Cleveronix A different way of telling a story

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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

guisreis "A King in New York" is a very smart and underrated movie by Charles Chaplin. While it brings the slapstick comedy that made him famous first, putting the deposed King Igor Shahdov from fictional European country Estrovia in absurd situations and making funny facial expressions, the film also presents a very important political discussion about McCarthyism and the Communist-hunting obsession, besides very nice sketches about TV shows, advertisements and cinema (the short trailers shown in the first part of the story are hilarious, and so is Ann Kay's behavior in from of the cameras). Chaplin had left the United States because of the cold war right- wing paranoia that victimized, Therefore, he produced this film in Britain, his home country, in order to satirize that undemocratic situation, just like he had done with Nazism in "The great dictator". The scenes have been shot in London, in spite of the story being held in New York. It is also essential to mention that the commie kid Rupert Macabee is an amazing character, reminding me a lot the kind of humor that would later be successfully revived by Monty Python afterwards. It is very nice to know that the 10 years old boy who played it so well was Charlie Chaplin's son Michael Chaplin! Although somewhat successful in Europe, the movie could only be screened in the United States after 16 years.

Martin Bradley Someone once described "A King in New York" as the worst film ever made by a major artist. I can think of many worse examples and while this late Chaplin picture may lack the genius of his earlier work, (it was his penultimate film; he made it several years after "Limelight" and before "A Countess from Hong Kong"), it is an often very funny satire on what Chaplin perceived as 'the modern age'. Driven out of America by McCarthyism, Chaplin constructed his New York in a British studio and typical of its writer, director, star and composer it makes no apology for its attack on right-wing politics, in particular the HUAC, as well as television, Cinemascope and plastic surgery. It's also less sentimental than it might have been, (always Chaplin's biggest fault), but the plot involving a child played by Chaplin's own son Michael, does the film no favours. On the other hand, Chaplin himself is superb and Dawn Adams is surprisingly good as a television star. No masterpiece, then but not quite the disaster some people have said of it either.

sean4554 For years I've read how controversial and second-rate this film is. I finally bought the MK2 DVD, and was amazed at how funny and intelligent Chaplin's movie really is. I can understand the controversial aspect - it's not very subtle although it's entirely correct - but second rate?? I also hear how supposedly 'shabby' the movie appears, due to a tight budget and shooting schedule, but I honestly don't see any of these flaws. In fact, "A King In New York" may be my favorite Chaplin picture. The only problem I have with the entire film is the comedians scene in the club. Every single person in attendance is laughing hysterically at two quite unfunny performers. It's actually so slow and stupidly surreal it takes away from the commentary that runs throughout the movie. Oh well, a minor quibble but, still. If you're avoiding "A King In New York" for any reason, go get it. You'll be very pleased with this classic.