list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Chaplin on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Chaplin/5655/default.aspx Title: Chaplin
Year: 1992
Director: Richard Attenborough
Plot: Partly based on Charlie Chaplin's My Autobiography, this humorous and dramatic biopic features an all-star cast including Oscar nominee Robert Downey Jr., Dan Aykroyd, Anthony Hopkins, Kevin Kline, Diane Lane, and Chaplin's real-life daughter, Geraldine Chaplin, who portrays his mentally ill mother. With the use of flashback, an elderly Chaplin discusses his autobiography with his editor (Hopkins), who urges him to be more vulnerable and emotionally honest with his memoirs while journeying through his poverty-stricken childhood, closest friendships, many marriages, merciless pursuit by J. Edgar Hoover (Kevin Dunn), and ingenious invention of "The Little Tramp." Highlighted works such as The Gold Rush (1925) and The Great Dictator (1940) illustrate significant turning points in Chaplin's prolific filmography. Director Richard Attenborough's film also explores the circumstances surrounding Chaplin's exile from America and his eventual return to receive an honorary Academy Award. ~ Lisa Kropiewnicki, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Fri, 16 May 2008 23:52:32 GMTChaplin1992Richard AttenboroughPartly based on <a href="/players/P___271670/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Charlie Chaplin</a>'s My Autobiography, this humorous and dramatic biopic features an all-star cast including Oscar nominee Robert Downey Jr., <a href="/players/P____80282/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Dan Aykroyd</a>, <a href="/players/P____94812/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Anthony Hopkins</a>, <a href="/players/P____38699/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Kline</a>, <a href="/players/P____40350/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Diane Lane</a>, and Chaplin's real-life daughter, <a href="/players/P____12339/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Geraldine Chaplin</a>, who portrays his mentally ill mother. With the use of flashback, an elderly Chaplin discusses his autobiography with his editor (Hopkins), who urges him to be more vulnerable and emotionally honest with his memoirs while journeying through his poverty-stricken childhood, closest friendships, many marriages, merciless pursuit by J. Edgar Hoover (<a href="/players/P____20623/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kevin Dunn</a>), and ingenious invention of "The Little Tramp." Highlighted works such as <a href=/films/13669/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Gold Rush</a> (1925) and <a href=/films/14066/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Great Dictator</a> (1940) illustrate significant turning points in Chaplin's prolific filmography. Director <a href="/players/P____80152/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Attenborough</a>'s film also explores the circumstances surrounding Chaplin's exile from America and his eventual return to receive an honorary Academy Award. ~ Lisa Kropiewnicki, All Movie Guide3Slightly Tagged (1-5)3333http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t00984qrhej.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Chaplin/5655/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/kristen/archive/2008/5/16/29318.aspx Post By: kristen
Post To: kristen Blog
Post Date: 5/16/2008 7:52:32 PM
Body: We were discussing clever ways to give a critics review using the title of this movie "Chaplin". I think that I win with "Chaplin, you're better off dead". The movie is better than death, but it probably made Chaplin turn in his grave. A genius like Chaplin deserves similar genius in a movie about him. This movie Chaplin, however, in the most horrible ways, ruins the magic of his best screen moments by demonstrating how he came up with the ideas. There are actually scenes in Chaplin where Chaplin is on a beach playing with a beach ball in that same way that he does in the memorable scene from The Great Dictator. Just a scene or two later in Chaplin a man comments to Chaplin, played horribly by Robert Downey Jr. (Who on earth would say, "YES! Hes the perfect Chaplin!"?), "Hey, you know... You look a lot like Hitler". Anyone see a movie idea? Ryan thought of a much better pick for Chaplin: Robert De Niro. We know that he does not look like Chaplin, but a he is a great actor, which would have helped the movie. All this movie needs a is a new cast, a new script, and a new director, so not too many modifications and this tribute could be great. I do not generally pick at a movie for editing, but in this case, the movie looks like a high school production student just found out that there are thousands of transition effects like stars and bubbles and wipes and cross wipes, you get the picture. I do not think that a star dissolve inot the next picture should ever be displayed in a professional movie. Straight cuts and dissolves are the way for me, and pretty much all of the professional world. The editing job here seems like the work of a beginner student. But I guess that it works with the movie, since the entire movie is obnoxious, the transitions should be as well. The structure of the movie is hard to follow. It jumps around in time and space, but only indicated jumps with titles like "seven years later". But seven years later from what point? It is not clear. If one wants to actually follow the movie, one better know Chaplin history and dates. The best part about the movie are the clips from Chaplins own great films (which damage the movie Chaplin even more because the clearly show how Chaplin is extremely talented and how Robert Downey Jr is not). Chaplin ends with a montage of famous clips in honor of the deceased Chaplin. It is moving to honor this genius, though this is not due to the movie Chaplin. Chaplin moves the audience with his own clips, unmatched by any scenes in this movie. I wish that I had spent my time reading Chaplins autobiography rather than watching this not so factual dramatization of his life. ~Kristen Gorlitz
