Why is is rated so low?
7.2? Hello, this movie is sick!!!
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Chaplin (1993) Discussion > Why is is rated so low?
Meh. 7.2 is pretty good. Had it been a 6.2...then there would be murders.
Anything over 7 is generally pretty respectable.
it is pretty bad considering Inglorious Basterds & Avatar are in the top 50!
shareNo one should put Inglourious Basterds and Avatar in the same sentence. It's extremely laughable to consider Avatar as anything other than garbage.
shareYup. Especially when compared to the masterpiece that is Chaplin.
--
Taked baby. Meet at later bar, night or day sometime.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Robert Downey, Jr. is one of the most brilliant actors of my time. That's my humble opinion. He may be screwed up personally, have all kinds of problems, he might even be a raging moron - but when the lights come on, he's sublime and I believe him in everything I've seen him in.
"I jumped off a roof for you"
Quite right - I am glad to find somebody else that thinks Avatar is garbage; in fact it is complete garbage - hyped up so much, it had to do box-office!
shareStuff like Avatar are masterpieces of their own. They revolutionized the whole CGI.. but the story is just Poccahonthas in space. Why Chaplin is voted that low, considering many other great films, is a riddle to me.
shareI have to agree that 7.2 is quite low. This is one of the rare movies i would give a perfect 10. It captures the Chaplin era, beautifully. And Downey is one guy who commands your attention when on screen. You just cant take your eyes off him.
shareThis movie is a masterpiece! I loved it, and it's without a doubt one of the best biopics I've ever seen. Robert Downey Jr. was incredible. I was really shocked to come here and find it only has a 7.2 rating
shareIt 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.com - cinema has a history
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.
[deleted]
7.3 is too high, if you ask me. This morose and old-fashioned biopic got a 6 from me.
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
[deleted]