7.2? Hello, this movie is sick!!!
-
-
JoeytheBrit — 15 years ago(July 17, 2010 03:07 PM)
It might be because, although it's a well-made film with a career-best performance from Robert Downey Jr, it does have flaws. The framing device, in which Chaplin chats to his biographer (or publisher) played by Anthony Hopkins, is clumsy and filled with unwieldy chunks of exposition. But the film's biggest failing is that it gives a fairly unbalanced view of the man, portraying him in an almost saintly light. There's no mention of the shooting of Thomas Ince (it was believed Ince was mistakenly shot by William Randolph Hearst, who had allegedly discovered Chaplin was conducting an affair with Marion Davies); there's no mention of tax avoidance charges totalling $1.3 million in the 1920s; there's no mention of his extra-marital affairs; there's no mention of the ego which drove him to cut most of Buster Keaton's scenes from Limelight because he could see that Keaton's performance overshadowed his own in the scenes they shared; there's no mention of his decision to destroy the unreleased 1926 film A Woman of the Sea to (legitimately) avoid paying taxes on it.
I'm not pointing all this out because I dislike Chaplin, but because I believe any person is defined as much by their flaws and failings as they are by their better qualities. Chaplin was a genius, but he was a flawed genius - something which this film fails to show.
moviemoviesite.comcinema has a history
-
fearnotofman — 14 years ago(May 15, 2011 06:48 PM)
He was indeed a flawed genius, but
1.) Your view seems tainted. A Woman of the Sea was by all accounts a bad film that Chaplin never wanted released anyway. Why pay for a piece of junk sitting in the attic? I have to pay taxes on this crap? Then it has to go. If I have an old car sitting in my driveway that will never be driven again, I'll get rid of it instead of paying insurance on it every month. There is also no evidence of Chaplin cutting Keaton's scenes in Limelight. His widow said Keaton loved his appearance in the film and apparently Keaton was even given some flexibility to adlib, which is something Chaplin rarely allowed his actors to do.
2.) The film is already 2 1/2 hours long. Something had to be cut. I would also argue against Chaplin made to be a saintly figure. While he is portrayed overall in a positive light, his ephebophilia and his failures in relationships (largely his own fault) is clearly shown and talked about, for example. -
Gus-69 — 15 years ago(March 03, 2011 06:52 AM)
7.3 is too high, if you ask me. This morose and old-fashioned biopic got a 6 from me.
-
InCole — 15 years ago(April 04, 2011 04:42 PM)
I agree, 7.2 is a bit low, but I guess this movie didn't have enough CGI and explosions for the average viewer who just wants to watch something like Avatar and not care about the story gaps, character development etc they just want to have stereotypes of good bad and evil shoved in their face
I gave it a 8/10. It really is a great piece of work and from what I've read up on it after I watched it. It's as accurate as can be without having to actually hear it from Charlie Chaplin himself.
The movie was both touching and showed everything that one who loves the works of Charlie Chaplin would want to see, from both his professional career to his personal life. -
BrotherReed — 14 years ago(October 31, 2011 01:17 PM)
7 is too high. Chaplin is a movie about a great entertainer, lead by a great entertainer mimicking him, that is not greatly entertaining. Actually, it's not even greatly coherent. This movie bites off way more than it can chew, giving only the most cursory glance at the life of Charlie Chaplin despite taking well over 2 hours to do it, moving so quickly it's hard to even know what's going on. You get to know virtually none of the characters outside of the lead. The film on the whole simply can't overcome this great fault, despite Downey's excellent performance which is the sole reason to recommend the film. Don't feel like you have to stick up for this movie on Downey's account, or on Chaplin's. Their work stands on its own.
In the time it takes to watch this film, you could probably watch two original Chaplin silents - say, The Kid and Modern Times, or The Gold Rush - and you would come out both more entertained and with a better idea of Chaplin's genius and his influence on film. -
rhiggins-857-460661 — 14 years ago(November 18, 2011 12:40 AM)
As much as it pains me to say itthe movie is just OK, not great. It wants to be great, but never quite gets there.
You can sense that Attenborough is not sure how to tell Chaplin's story. In the end, more attention is given to scandals in Chaplin's life rather than his miraculous talent and career. I think Attenborough was a bit overwhelmed by the scope of the material. And understandably so.
However, everyone must watch this film just to see Robert Downey Jr.'s phenomenal performance. He was nominated, but ultimately robbed of the Best Actor Oscar for this performance. Totally political - I truly believe RDJ would have won if the film had received "great" reviews, instead of mixed ones. -
RickDVD — 14 years ago(December 19, 2011 10:16 AM)
I love Charlie Chaplin, which is probably why I gave it a high rating. I like RDJ and I also think it's one of his top roles, too. I also like many members of the ensemble cast, too. I've read nearly all the posts on this thread and numerous points are valid for people either liking it or not liking it.
You have to admit a few facts, as well. Remember that Chaplin was the most popular person in the WORLD for decades. That in itself is a feat not to be sneezed at. His biggest drawbacks were his obsessive want of perfection and his own personal life.
It may not be the most perfect film, and it also cuts out some details, but it would have been tough to condense all of Chaplin's life into a 2 hour movie.
"It's so hard having a good time. Even smiling makes my face ache." - Dr. Frank-N-Furter -
kag-4 — 14 years ago(January 22, 2012 12:42 PM)
I gave it an 8/10. It's not perfect. It's a little glossy at times. And Robert Downey Jr. really is the best thing about this movie (of course, since the movie itself is really good, that's saying a lot.)
I first watched this movie after it came out on video, around 1993. I liked what I'd already seen of Robert Downey Jr., but I only knew the name of Charlie Chaplin.
After watching this movie, I started watching everything I could find of Charlie Chaplin's. So, at times, like in my case, this movie is a gateway to be able to appreciate a true genius.
A genius actor playing a genius performer.
Kat
Demons I get. People are crazy -
jacobthecheeseburger — 13 years ago(July 21, 2012 07:26 AM)
I think this movie was BETTER than avatar. How can you replace a great movie with great preformance and a great script(chaplin), with a movie with epic effects(avatar)?
chaplin- 10/10
avatar- 10/10 -
Strazdamonas — 13 years ago(August 18, 2012 05:10 AM)
Many people (seen on this board) gets their pants up abut "chapplin married a 16 year old" and completely ignores everything else because in thier twisted minds its "such a horrible thing" that they must hate everything chaplin from now on. Reminds me of christians.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually. -
blackhawkswincup2010 — 13 years ago(January 03, 2013 03:39 PM)
Downey was great, but some of the supporting acting was, shall we say, less than stellar. By the way, Chaplin was 54 when Oona was 18, which is still a massive cradle-robbery, but please do your homework. It only grossed $9 million, so it's probably not going to get rated as high as it deserves.