplin's first appearance as The Tramp. In this short film, The Tramp is a spectator in a soap box derby race that is being filmed. Throughout the short, Charlie keeps getting in front of the camera and getting pushed off by either the cameraman or other spectators. In addition, he almost gets knocked off by some of the kid racers! Obviously not much to mention of the plot of this six minute short but for some reason I was constantly amused by Chaplin's constant wandering in and out of the path of where the race cars were going as well as the cameraman's attempts to get him out of the way. Worth a look for film history buffs and the easily amused.

SnorrSm1989 There has been quite a bit of debate through the years among silent film fans as to whether KID AUTO RACES AT VENICE should or should not be considered the birth of Chaplin's Tramp. On the one hand, much suggests that MABEL'S STRANGE PREDICAMENT was filmed a bit earlier; the most significant evidence being Chaplin's own recollection in his autobiography. However, KID AUTO RACES AT VENICE was definitely the first of the two films to be released and hence introduce the character to audiences (if only by a mere two days--films were made more rapidly back then). Perhaps it doesn't really matter that much, in the end. This improvised little film does in any case provide one of Chaplin's very, very first performances as the Tramp. As Swedish poet and critic Lars Forssell has pointed out, the film has received retrospective interest more or less similar to that given the earliest paintings of Pablo Picasso.What is certain is that Chaplin appears to be more comfortable and playful with this new-found outfit of his, than in his very first film MAKING A LIVING (where he'd appeared with a more typical villain-type of costume). He'd still spend a few months or even years developing the character into the immortal personality we all remember so well, but also if one ignores our own knowledge of what would come later, I believe the potential is very evident even at this point. The plot is perhaps even simpler than the average Keystone-film: Charlie attends the races one afternoon and causes frustration for a cameraman, played by the actual director of this film Henry Lehrman. Many a commentator of the film has remarked that the constant kicking between performer and director in this film may not have been all acting. Lehrman and Chaplin constantly argued, as the director felt this newcomer from England took too many liberties as a performer. The entire film, which was shot on location, lasts for seven minutes, and doesn't really go anywhere.CITY LIGHTS is a far way ahead, no doubt about it. However, there's something about this little fellow, even here. His way of turning up again in front of the camera, as Lehrman is apparently trying to shoot some footage of the actual races, is still funny. I can hardly think of any other performer, at Keystone or anywhere else, who could've done so well with so little material, especially when one considers that few of his colleagues at the company had much faith in him at this early point. His peculiar grimaces and agility make one interested in this little pest of a fellow. Had Chaplin not been in KID AUTO RACES AT VENICE, and marked the film with the Tramp's oddly unforgettable presence as well as historical interest in retrospect, it would probably have been one of Keystone's least memorable efforts, in their history. However, one other notable feature in the film is the fact that it was filmed during an authentic 1914 "kid auto race," with an authentic audience not prepared for a film crew. Some bystanders seem to be uncertain about Chaplin's role; is he part of the crew, or an actual pest? Soon enough, of course, few were to wonder who Charlie Chaplin was. (This review has since been somewhat updated and revised, Jan. 2013)