]]>Fri, 16 May 2008 23:52:32 GMTkristenkristen Blog5/16/2008 7:52:32 PMWe were discussing clever ways to give a critics review using the title of this movie "Chaplin". I think that I win with "Chaplin, you're better off dead". The movie is better than death, but it probably made Chaplin turn in his grave. A genius like Chaplin deserves similar genius in a movie about him. This movie Chaplin, however, in the most horrible ways, ruins the magic of his best screen moments by demonstrating how he came up with the ideas. There are actually scenes in Chaplin where Chaplin is on a beach playing with a beach ball in that same way that he does in the memorable scene from The Great Dictator. Just a scene or two later in Chaplin a man comments to Chaplin, played horribly by Robert Downey Jr. (Who on earth would say, "YES! Hes the perfect Chaplin!"?), "Hey, you know... You look a lot like Hitler". Anyone see a movie idea? Ryan thought of a much better pick for Chaplin: Robert De Niro. We know that he does not look like Chaplin, but a he is a great actor, which would have helped the movie. All this movie needs a is a new cast, a new script, and a new director, so not too many modifications and this tribute could be great. I do not generally pick at a movie for editing, but in this case, the movie looks like a high school production student just found out that there are thousands of transition effects like stars and bubbles and wipes and cross wipes, you get the picture. I do not think that a star dissolve inot the next picture should ever be displayed in a professional movie. Straight cuts and dissolves are the way for me, and pretty much all of the professional world. The editing job here seems like the work of a beginner student. But I guess that it works with the movie, since the entire movie is obnoxious, the transitions should be as well. The structure of the movie is hard to follow. It jumps around in time and space, but only indicated jumps with titles like "seven years later". But seven years later from what point? It is not clear. If one wants to actually follow the movie, one better know Chaplin history and dates. The best part about the movie are the clips from Chaplins own great films (which damage the movie Chaplin even more because the clearly show how Chaplin is extremely talented and how Robert Downey Jr is not). Chaplin ends with a montage of famous clips in honor of the deceased Chaplin. It is moving to honor this genius, though this is not due to the movie Chaplin. Chaplin moves the audience with his own clips, unmatched by any scenes in this movie. I wish that I had spent my time reading Chaplins autobiography rather than watching this not so factual dramatization of his life. ~Kristen Gorlitz http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/14/29073.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/14/2008 12:12:52 AM
Body: Hey, do you want to see a movie that complelty takes the magic out of one of the greatest directors in the history of film, along with Hollywood and filmmaking itself? Then I have a movie for you! There are so many problems with this film I don't where to begin, but I guess I should start with the obvious. Frankly, Robert Downey Jr. just plain sucks as Charlie Chaplin. He doesn't look that much like him, doesn't sound like him, and is a pale imitator of a great artist. I kept thinking that an actor like Robert De Niro (even though he looks less like Chaplin than Downey) would have been better for the part- I think that only a master thespian could have played the star. Attenborough makes a major mistake when he uses clips from actual Chaplin movies in the film- it highlights the massive difference. In his defence, Downey is given a really awful screenplay to work with. Co-written by three writers, (one of them the very talented William Goldman), the script is a mess. It's as if they sole source the writers used was an encyclopedia article on Chaplin. The script insists on portrying Chaplin as being miserable, but never explains why. This made even more strange by the fact it gives him an apparent pass on his relationships with teenage girls. It treats these relationships as a life problem for Chaplin, but never a fault. Weird. On top of all of these problems is the moronic choice to set up virtually everythign that happens in his life with cheesy. For example, in one of the many uneccessary scenes in the film, Chaplin takes his sons to the beach and plays with a beach ball, which later becomes the inspiration for The Great Dictator. In another he plays with some breadsticks on forks out of bordom, and...well you get the idea. The screenplay's fault could have been overcome by strong direction, but that's something that Sir Richard Attenborough appears unable to provide. He uses cliche's like irisis to present the days of silent film, makes the characters have zero depth to them and causes a lot of confusion as to when events take place and in what order. And, as stated above, he blew it when he cast Downey as Chaplin. Finnaly, Downey's makeup job is horrible. In his elderly years, he looks like some alien in a Michael Jackson video, not Charlie Chaplin. To be fair to the film, a few things work. All of the actors except Downey are good (Dan Ackroyd as Mack Sennet particularly stands out), and the movie does have some technically impressive cinemtography. But nothing here comes close to explaining anything about the man. The worst part about the whole film is that it seems to destroy the magic of Hollywood and Chaplin's films. At one point in the movie, Chaplin says "If you want to know me, watch my movies." That may or may not be true, but I am sure you'd sure have a lot more fun watching those films than watching this cinematic disaster. Chaplin (1992)
