I despise this movie
-
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!" -
prgwbtd — 20 years ago(July 16, 2005 09:44 PM)
I'm somewhere in the middle on this subject. I enjoy the film because at this time, it's the only one that gives us a glimpse of Charlie as Charlie. However, I don't enjoy it because much of it never happened - at least the way it is portrayed. No, obviously the film was not about his work, but it would have been nice to see a part of that aspect. Chaplin said himself in his autobiography "My life is my work," and he did put that ahead of his personal life. I think some of his personal struggles were hard to place because most of the time they were directly related to his work. His work is what makes Chaplin, Chaplin to us.
What bothered me most was the unlikeness of the actors to their actual counterparts. Robert Downey Jr. was able to pul off Chaplin (somewhat) only when he was in complete makeup. Otherwise he didn't look enough like Chaplin. I found it more distracting than anything else. Finally, if you read Chaplin's autobiography, you know how events in his life really played out. It's like R. A. completely ignored many of these events and re-wrote them to his liking.
I like the premise of showing Chaplin's personal life, but it needed to be balanced with more of his work mentioned or shown, and a little more truth involved. -
r287 — 20 years ago(August 02, 2005 06:18 AM)
Wasn't this film made or with the blessing of like his daughter or something? I think this was anaccurate depiction of the real thing whereas you were hoping it would just be the glory days through rose-tinted glasses.
-
rainybklynight — 20 years ago(August 18, 2005 03:37 PM)
I loved this movie. True, Charlie hated people talking about his life, but in the end, did he not write his autobiography, so people would know the whole story, not just the tabloid scandals. He was very misunderstood; he wasn't a pedophile. There could never be a better biographical film on him. It's emotional, insightful, and you can relate. What more can you ask for. IMO, it's waaaay underrated.
-
rizdek — 20 years ago(August 30, 2005 06:24 PM)
"aint_been_to_no_music_school"
In direct response to the first poster, I liked the movie Chaplin. Downey JR did a fine job, and since I wasn't a student of Chaplin, I came away with a better sense of who was the person behind his many great movies. -
julmis — 19 years ago(February 15, 2007 05:02 AM)
What's your source on that one?
There's a story about Chaplin meeting Lita when she was a child, and then again when she was 12 during the making of the The Kid, followed by the Gold Rush and the affair, pregnancy and shotgun marriage etc a few years later.
Although Chaplin's behaviour towards her was questionable when she was 15, I haven't read anything to indicate there was continuous grooming going on for years before, not even in Lita Grey's book about her life with Chaplin, if I remember correctly. -
PhantomAngel6121 — 17 years ago(May 07, 2008 01:18 PM)
If Chaplin didn't want people knowing about his personal life then why did he write an auto-biography?
The movie is about Chaplin himself not the films that he made.
And yes it did show him in somewhat of a negative light, but that's the power of film, the ability to manipulate people's opinions through it. And really, how could you possitivly portray some of the more negative aspects of his personalty/life? With all the respect in the world, the man is very controversial. He knew it (and flaunted it as part of his seamingly melodramatic life that he wrote about in his biography) and the film makers of this movie also knew it.
I am Jack's clichd signature -
-
tody711 — 16 years ago(June 20, 2009 10:53 AM)
I agree with you Kronos. Chaplin was a good movie about a very complex person. Considering his humble beginning it is rather a "miracle" that he became what he was, a very successful actor (not only slapstick) and film maker. It is said that his half brother Sid was more talented but "a bit lazy" and did not pursue film business like Charlie did.
If you want to see how he really made movies look for the 3 (VHS) or DVD of the 1983 Thames TV special "Unknown Chaplin". It really shows how he made films, was way ahead of his time, used split screen, backward filming (see Payday movie to see him throw bricks), and how he threw things and yelled at people when things went wrong. And how he did thousands of the same shot looking for the perfect take, and how he took months off waiting for an "idea". No scripts. Just ideas. Today scripts are written, actors and crew are hired and the film is made in 2 - 8 weeks. Not Charlies movies. They took years to make.
Also go to www.snagfilms.com and watch "Charlie The Forgotten Years" to see him after he left Hollywood and lived in Switzerland. He really found the love of his life with Oona. Had 8 kids with her, was a great father. Just age caught up with him. -
allan-broadfield — 16 years ago(January 23, 2010 01:57 PM)
I was a great admirer of Chaplin from a very early age, so I suppose this film was unlikely ever to reach my expectations. However it is difficult for a 'biopic' to please everyone, especially when the person involved is so familiar, and in Chaplin's case an iconic figure. What annoyed me mostly was the carelessness in casting, one character in particular being Mack Sennet, who gave Chaplin his first chance. Sennet's appearance was thin, with white hair, whereas he was portrayed by Dan Aykroyd who would have made a very convincing Hal Roach (producer of the Laurel and Hardy pictures), rather plump and with dark hair. This I found very annoying, and was just one example.