Chaplin

When he first ran onto a music hall stage to replace his faltering mother, Charles Chaplin was a natural entertainer who seemed to be able to captivate the audience. With his mother's failing health, he is forced to put her in a home and sets out on tour in America. Discovering moving pictures for the first time, Chaplin jumps at the chance to work in them himself. Quickly he has made his name and, with his brother as manager, gets more power and more money. However like Biggie said, more money brings more problems and Chaplin's life off-screen is not as amusing as it is on. Biopics are difficult to get right and Chaplin is an example of one that somehow fails to have that hook necessary to really make for a great film rather than just a recounting of the past. By taking a sweeping view over his whole life the film does the latter pretty well but causes the weaknesses that stop it hitting the former as well as it needed to. This means it is still an interesting film to watch but yet somehow the characters are not totally there and the emotional involvement is strangely lacking. Although the film details the rather seedier side of Chaplin's relationships (the fact they are often underage) it never does it in a judgemental way and it gives him a rather easy ride – although perhaps the film was just conveying Hollywood's acceptance of such tastes (hence Polanski is still given awards even though he cannot come onto American soil) but I would have liked a bit more of questioning of him than just mentioning it. This is really what is missing – emotion. The old chestnut of flashbacks from an old man works to produce a story but doesn't help make a person; I was happy with the rough facts and the historical context it gives to some of Chaplin's films but I never felt much about him as a person. Part of the problem with this is Downey Jnr himself. Although he gets the mannerisms and looks pretty well, he fails to capture the sadness behind the comedy – sure he acts out the drama but it fails to really flow through him in the way that it would come through the man himself in his films. That said, it is still a good performance and this failing is not his problem. The support cast are all OK but again none really produce character depth and people, merely delivering actions. However it is still hard to ignore a cast that includes Aykroyd, Thaw, Tomei, Miller, Jovovich, Lane and Hopkins. Overall this is an interesting film but one that fails to really engage on an emotional level. The facts are all laid out in such a way that I felt I learnt from it but I didn't think it actually got to the heart of the man. At times this works but at other times the lack of heart makes the subject feel distant and quite plodding. Worth seeing if you have an interest in Chaplin but if you already know the facts or just don't care about him then it is unlikely you'll get much from this.

I heard so much about this movie before I saw it that I was really disappointed when the time came. The only reason I gave it a 4 out of 10 instead of a worse note, is Robert Downey's excellent job and - yeah, even Geraldine Chaplin's portrait of her insane grandmother. But the rest... how uninspired is everything! Hopkins' fictional character is absolutely pointless and pretentious, the portraits of Chaplin's women are so superficial as the historical content (the FBI in a 30years-permanent paranoic attitude towards the dangerous tramp, huuh...), all the details picked up from Chaplin's autobiography are or unreflected or badly told (p. g. the scene where the mother says: "If you only had brought me a cup of tea" - you DON'T understand this if you haven't read the book, and it loses all is meaning, 'cause there is a mix of guilt, fear and love in the feelings of the boy that is almost lost in the scene and the film)... No, this is not a well-told movie. Apart from the fact that it offers no deeper relection on what it IS to be a comedian or a genius. Boring. The best part is, without the shadow of a doubt, the final part where we have the possibility to see original Chaplin-film-scenes. That, indeed, could be a merit of this movie: it makes you want to watch the true Chaplin.

