I despise this movie
-
Lola_22 — 18 years ago(June 06, 2007 09:48 PM)
That's more than a little uncalled for, carbracer1987. Chaplin was not a pathetic loser and his relationship with his last wife was his healthiest one, despite their age difference. Do I agree that he dated so many underaged girls? No, of course not. But to attack the original poster like that was unnecessary.
-
-
virtourist — 21 years ago(January 04, 2005 07:40 PM)
I agree. Chaplin was a brilliant filmmaker, yet this movie mentions The Gold Rush like a footnote, and completely passes over Modern Times, quite possibly his greatest acheivement. Any movie made after The Great Dictator isn't even referenced. I have great admiration for Richard Attenburough, but this movie was disappointing.
-
Tavish_McDonell — 21 years ago(January 05, 2005 10:57 PM)
As a Chaplin fan, I sympathize with the original post. However, we can't just leave Chaplin alone, even if that's what he may have wanted: he became the most recognizable face on earth, a public figure, the first film superstar. His importance goes beyond his own wishes.
I'm not sure Attenborough and his team had a workable take on Chaplin's oeuvre before they started this movie. A few complaints: Robert Downey Jr. is surprisingly nimble and pulls off most of the physical comedy, but his imitations of the Tramp's facial expressions and mannerisms fall flatbut I can't say who might've done better. Having Moira Kelly play the first sweetheart and Chaplin's last wife was a gimmick that trivialized a long and complex love life. McCarthy and Hoover are predictably demonized for the umpteenth time as meddlers in the right of Hollywood denizens to self-indulge. The stylized "keystone cops" sequence (when Charlie and his gang are on the lam in Utah) was irritating and unfaithful to Chaplin's work: he wanted to make more intelligent films than that, like his anti-keystone cops parody, Easy Street. Without the innovations of Chaplin and Keaton, who knows how long we'd have been watching flying cream pies and donny brooks?
While this film is not unwatchable, it did not add anything to my appreciation of Chaplin films. There was not enough emphasis on his creative process, and too much dirty laundry. The tone was altogether too downbeat. The sweeping biopic genre makes all of its victims failures, because you have to watch them get old and die. Hey, I think I'll put on One A.M. and laugh my ass offChaplin made that in a couple of days all by himself and it's better than anything Attenborough ever did. -
santaraskasinger — 21 years ago(March 28, 2005 09:42 PM)
I think we are missing the intention point of view. I don't believe Attenborough was planning to show the greatness of chaplin's movies, we hardly even get to see any of it. I think the movie was about taking chaplin out of the character and giving us the real story. If chaplin didn't wanted some of his personal experiences to be shared with everyone i don't think he would have written a autobiography and his family wouldn't have allowed the movie to be made as it was.
Chaplin's work cannot be honored in one film, if there is no mention of his movies is becuase that would have been a distraction for the primary object, chaplin, not his work.
There are indeed things i don't share with the production, like putting Moira Kelly in the 2 parts, that definetely gave a direct opinion about Chaplin's love life that, in my opinion, was too much.
Again i just think taht intention is what makes the artist, intention put charlie in a different level. -
bellissimo_10 — 20 years ago(April 09, 2005 08:53 PM)
i just saw this film and loved it. I know very little abut charlie chaplin but by the looks of this film, it was to portray his character alone, like the last poster said. It proved that america ruined his life, even though he did nothing to them. They called him a communist, pedifile, jew, against politics, a nazi, etc. He was a man passionate about his films and wanted to entertain people.
Before this film, most people probably thought he was a loser as a person because of how america depicted him, especially j.edgar hoover. This film shows people he was a good man.
I don't think any of you guys saw what the film was all about. -
ram-solo — 20 years ago(May 06, 2005 04:20 AM)
I totally agree with the last two posts.
Everybody knows his work was exceptional.
This film was about showing that he as a person too was exceptional'
He has inspired so many people worldwide ..
To date we can see this in so many films
In India alone .. Raj Kapoor made a career in hommage to Chaplin. a film 'Mera Naam Joker' where RK portrays a clown with a life motto of smile & make smile, his earlier roles inspired by Chaplin's tramp character (Awaara, Anari, Jis Des Mein Ganga Rehti Hai amongst others.) RK also made opportunities to fresh ideas & a similar unity of producers similar to what Chaplin did with United Artists.