]]>Wed, 14 May 2008 04:12:52 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/14/2008 12:12:52 AMHey, do you want to see a movie that complelty takes the magic out of one of the greatest directors in the history of film, along with Hollywood and filmmaking itself? Then I have a movie for you! There are so many problems with this film I don't where to begin, but I guess I should start with the obvious. Frankly, Robert Downey Jr. just plain sucks as Charlie Chaplin. He doesn't look that much like him, doesn't sound like him, and is a pale imitator of a great artist. I kept thinking that an actor like Robert De Niro (even though he looks less like Chaplin than Downey) would have been better for the part- I think that only a master thespian could have played the star. Attenborough makes a major mistake when he uses clips from actual Chaplin movies in the film- it highlights the massive difference. In his defence, Downey is given a really awful screenplay to work with. Co-written by three writers, (one of them the very talented William Goldman), the script is a mess. It's as if they sole source the writers used was an encyclopedia article on Chaplin. The script insists on portrying Chaplin as being miserable, but never explains why. This made even more strange by the fact it gives him an apparent pass on his relationships with teenage girls. It treats these relationships as a life problem for Chaplin, but never a fault. Weird. On top of all of these problems is the moronic choice to set up virtually everythign that happens in his life with cheesy. For example, in one of the many uneccessary scenes in the film, Chaplin takes his sons to the beach and plays with a beach ball, which later becomes the inspiration for The Great Dictator. In another he plays with some breadsticks on forks out of bordom, and...well you get the idea. The screenplay's fault could have been overcome by strong direction, but that's something that Sir Richard Attenborough appears unable to provide. He uses cliche's like irisis to present the days of silent film, makes the characters have zero depth to them and causes a lot of confusion as to when events take place and in what order. And, as stated above, he blew it when he cast Downey as Chaplin. Finnaly, Downey's makeup job is horrible. In his elderly years, he looks like some alien in a Michael Jackson video, not Charlie Chaplin. To be fair to the film, a few things work. All of the actors except Downey are good (Dan Ackroyd as Mack Sennet particularly stands out), and the movie does have some technically impressive cinemtography. But nothing here comes close to explaining anything about the man. The worst part about the whole film is that it seems to destroy the magic of Hollywood and Chaplin's films. At one point in the movie, Chaplin says "If you want to know me, watch my movies." That may or may not be true, but I am sure you'd sure have a lot more fun watching those films than watching this cinematic disaster. Chaplin (1992) http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_performances_of_actors_portraying_another/190/27221/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/11/2008 3:51:39 PM
Body: [quote user="leeroy711"]I would recommend you give Chaplin and Shadow of the Vampire a gander if you haven't seen them though. If you're a Charlie Chaplin fan, you should be able to appreciate RD Jr's performance a great deal. I can't say it's for everyone, but Wonderland actually surprised me as a pretty good film as well. Partly because I had no interest in seeing but I think my wife was curious about it. It really had nothing to do with porn, it was a murder story. I am dissapointed to hear the Peter Sellers film wasn't good, I'll probably check it out anyway, I was kinda looking forward to that one.I have to say, this is got to be the best idea for a group ever. I try to keep it as obscure as possible with my lists. Make people think. [/quote]Oh yeah Chaplin and especially Shadow of the Vampire have been on my to see lists for a while.The Life and Death of Peter Sellers isn't horrible, just nothing amazing in my opinion. If you are a considerable Sellers fan, you'll probably want to see it. The cast is great. You get to see Charlize Theron as Britt Ekland, John Lithgow as Blake Edwards, Stephen Fry as Maurice Woodruff, and even Stanley Tucci as Stanley Kubrick.
]]>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:51:39 GMTRisseladaTop 54/11/2008 3:51:39 PM[quote user="leeroy711"]I would recommend you give Chaplin and Shadow of the Vampire a gander if you haven&#39;t seen them though. If you&#39;re a Charlie Chaplin fan, you should be able to appreciate RD Jr&#39;s performance a great deal. I can&#39;t say it&#39;s for everyone, but Wonderland actually surprised me as a pretty good film as well. Partly because I had no interest in seeing but I think my wife was curious about it. It really had nothing to do with porn, it was a murder story. I am dissapointed to hear the Peter Sellers film wasn&#39;t good, I&#39;ll probably check it out anyway, I was kinda looking forward to that one.I have to say, this is got to be the best idea for a group ever. I try to keep it as obscure as possible with my lists. Make people think. [/quote]Oh yeah Chaplin and especially Shadow of the Vampire have been on my to see lists for a while.The Life and Death of Peter Sellers isn&#39;t horrible, just nothing amazing in my opinion. If you are a considerable Sellers fan, you&#39;ll probably want to see it. The cast is great. You get to see Charlize Theron as Britt Ekland, John Lithgow as Blake Edwards, Stephen Fry as Maurice Woodruff, and even Stanley Tucci as Stanley Kubrick. http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Top_5_performances_of_actors_portraying_another_ac/190/27184/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 4/10/2008 3:39:14 PM
