Ceticultsot
Beautiful, moving film.
Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Wyatt
There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.
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
Scott_Mercer
As probably one of Chaplin's lesser efforts, this falls short of the level of sheer genius to the level of mere mortal excellence.As proof of Americans' depressing ability to laugh at any ethnic group or nationality except for themselves, at the time, this movie got many Americans' hackles up, and by the looks of the comments here, still does for some people. However, Chaplin's tone in this film, described by some as bitterness, I would more accurately call incisiveness.Of course this movie had to be made in Britain, and wasn't shown in the USA for about 20 years, until after the youthquake of the late 1960's and the changing of the generational guard, proving Americans are not fond of having their foibles and hypocrisies pointed out to them in a rather obvious manner.Some of the more satirical aspects of the film, including the film trailers, TV advertising, the reality television show (Chaplin about 40 years ahead of the curve on that one) and the whirlwind feel of New York City, represent rather gentle pokes at a society in which, to remind everyone, Chaplin had worked in and made his fame and fortune in for over 40 years.It's only when the Senator McCarthy inspired storyline takes hold, around halfway through the film, that the story turns markedly more serious. Chaplin sprinkles the film throughout with references to the US Constitution, and freedom of speech, and "American blood boiling." Clearly he is on the side of freedom versus totalitarianism, and against the witch hunt like tactics of HUAC that destroyed American careers, drove people into poverty or exile, and provably never found one person that was a real, imminent danger to American society. Looking back from this point, almost everyone agrees that HUAC and its blowback were a blot on the history of the United States and its aspirations of freedom, and rightfully so.Although this aspect of the film is a bit heavy-handed, and the rather sad ending is somewhat disappointing but rather realistic within the context of the times, I feel that this only detracts mildly from the comedy on offer, Chaplin's amazing screen presence, and artistry as a writer, actor and director. It is enough to make me wish he had done more than three talking films in his career. Yes, that guy in his 60's up there on the screen with the gray hair certainly isn't the little tramp of 1920, but he is a character almost equally as compelling, and much more formidable.Not mentioned by many is the fact that Chaplin even composed the score for this film, which is in itself worthy of praise. Chaplin probably could have carved out a career as a successful film composer, over and above his other gargantuan talents.See it if you can. A King in New York is a treasure.
CitizenCaine
The nice thing about film is sometimes time has a way of improving our outlook on once-failed films. Sometimes they're just ahead of their time like The King In New York. Charles Chaplin wrote, directed, produced, and starred in The King In New York as the deposed King Shahdov fleeing an imaginary European country. He makes his way to New York City where he is inundated by the excesses and inconveniences of American life. The film contains nice pot shots taken at modern American targets, such as commercialism, new technology, noisy nightclubs, plastic surgery, rock music, and perhaps even Edward R. Murrow's "Person to Person". However, I think Chaplin was aiming for a higher target than these: the individual compromising his values when forced to do so.It's well known Chaplin was forced out of the United States for good in 1952. Between then and the making of this film, the H.U.A.C. hearings took their toll on the entertainment industry and private individuals as well. It's no surprise then Chaplin focused on those aspects of society closest to his personal concerns. The film tends to waver a bit in its second half. This is largely due to the communist hearing/witch hunt subplot involving Chaplin's son Michael, who plays the son of suspected leftist school teachers. Chaplin at first plays the scenario semi-serious, but then when he actually becomes victimized himself, he plays the climactic scene for laughs. After seeing the boy broken by government officials, the king consoles him before returning to his own country, exasperated with American life.Clearly the film was ahead of its time. The public still had a sore spot for Chaplin at the time of its release, delaying its release in the United States some sixteen years. If the film had continued in its satirical vein during the second half of the film, it would have been more consistent in tone and in its focus. Instead we get an uneven film at the end, unsure of its focus. Shepperton Studios in England hampered Chaplin's normal creative process by limiting the shooting schedule. As a result, the film took only twelve weeks to shoot; where as, typically Chaplin would take up to a year to make a film previously. What happened to Chaplin in his last twenty-five years was unfortunate, and it's unfortunate for us he made only this film and one other before retiring for good. He composed the score for this film, (and the main theme is entitled The Sadness Goes On), and it's his last leading appearance in film. It's simultaneously entertaining and disappointing, and one wonders what Chaplin could have done with the material at his own studio had Shepperton not rushed it through production. **1/2 of 4 stars.
bob the moo
One of the inconveniences of the modern world is that kings are now subject to revolution; fortunately for King Shahdov he managed to flee his European kingdom with his wealth before his people could overcome him. He arrives in New York keen to re-establish himself and maintain his status as a monarch but it is not long before American life overtakes him and he feels the effect of television, advertising, plastic surgery and political witch-hunts.Although I was concerned what I would find, I felt I should check out some of Chaplin's final films. Wholly made in England after Chaplin after he left America and was refused re-entry, it will be of no surprise to find that this film is a rather barbed commentary on many aspects of American life but what will surprise many is just how blunt the majority of it is. Despite apparently taking nearly two years to write, the plot is essentially a series of scenarios that allow for various satires of the US and as such it is very broad and obvious. Many others have commented on the lack of laughs but I didn't really have a problem with this because a filmmaker is quite welcome to branch out and do something more than comedies if they so desire. However what I do have a problem with is the way that I was hammered with the points being made in a way that suggests I would not be smart enough to understand unless it was painted in massive letters.This is not to say that the film is without value because actually the points it makes are interesting enough to carry the film even if they are crudely made. Watching it from fifty years in the future it has an extra value in seeing the "problems" of American society being highlighted and comparing them with today – the same in many areas with only the scale being different. Otherwise though it simply is not clever or subtle enough to stand up as anything more than an OK film. Where it should be biting and cutting like a sharp weapon it comes over like a lead-pipe of satire – it is still interesting but it is hard to overlook that it is a very blunt tool.