An attempt to make a film that is both honest and at the same time shamelessly self-serving about its (auto)biographical subject -- the legendary comedian/director Chaplin -- is pulled off with style. It's fun to see some modern talents inhabit the roles of screen's bygone icons (though in some cases a little less charicature would have been appreciated, especially in the case of Mabel Normand). Kline, surprisingly enough, makes a convincing Fairbanks. The rest of the cast is also well-picked -- X-Files fans should watch closely to catch quite a few glimpses of lower-billed David Duchovny as Chaplin's personal editor. The direction is very good; I particularly liked how some of the straight scenes were filmed in a comic, surrealist style (Chaplin's escape from the police w/ his cans of "the Kid" reels is staged like a Keystone Komedy), while some of what might have been more comic elements are played straight (Chaplin's attempt to convince his brother that "The Tramp" cannot talk in a movie is both funny and serious, for example). Some of the (perhaps true to life) melodramatic elements are a bit overplayed (the bit with his mom was handled too heavily for my tastes, especially her shouting his name as she's dragged away by the asylum guards), but generally the film avoids genre cliches and "easy" scenes. Great photography. Downey Jr. fits the roll well, even rising to many of the physical challenges of the Chaplin mystique. A superior film of its type, laced with self-conscious humor and self-reflection on the artistic temperament.

source: Chaplin

Chaplin

The IMDb trivia for Attenborough states regarding his cinematic thinking states that: "Philosophies include believing in content as opposed to style and sincerity rather than intelligence." Sometimes these things work in his films, but the fact is that in art, sincerity is almost always obtained through intelligence, and honesty has little to do with truth. Chaplin knew it, so none of his films are "true" in a strict sense of the word, but all of them are above all honest. This why, all and all, i don't quite enjoyed this film: because it failed to reach the "content" of Chaplin's work. Attenborough is, nevertheless, very competent, and so is his camera work, many times quite interesting (though in these concerns, as well as editing, watch his bright A bridge too far), and that very aspect makes this partially worth the time. "-what do we do? -We smile" For me, Chaplin is one of the synonyms for emotion in cinema. Films become part of people's lives. Many get into those lives bended by context, which means, the ones people had the opportunity (good or bad luck) to watch. Chaplin got into my life quite early and, for a long time, i never understood exactly what he did, i don't remember in my childhood watching a full film of his, but many excerpts are part of my visual memories (chaplin for children). Growing up and understanding how all the drama, all the emotion (beyond the "funny") exists in his cinema was a true revelation to me and a gate into cinema as an art. the "clown effect", the tramp always smiling is always capable of showing the beautiful and the horrible, the dark and the shiny, dark in what it shows, shiny in what it comes to provoke. This is humanism in cinema, in my personal thoughts. From what I know, Chaplin is at the top of those who (tried to) master this. In the particular film, emotion is left to the end; which is nevertheless fully made after cinema paradiso. But its strenght is there because it simply displays Chaplin's films. The most successful option here, to my view, would have been to bring out "content" instead of "facts". So, back to the citation from IMDb's trivia, what i find here is a different notion of "content" (different than my own) which, for Attenborough, ended up as a collection (that i would call a little bit dull) of facts, making cinema secondary. In the movie Chaplin says "if you want to know me, watch my movies". That would be the key Nevertheless, Downey Jr is very very strong here and his physical acting is truly remarkable. Meanwhile, as a biographical movie", my personal choice still goes to the very recent and relatively unknown "life and death of Peter Sellers" for it reaches much more into the soul of the artist. My evaluation: 2/5 overall a failure, even though it's not bad to watch (mainly due to Downey's Jr acting and some camera work) http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

