I reckon 7 is too high, I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was so badly edited. The script is boring too.
I'd give it a 6 tops

This message has been deleted.

I could be wrong, but, I seem to remember it being a critical success, however, the public did not want to reward Downey too much recognition because of his drug problems. He really had to mind his manners and stick to the script for those troubles to " be forgiven". That said, he is quite a model for someone who is trying to re-habilitate an image.

This is the movie that made me a Chaplin fan. Robert Downey Jr. should have gotten the Oscar hands down. How would you like to play Chaplin with his family their watching you? He did an amazing job.
I never get sick of this film. Amazing.

I agree.. Even though anything above 7 on IMDb is considered a near masterpiece, this is one of the very few movies I'd rate a full 10.

The reference to christian was because christians also like to hate others just because they dont like something and they ignore reason because they can always claim god told them to. You may not be a typical christian, but you do not define them all, or majority for that matter.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

Well I loved Chaplin myself. Also I'm christian and don't really understand your reference and the overall generalization of christians. I don't hate anything. I don't judge others with beliefs different from my own. I have atheist friends. I have homosexual friends whom I do not judge one bit. I have my own shortcomings as does any human being and certainly have no right to judge or "hate" anyone.
As for Chaplins personal life, times were very different back then. It wasn't unheard of for 14 year old girls to marry. It was a showbiz lifestyle and Hollywood parties had drinking, drugs, and sex. People seem to paint tweenage girls in an almost innocent light, this couldn't be farther from the truth. They seem to forget she also conned Chaplin with a fake pregnancy and was involved in relations with other men at the same time as well.
List of best tv series voted by IMDB users http://www.imdb.com/list/ubCYOSR-b6E/

He was not a pedofile in any sense of the word.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

This message has been deleted.

Can you prove that Chalin did not love her? No? then have a big cup of STFU.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

This message has been deleted.

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.

he was 65 and married an 18 year old, that's disgusting.
no its not. Age does not matter in love.
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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

its one of my favorite movies i woul dgive it at least an 8.5-9 rating. its awesome.

I couldn't be happier with the film.

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

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

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.

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.

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.