Matho
The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.
Geraldine
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
Kel Boyce
How wrong can you get it? Not much more wrong than in this film. It goes no way to depicting the real Chaplin. Chaplin's early life is fairly well treated, although we don't know when or where he was born. He had no birth certificate! UK and US intelligence services concluded he originated in Eastern Europe. Butte, Montana, where does this come from? Chaplin was in Oil City Pa. when he got 'the call'. A railroad running outside Keystone Studio? Attenborough was thinking of Essanay studio in Niles, surely. Keystone Studio with a Spanish mission frontage? Not when Charlie first went there, Mr A. Chaplin too young for Sennett? Well yes, but the film doesn't give the reason, which is that Charlie was too close in years to starlet / girlfriend Mabel Normand for white- haired Mack Sennett to tolerate. Mabel screeching like a demented Lucille Ball when the egotistical Charlie refused to follow her direction? Read Charlie's autobiog – it never happened that way. The wedding scene – what wedding scene? Charlie first used the tramp in Mabel's Strange Predicament, and the character first went public in Kid Auto Races in Venice. Syd Chaplin negotiating Charlie's contract with Keystone? Syd wasn't even in the U.S. at the time negotiating began. He became a Keystone actor soon after, and would not have jeopardized his $200 per week by having a go at his paymaster. Fred Karno with a north country accent? I doubt it, he came from the west country.Let's end Charlie's time at Keystone there shall we? Whoaa, hold on a minute Mr Attenborough, didn't you know Charlie made his movie bones at Keystone, and Mabel Normand was instrumental in honing his skills AND the tramp character? The original cruel tramp was toned down during discussions with Mabel and pathos had been added to the tramp's character in post-'Mabel At The Wheel' movies. In Mabel's Busy Day, Mabel becomes the tramp, while Charlie is a kind of dude with feelings. We can also add that Mabel regularly bought Charlie new shirts, as Chaplin's were never washed, and he was too cheap to buy new ones (Minta Arbuckle).The most important period in Chaplin's movie career occurred between January and December 1914, yet Attenborough dismisses it in a few minutes. It seems odd that of all movie folk, only Attenborough thinks Mabel ceased acting in 1922. In fact, she starred in Sennett's 'Extra Girl', released 1923, and starred in a series of movies for Hal Roach up until 1927.When Chaplin went to Essanay he ran into Edna Purviance who was lying in wait for him. Wrong!! Edna was a regular at a certain cafe pointed out to Chas. He had already used Gloria Swanson, who objected to Chaplin's manner and slapstick comedy. Of course Charlie could have signed Mabel Normand, but he did not want an actress with a big price tag, nor one that had a mind of her own, that could not be molded the way control-freak Chas wanted. On occasions Mabel would spot Charlie in a restaurant and shout to him, 'Charlie I'll be your leading lady yet!' Poor naive Mabel just didn't get it. Charlie had a cockney accent, as pointed out by the film's Mary Pickford. Wrong again! Chas had developed an aristocratic way of speaking, long before 1914, and had been a dude in his time, even if he was dirty and smelly. The film depicts some low-level angst between Pickford and Chaplin, but does not go into the reasons. Unfortunately for Mary, she became involved in business with Chas. She was also involved socially with him via her husband, and the 'tramp' would often turn up at their house on Sundays. The boys would head off to the hills, while Mary was left to amuse whichever dumb, empty-headed wife Chas had brought with him. Whilst Robert Downey Jr makes a good stab at Chaplin's physical characteristics, the film falls at the first hurdle, as Attenborough has failed to depict the disparity between the Charlie that walked onto the Keystone lot, and the one that exited the gate a year later. Apart from everything else, the wistful and brooding Mabel had taught similarly endowed Charlie how to create allies in Hollywood, by being the life and soul of the party and of the lot. Without these acquired skills, introverted Charlie would have fallen flat on his face, and disappeared back into the vaudeville ether. If we ignore Attenborough's early failings, then we can say this is a well-crafted film, which makes for good entertainment. He leaves the nuances of Chaplin's character to be explained during discussions between Chaplin and his (fictitious) biographer. A similar ploy was used in Alexander the Great (2004) where the director used biographer Ptolemy to explain the intricacies of Alexander's otherwise unfathomable character. If you want a summary of Chaplin, then Mary Pickford's words will suffice: '…that obstinate, suspicious, egocentric, maddening and lovable genius of a problem child, Charlie Chaplin'. Biographical film unnecessary.
lorenzomalfer
According to me this film is very good and interesting, because it teach us lots of things about one of the most important actor in the history of the cinematography and it does it without become boring and tedious. I really enjoyed it also because before watching it I didn't know many things about him: I knew that he was a very famous and popular actor in the 1920's, at the beginning of the film history, but I didn't know anything about his private life and the difficulties that he overcame, such us his childhood in London and the problems with the US government, and in spite of these he became one successful actor and film producer. Therefore, in my opinion, this film is very interesting, especially the parts when we see him creating his most famous masterpieces, so we can understand the difficult process of make a film at that time and the amazing work that he did in his life.
elenaschiantarelli
I enjoyed this movie because it tells a lot about Chaplin's life, and it allowed me to know this character. Before seeing this movie I didn't actually know who Max Linder was, I just knew his name and nothing more. Chaplin's childhood in London was one of poverty and hardship, nevertheless he started to act when he was really young and when he moved to the States he became quickly successful. He also had to face some controversies, both in his work and in his personal life, and he defended himself revealing a strong personality. Despite the criticism his popularity continued to grow and he continued to release new films, until his health had declined to the point that he needed constant care. I really liked how the story is filmed and I think that Chaplin was a tenacious man with a strong personality that allowed him to become so popular and to be still remembered.
nicholls_les
Richard Attenborough does a brilliant job of bringing Charlie Chaplin to the screen in a wonderful biopic. It captures the genius of Chaplain and sets the right tone for the time it was depicting.Robert Downey Jr really deserved an Oscar for this.Apart from Jamie Foxx' near perfect depiction of Ray Charles in Ray, Robert Downey Jr does one of the best acting jobs portraying such a well known person.All the supporting cast are also excellent and although this is a long movie I never once get bored while watching it.It is rare to find a fairly recent movie that could be termed a classic, but Chaplin is one of those films.