When you make a biography of a historical figure, you have to realize that, no matter how interesting or complex their life is, you can only put so much in. Some writers/directors are able to edit the life story of a person down to two hours or less ("The Desert Fox" and most old Warner Brothers' biopics being good examples of this). When this is too difficult, often (as in the case of "Patton" and "Lawrence of Arabia") the film will focus on a specific important period of the character's life. "Chaplin" tries to focus on all of Chaplin's life over the course of a two and a half hour movie, and fails miserably. Well, that isn't fair. I shouldn't say it's a complete failure. In terms of production values, it does a great job of capturing the time period portrayed - the '20s and '30s, when cinema was first turning from a novelty into the art form and indispensible entertainment medium it is today. Robert Downey, Jr. does a fantastic job as Chaplin, and deserves all the credit he has gotten for his performance. But the fact is, Chaplin's life is too complex and multi-faceted to fit into a two-and-a-half hour film - maybe even into a four hour epic, like "Lawrence of Arabia". Most of the major events and people and in his life are barely touched upon before the film moves on. Admittedly, they pretty much have to, the way the film is set up. But innumerable should-be-important characters are scuttled after only a few minutes of screen time. The supporting cast is a huge rogue's gallery of A- and B-list stars in cameos and supporting roles, with very mixed results. The best are Geraldine Chaplin, ingeniously cast as her own grandmother; Kevin Dunn as J. Edgar Hoover (though IMO his character was given perhaps too prominent of a part); Kevin Kline as Douglas Fairbanks; and Dan Ankroyd as the director who first made Chaplin a star. The rest of the cast is, as said above, a riot of cameo appearances, with actors like Diane Lane, Marisa Tomei, and James Woods (to name a few of the more prominent examples) on screen just long enough for the viewer to say, "Hey, it's -!" - which, needless to say, gets annoying after awhile. Anthony Hopkins' author character in particular is a waste of that fine actor's talent. And while it's amusing to see a teenage Milla Jovovich and pre-"X-Files" David Duchovny before they became famous, they're certainly not enough to watch the movie for. If this were just the case for one or two characters, it would be no problem, but there are undoubtedly going to be problems when pretty much EVERY FRICKIN' CHARACTER falls under such a category. As a film, "Chaplin" is hit or miss. It's got a number of good elements - Attenborough's great direction, Downey's fine performance, and a few of the more prominent supporting characters - but unfortunately tries to cram too much into 143 minutes. I'd suggest checking it out, but don't expect a masterpiece. 5/10

I heard so much about this movie before I saw it that I was really disappointed when the time came. The only reason I gave it a 4 out of 10 instead of a worse note, is Robert Downey's excellent job and - yeah, even Geraldine Chaplin's portrait of her insane grandmother. But the rest... how uninspired is everything! Hopkins' fictional character is absolutely pointless and pretentious, the portraits of Chaplin's women are so superficial as the historical content (the FBI in a 30years-permanent paranoic attitude towards the dangerous tramp, huuh...), all the details picked up from Chaplin's autobiography are or unreflected or badly told (p. g. the scene where the mother says: "If you only had brought me a cup of tea" - you DON'T understand this if you haven't read the book, and it loses all is meaning, 'cause there is a mix of guilt, fear and love in the feelings of the boy that is almost lost in the scene and the film)... No, this is not a well-told movie. Apart from the fact that it offers no deeper relection on what it IS to be a comedian or a genius. Boring. The best part is, without the shadow of a doubt, the final part where we have the possibility to see original Chaplin-film-scenes. That, indeed, could be a merit of this movie: it makes you want to watch the true Chaplin.

A disappointing flat biopic, given that there is so much interesting material about Chaplin's professional and private life. Richard Attenborough obviously reveres Chaplin's artistry as a performer but fails miserably to show this in the film. The various stages of his life are joined by the artificial device of him talking to a publisher (as he writes his autobiography) and especially why he fails to mention certain key aspects of his life. It doesn't work and the sections of film seem strangely disjointed and fail to conjoin into a whole. Apart from a wonderful performance from Robert Downey as Chaplin himself, the rest is a mess and worst of all the film is plain BORING! I suggest viewers would be better off either reading a biography of Chaplin's life or better still go back to the source material and watch his original films ( I recommend City Lights & The Gold Rush).

Chaplin is a good subject and was a terrific filmmaker, but his story is not well served here. The movie limps along, Downey's excellent performance notwithstanding. The reporter as plot device -- well done in GANDHI -- is intrusive here, though it does show off Downey's range. One might hope for Kevin Brownlow to assemble a documentary for Chaplin even half as good as the stunning BUSTER KEATON: A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW. Until then, other sources will have to do.