Incredibly overrated. Chaplin may be a great performer but he's a passable director and not very gifted as a writer. A lot of the sequences went on for too long (the boxing scene) and some were repetitive (how many damn party scenes does there need to be). Some great comedic scenes (the falling in the water bit is the best part of the movie) but nothing outrageously funny.
Chaplin perfected this film so much that it is hard to find anything wrong as it will tower among the greatest silent film comedies ever made. The supporting characters are also memorable and very enjoyable - especially the drunk millionaire friend who turns spiteful and forgetful when he gets sober.
70/100 (Abd yapımı 1965 öncesi toplam 10 tane filan doğal ve gerçekçi film var. Maalesef. Geri kalan hepsi Hollywood'un itelemesi. Bu filmi de 5 sene önce filan izleyip çok etkilenmiştim. Çok fazla mantıklı düşünemiyordum. Dün tekrar izledim. Hata yaptığımı anladım. Sırf ilkleri yaşattığı için ve son sahnesi için 70. O adamın sarhoşken farklı, normalken farklı davranması gibi bir saçmalık olan film için fazla puan.)
The least humorous of all of Chaplain's film's but also his most tender and emotional. This is a sweet romance with a lot to say about the nature of poverty that still has relevance today. It drags in spots, and can get a bit too pushy with it's message, but overall it's quite enjoyable. The notoriously perfectionist director hammered out every kink until he created a flawlessly shot, flawlessly acted picture.
Wow, my first Chaplin film! The final gasp of the silent film age it's a good thing that without even title cards needed you can show this to anyone on the planet with no need to worry about what language they speak. What impresses me is how Chaplin can take a gag and then just keeping working with it over and over from different angles. But the final scene essentially shows the tramp in comedy and poetry form.
A quite overlong addition to the romantic-comedy/gag-comedy style. Despite this silent film still conveying its narrative these genres/ lack of audio doesn't ring true. Chaplin may have been a supreme physical actor, but it's odd why the 'megastar' made a dull script silent, as talkies in the cinema were becoming, and City Lights could've had actual depth. It's just a bad game of charades.
There is technical brilliance in Chaplin but what generates magic is how unconscious we can be of this while viewing. Rewatching scenes out context I was struck by how certain scenes wouldn't at all work with an edit, which might be called synthesis. The comedic and romantic scenes always work in service of one another. But while watching it's poetry - no eye on the technique at all.