Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

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. It is hard to not expect a lot with all his feature films between 'The Kid' and 'Limelight' being very good to masterpieces. On that front Chaplin's penultimate film 'A King in New York' disappoints a little. As far as his feature films go it is one of his weaker ones, being nowhere near the standard of 'The Gold Rush', 'The Kid', 'Modern Times', 'The Great Dictator' and especially 'City Lights'. As far as his overall career goes it is nowhere near among his worst, including his early career short films it is much better than the worst of his Keystone period and even his much improved Essanay period had a couple of lacklustre ones. He also did a couple of historical curios and patchworks that this is also superior to. 'A King in New York' has its problems. It is one of his least visually refined feature films. Some of the camera work and editing are rough and the evoking of New York is not very convincing at all, it was made in England rather than being authentic and it is very obvious it was not shot in New York. Chaplin also lays it on far too thick with the political elements which, while admirably cutting and personal, felt very heavy-handed and not always needed. Especially what is said from the young boy. Chaplin is no stranger to including politics in his films and short films and they are not subtle, but it comes over as very bitter and aggressive here in a way that wasn't there previously. A few parts go on too long too and could have been trimmedHowever, the music is good, neither intrusive or out of place. Chaplin does give a typically great performance and the supporting cast acquit themselves well too. Chaplin is not at his most inspired in the directing but the expertise is still there and handled well.The film is never dull either, while the satirical element is sharp, the comedy is genuinely funny, there is some very thought-provoking insight and there is some sentiment/pathos that is very touching while not being over-the-top or overused.Summing up, good but didn't blow me away. 7/10 Bethany Cox

gavin6942 A recently-deposed European monarch (Charles Chaplin) seeks shelter in New York City, where he becomes an accidental television celebrity and is later wrongly accused of being a Communist.Although the main character is obviously the king, we have to give credit to the Communist child (or perhaps more properly anarchist). This was quite a performance, and although I do not know who that boy was, I hope he has gone on to do well for himself.We also have the advertising woman, which rounds out the characters -- the political child, the commercialism of the woman. What does it all mean? I am not quite sure. But the film is such a fine critique of McCarthyism and commercialism. Indeed, does anyone think we are not inundated with pointless ads? The Communist aspects are a bit harder to judge. At the time, he probably received great flack for this (indeed, the film was poorly received). But he was also not completely innocent -- he certainly had leftist leanings, despite his denial of such. Perhaps not strictly Communist, but most likely he was sympathetic. And why not? The king was a Communist from 1940-1950 and then resigned. This seems fair -- it was not until after World War II that America became anti-Soviet. Looking back today (50 years later), it all seems silly.

bkoganbing Although not a shred of footage was shot in New York and the cast was 98% British players, A King In New York which did not get released in the USA until the House Un-American Activities Committee had ceased to exist remains a stinging indictment of American culture of the McCarthy era. Charlie Chaplin being a premier victim of the era knew from whence he spoke and wrote.The idea of an exiled monarch from Ruritanian type royal house presumably under your typical royal family being a Communist is an oxymoron on the face of it. Yet that is exactly what Charlie Chaplin is accused of in A King In New York. Under what power an American Congressional Committee could compel testimony is still not clear, but HUAC did that too when it thought necessary.Chaplin decides to settle here, try out America before sending for his exiled Queen Irene Audley. But as funds run low, he's forced to sell his most prize possession, the good name of the monarchy in a slew of advertising schemes as launched by Dawn Addams and Sid James. Seeing the king sell all kinds of 'royal' products was pretty amusing itself.But when he visits a 'progressive' school and hears young Michael Chaplin spouting off the virtues of Karl Marx at the drop of a hat, he's taken with the kid although exasperated at being the butt of the jokes of these unruly kids. Later on when he takes the kid in after finding him on his hotel steps and the press hears him going on his Marxist jag, the exiled king is accused of being a Communist and has to go before HUAC. Chaplin waters down his testimony to the chagrin of the committee.Although Chaplin had abandoned his little tramp character at this point and the famous Hitler like mustache was gone, he still had some marvelous sight gags worthy of his silent classics. A King In New York, born out of Chaplin's exiled bitterness remains a really unjustly neglected piece of comedic satire and relevant truths of the time.

Scott_Mercer As probably one of Chaplin's lesser efforts, this falls short of the level of sheer genius to the level of mere mortal excellence.As proof of Americans' depressing ability to laugh at any ethnic group or nationality except for themselves, at the time, this movie got many Americans' hackles up, and by the looks of the comments here, still does for some people. However, Chaplin's tone in this film, described by some as bitterness, I would more accurately call incisiveness.Of course this movie had to be made in Britain, and wasn't shown in the USA for about 20 years, until after the youthquake of the late 1960's and the changing of the generational guard, proving Americans are not fond of having their foibles and hypocrisies pointed out to them in a rather obvious manner.Some of the more satirical aspects of the film, including the film trailers, TV advertising, the reality television show (Chaplin about 40 years ahead of the curve on that one) and the whirlwind feel of New York City, represent rather gentle pokes at a society in which, to remind everyone, Chaplin had worked in and made his fame and fortune in for over 40 years.It's only when the Senator McCarthy inspired storyline takes hold, around halfway through the film, that the story turns markedly more serious. Chaplin sprinkles the film throughout with references to the US Constitution, and freedom of speech, and "American blood boiling." Clearly he is on the side of freedom versus totalitarianism, and against the witch hunt like tactics of HUAC that destroyed American careers, drove people into poverty or exile, and provably never found one person that was a real, imminent danger to American society. Looking back from this point, almost everyone agrees that HUAC and its blowback were a blot on the history of the United States and its aspirations of freedom, and rightfully so.Although this aspect of the film is a bit heavy-handed, and the rather sad ending is somewhat disappointing but rather realistic within the context of the times, I feel that this only detracts mildly from the comedy on offer, Chaplin's amazing screen presence, and artistry as a writer, actor and director. It is enough to make me wish he had done more than three talking films in his career. Yes, that guy in his 60's up there on the screen with the gray hair certainly isn't the little tramp of 1920, but he is a character almost equally as compelling, and much more formidable.Not mentioned by many is the fact that Chaplin even composed the score for this film, which is in itself worthy of praise. Chaplin probably could have carved out a career as a successful film composer, over and above his other gargantuan talents.See it if you can. A King in New York is a treasure.