Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Sammy-Jo Cervantes 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.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

TheLittleSongbird 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. From his post-Essanay period when he was working for Mutual, 'One A.M.' is not one of his very best. His Essanay and Mutual periods show a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career, from 1914, The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence periods where his style had been found and starting to settle. 'One A.M.' is among the best of his early work and for me it is one of the best of his output under Mutual.Certainly other efforts of his have more pathos and a balance of that and the comedy than 'One A.M', which is very comedy-oriented. On the other hand, 'One A.M' looks pretty good, not incredible but it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work and not churning out countless shorts in the same year of very variable success like he did with Keystone. Appreciate the importance of his Keystone period and there is some good stuff he did there, but the more mature and careful quality seen here and later on is obvious here and preferred.'One A.M' is one of his funniest from this period and does it without being over-reliant on slapstick. Some very impressive stunts here. It moves quickly and there is a more discernible and busier story to usual, even if at times it could have had more variety.Chaplin directs more than competently, if not quite cinematic genius standard yet. He also, as usual, gives a very funny and expressive performance and at clear ease with the vast physicality of the role. It was essential for him to work, being a one-man show and he succeeded brilliantly, for me it was one of his best performances up to this point of his career.In summary, very well done indeed. 9/10 Bethany Cox

The_Movie_Cat In 1916 the Mutual Films company released eight Chaplin pictures, highlighting a marked decrease in his output but also a marked increase in the quality. This was a theme that was to continue throughout the rest of his career, as the following year he would release half as many again, though with increased results. Come the mid 20s and Chaplin's down to just one feature every three to five years, though most of them classics.As for the Mutual output in 1916, then despite the increased artistry, many of them are still a couple of steps away from "Chaplin as genius". Indeed, while well staged, shorts like "The Floorwalker" and "The Fireman" are really just an extended series of people being kicked repeatedly up the backside. One A.M breaks that mould, an upturn in quality that would continue into the equally brilliant "The Pawnbroker" and "The Rink" two more shorts that would showcase Chaplin as a tremendously gifted acrobat. "Behind The Screen" was another upturn in quality from this run, a film that combined a witty deconstruction of the slapstick genre along with a daring gay gag, quite shocking for 1916. But it was the stunts that were most notable for the year - if not quite death-defying, then certainly serious injury defying.One A.M. is another foray into Chaplin doing a non-Tramp character, this time a drunken aristocrat. While Charlie's immense physical gifts can be seen in most of the films of the age, many of them are of a type, in particular him falling backwards onto his shoulder blades. By marked contrast, then many of the stunts seen in One A.M. are truly extraordinary, combining both substantial physical danger along with witty innovation. A virtual solo piece, it's basically one joke extended for twenty minutes, yet it's a very good joke given enormous invention and considerable charm. A stand out of the year that culminated in the classic "The Rink".

brando647 Another amusing skit, this time with Charlie Chaplin flying solo as a drunk stumbling his way through his home in the wee hours of the morning as he tries to make his way to bed. While Chaplin is definitely one of my favorite silent era stars, this short didn't seem up to par with some of his other films. It almost seemed to drag for a couple minutes. It was amusing, no doubt. It just wasn't as fun as some of his other films, when he is given the chance to play off the supporting characters. We are treated to some good bits in this run (particularly his bout with the fold-out bed). His brand of physical situation comedy was enough to bring some laughs out of me, just less than he has before.There isn't really a whole lot one can say about Chaplin's early films, seeing as how technologically they didn't have a whole lot to work with, and storyline isn't an issue when we're looking at twenty minutes of slapstick entertainment. So, the only real aspect to look at in his movies, specifically this one, is: is it funny? If you're looking for a couple good chuckles, this movie delivers but keep in mind this is not his strongest short. While that may be the case, it is still an entertaining 20 minute dose of Charlie and well worth checking out for any fan of the comedy legend.

deepcheck This short film numbers among Chaplin's best, and is a stunning example of his skill as a silent physical comedic actor. However, one has to enjoy silent, completely non-verbal, comedy in the first place. While I laughed almost non-stop through this entire film, close friends of mine, who were not entertained by Chaplin's physical gaffes, quickly lost interest.