A King in New York Reviews

(MU) Gorgeous restauration. Chaplin as a royal witness of America's materialism ans lack of nobility, not in the monarchial way but in the humna. Just see his sober silent expression when he realizes the boy has benn blalckmailed to accuse his parents comrades...

It has been many years since I saw this flick and, back then, I wasn't really impressed. If I recall it correctly, I saw it as a teenager at school and I was rather disappointed because, as a kid, I grew up with Chaplin's hilarious older movies starring the Tramp so I was expecting something really funny to happen but I barely laughed during the whole thing. Back in those days, I didn't know that Chaplin had been basically thrown out from the USA because he was supposedly communist, so there was some irony which I missed concerning the fact the main character was almost facing the same faith in this feature. Eventually, I have re-watched it recently and it was actually slightly better than I remembered. Indeed, the story was still rather weak and the main character was still not really interesting whatsoever but, this time, I thought there were some hilarious scenes. Of course, if you compare this movie to Chaplin's timeless silent comedies, it is not that great or hilarious but, as a stand-alone, it remains quite funny and entertaining. To conclude, even though it is far from his best work, it remains an enjoyable comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Charles Chaplin’s work.

The Good:

Upon my first impression, the movie seems quite silly. But under all the silliness of plastic surgery, rock'n'roll, fire hoses and sexual innuendo is a very intelligent satire of blatant commercialism and, yes, communism. (Chaplin himself claimed this was not a political film, but the attacks on McCarthyism and his own bitterness over his American exile are obvious.) His opinions on television and advertisements are venomous, which I adore. Despite being 53 years old, I agree with much of it; It still applies very much to our world dominated by commercialism.

The gags are very unlike most of Chaplin's other work, but I honestly laughed until I cried at many of them. Definitely much dirtier and spiteful than some of his other movies.

The Bad:

Chaplin was unable to use his usual crew and studios due to his being barred from the United States, where Chaplin Studios was located. Because of money restrictions, he was unable to do his usual routine of making movies: doing take after take until it was absolutely perfect. Every minute was money wasted.

The film was shot in 10 weeks, a record time for the (sometimes obsessively) perfectionist Chaplin. Because of this, the lighting is somewhat shotty, and the whole film could have benefited from a good editor. Occasionally the transitional scenes are a real slap in the face because of how abrupt they are.


Overall:

An underrated Chaplin film. While it certainly doesn't rank among his best, it is an incredibly funny satirical comedy. It definitely has a bad reputation among Chaplin fans, but I was delighted to watch it and discover a funny and sometimes absolutely brilliant film.
(Because let's face it, saying it's the worst Chaplin film is like saying "This bacon isn't very good." It might not be AS good, but it's still delicious. Sorry for that analogy, it makes no sense. Perhaps if Chaplin had taken his name off the film it would be received better.)