Body: This is a list of performances by actor portraying a different actor (probably from the past)1. Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood 2. Robert Downey Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in Chaplin 3. Willem Defoe as Max Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire4. Val Kilmer as John Homes in Wonderland Help me out here, all I can think of is these 4 and I'm not even sure if #4 counts.
]]>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:39:14 GMTleeroy711Top 54/10/2008 3:39:14 PMThis is a list of performances by actor portraying a different actor (probably from the past)1. Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood 2. Robert Downey Jr. as Charlie Chaplin in Chaplin 3. Willem Defoe as Max Schreck in Shadow of the Vampire4. Val Kilmer as John Homes in Wonderland Help me out here, all I can think of is these 4 and I&#39;m not even sure if #4 counts. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2007/7/10/13644.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 7/10/2007 11:27:06 PM
Body: I know that everyone says this about this movie, but I am going to have to say it again just for the record; Robert Downey Jr’s performance is truly one of greatness (as are those of the supporting cast). His transformation is (as I have said) striking to say the least. And people say all that rather often so I shall not linger on it and get right to talking about the movie...The plot is vast, as plots must be with biographical films such as this and movies such as Wilde and MalcolmX, and as one can imagine this is always difficult for screenwriters. But this movie gives credit to the ability of filmmakers to take a whole lifetime and roll it into but 135 minutes. And then to maintain the detail needed to make such a film believable is again one of the great feats of film. One that is not found often. So, as I have discussed this is a film or rare quality. And yet, it received only three nominations at the 1993 Academy Awards and won none of them. To say the least this is a travesty for such a masterwork.This does not mean that it was not without flaw. To name one that bugged me in particular; the way Chaplin’s early life is portrayed as one of almost Horatio Alger style. Now I have not read the book that it is based upon (so I cannot say that this segment of the movie does not capture the feel of the book) nor can I say that Chaplin’s beginnings were not miserable. But scenes such as the one after his mother is booed of the stage and he (presumably at age 5) wins the hearts of the tuff crowd with his charming [presumingly age 5] rendition of the same act are really to corny for me. This is not the only one but it was by far the most irritating (so I am decided to take the time to rat it out as opposed to the other similar scenes).None the less,  Chaplin is all and all a worthwhile 135 minutes of film to say the very least and I recommend it to all. There is really something great about it as a medley of comedy, drama, with (rather erotic) romances through out. There is something in it for just about everyone. 
]]>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 03:27:06 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog7/10/2007 11:27:06 PMI know that everyone says this about this movie, but I am going to have to say it again just for the record; Robert Downey Jr&rsquo;s performance is truly one of greatness (as are those of the supporting cast). His transformation is (as I have said) striking to say the least. And people say all that rather often so I shall not linger on it and get right to talking about the movie...The plot is vast, as plots must be with biographical films such as this and movies such as Wilde and MalcolmX, and as one can imagine this is always difficult for screenwriters. But this movie gives credit to the ability of filmmakers to take a whole lifetime and roll it into but 135 minutes. And then to maintain the detail needed to make such a film believable is again one of the great feats of film. One that is not found often. So, as I have discussed this is a film or rare quality. And yet, it received only three nominations at the 1993 Academy Awards and won none of them. To say the least this is a travesty for such a masterwork.This does not mean that it was not without flaw. To name one that bugged me in particular; the way Chaplin&rsquo;s early life is portrayed as one of almost Horatio Alger style. Now I have not read the book that it is based upon (so I cannot say that this segment of the movie does not capture the feel of the book) nor can I say that Chaplin&rsquo;s beginnings were not miserable. But scenes such as the one after his mother is booed of the stage and he (presumably at age 5) wins the hearts of the tuff crowd with his charming [presumingly age 5] rendition of the same act are really to corny for me. This is not the only one but it was by far the most irritating (so I am decided to take the time to rat it out as opposed to the other similar scenes).None the less,  Chaplin is all and all a worthwhile 135 minutes of film to say the very least and I recommend it to all. There is really something great about it as a medley of comedy, drama, with (rather erotic) romances through out. There is something in it for just about everyone.  http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/slow/MemberTagFilms.aspxslow
Number of films tagged: 91