Even this year Sanjay Leela Bhansalis film 'Black' about a dumb deaf girl & her teacher showed inspirations of Charlie Chaplin.
Coming back to Attenborough's film. It inspired me no end.
One of my best films of all time. Mainly because it was about him not his films. -
Diaeresis — 20 years ago(May 17, 2005 03:33 PM)
Mainly because it was about him not his films.
Indeed a point seemingly lost on some previous commentators. To those that would berate the movie as not sufficiently covering his artistic expertise, the title should explain the reason : "Chaplin", i.e. the person & his life experiences, not a documentary of film-making skills.
As for the earlier comment about him being a "perverted paedo" or whatever the poster said mate, you clearly need to get some life experience under your belt and try to avoid labelling people in such a way. -
dio52 — 20 years ago(October 04, 2005 03:00 AM)
I, as with the previous few posters, agree that the movie was an exploration of the person behind the Charlie Chaplin of the screen.
Also, there's a difference between having a penchant for 16 year old girls and real pedophilia. a 16 year old girl may have some lingering immaturities, but is hardly as naive as a child. the fact that numerous US states and many other countries set the age of 16 as the age of consent (for both sex and alcohol) further bears that out. there's a reason that statutory rape is treated differently by the law than child abuse or child molestation. -
ansbro-2 — 17 years ago(May 28, 2008 01:25 AM)
Seeing the movie helps you understand why Chaplin was stuck in the silent era.
He wasn't expressive.
He was a nut case.
I like Downey, but all the acting in this movie was very wooden.
That has to be the directors fault.
I liked "A Bridge Too Far", but Richard Attenborough is exhausted.
He looked like they dug him up to do this movie. -
kronos251 — 17 years ago(February 20, 2009 06:54 AM)
ansbro-2, you don't friggin know the real meaning of a nutcase.
Charlie Chaplin was FAR, FAR from being a nutcase.
Man, read his autobiography, or watch this film again and try to understand.
Going through such transitional periods the turn of 20th Century, living below poverty line in England, sordid family disputes and personal/romantic misunderstanding despite vast financial successes demands a sound mind, or better yet, a tremendous sense of humor. Chaplin had both. If he didn't, then he'd end up like his mother in an asylum back in merry old England.
After a second viewing, I came to like this movie. Sure, at first I found it depressing, but that's cause I knew very little of Charlie Chaplin, aside from his famous works.
I believe this movie did the man, Chaplin, justice, which he truly deserved. Someone pointed out that his own real-life granddaughter Geraldine, played Hannah Chaplin his mother in the film. I think that little-known fact truly reconfirms that the Chaplin family approved of the accuracy of this movie.
Quoting Chaplin, "Through humor, we see in what seems rational, the irrational; in what seems important, the unimportant. It also heightens our sense of survival and preserves our sanity."
The man was a genius. And a humble one at that.
Try not. Do or do not. There is no try. -
kronos251 — 12 years ago(April 05, 2013 01:12 PM)
yes, she was his daughter, thanks parisel. It's been quite a while since I wrote that post 4 years ago, lol. I probably misquoted somebody, or did a typo.
"Rommelyou magnificent bastard, I read your book!"
PATTON -
Lady_Kayura — 16 years ago(December 12, 2009 05:41 AM)
Wasn't expressive? Oh ansbro, please go on to youtube and look up the Great Dictator speech. It is one of the best speeches I have ever heard concerning the expression of one's feelings about something. In fact, here:
Please watch it. As a future Social Studies teacher, I plan on showing this each year and get my students talking.
He was avoiding talkies. He just thought that if films were going to have talking than they better have something damn important to say.
A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having. -
geordiebianconeri — 16 years ago(December 25, 2009 07:19 AM)
In contrast, I was not a Chaplin fan before seeing this movie - and as for many people of my generation (30-something), the odd out-of-context, and therefore not particularly funny, clip that was all we usually got to see on TV did not do the man justice.
But this film encouraged me to realise what a genius Chaplin was, explore his work, and I now own many of the films he made. By which criteria, the film is a success
"Wait till they get a load of me!"