Number of people who tagged: 46

Number of times used: 105

]]>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:56:36 GMT9146105Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/divorce/MemberTagFilms.aspxdivorce
Number of films tagged: 1042

Number of people who tagged: 45

Number of times used: 121

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:44 GMT104245121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmmaker/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmmaker
Number of films tagged: 1675

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 30

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:12:17 GMT16751730Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedian/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedian
Number of films tagged: 948

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 26

]]>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 GMT9481626Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/marriageproblems/MemberTagFilms.aspxmarriageproblems
Number of films tagged: 905

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT9051527Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/interview/MemberTagFilms.aspxinterview
Number of films tagged: 1477

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 21

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:04:19 GMT14771121Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/performer/MemberTagFilms.aspxperformer
Number of films tagged: 2329

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 15

]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:02:52 GMT2329915Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/smile/MemberTagFilms.aspxsmile
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 16

]]>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:00:31 GMT20816Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/vaudeville/MemberTagFilms.aspxvaudeville
Number of films tagged: 183

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 8

]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:28:03 GMT18368Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/showbusiness/MemberTagFilms.aspxshowbusiness
Number of films tagged: 419

Number of people who tagged: 4

Number of times used: 4

]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:12:01 GMT41944Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/biographical/MemberTagFilms.aspxbiographical
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 3

Number of times used: 7

]]>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:10:00 GMT737Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/filmdirector/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilmdirector
Number of films tagged: 339

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT33911Tag