Login
Home
583 Lists
7753 Reviews
Collections
“I wasn’t really expecting much from this flick but, since it was available on Netflix, I thought I might as well check it out. Even though it made sense that DreamWorks would come with a sequel since ‘The Croods’ had been a commercial success, it is rather bewildering that it took them 7 long ” read more
“To be honest, I lost faith in Ridley Scott a while back but the guy keeps coming up with some projects which do sound so interesting so he still manages to peak my interest every time again. At least, until I watch the actual end-result and this movie was a perfect example. Indeed, to have Scott dir” read more
My Movie Ticket Collection
Notes: Recently, I have been watching some older movies from the 30’s and 40’s and, back then, the screwball comedies were really popular but, to be honest, I always struggle with this genre. Indeed, most of these movies are just too silly for my taste. Well, this movie was something else and, only therefore, I gave it some extra points. Sure, it was maybe not really ground-breaking and it was pretty obvious that it was adapted from a play but I did like this idea of focusing on the stoop of some average building in Manhattan for about 24 hrs. Indeed, they gave us this way such a convincing and compelling portrayal of the diverse people living in New York with all their different backgrounds, cultures, religions and even prejudices. It also displayed one of the most basic murders I have ever seen but it was actually quite refreshing. Indeed, Hollywood movies, especially thrillers, can be so far-fetched but, in fact, in many cases, women are killed by their jealous husband as it was depicted in this movie. Eventually, in my opinion, the only thing that prevented this movie to become even better was that the acting was most of the time borderline average. It’s too bad because most of the characters felt genuine and were interesting enough and the writing was actually quite solid.
Notes: Recently, I have been watching some older movies from the 30’s and 40’s and, back then, the screwball comedies were really popular but, to be honest, I always struggle with this genre. Indeed, most of these movies are just too silly for my taste. Well, this movie was something else and, only therefore, I gave it some extra points. Sure, it was maybe not really ground-breaking and it was pretty obvious that it was adapted from a play but I did like this idea of focusing on the stoop of some average building in Manhattan for about 24 hrs. Indeed, they gave us this way such a convincing and compelling portrayal of the diverse people living in New York with all their different backgrounds, cultures, religions and even prejudices. It also displayed one of the most basic murders I have ever seen but it was actually quite refreshing. Indeed, Hollywood movies, especially thrillers, can be so far-fetched but, in fact, in many cases, women are killed by their jealous husband as it was depicted in this movie. Eventually, in my opinion, the only thing that prevented this movie to become even better was that the acting was most of the time borderline average. It’s too bad because most of the characters felt genuine and were interesting enough and the writing was actually quite solid. 
“It seemed to be a rather obscure picture so I wasn’t really sure what to expect from it but, since it was directed by King Vidor, I thought I might as well check it out. Recently, I have been watching some older movies from the 30’s and 40’s and, back then, the screwball comedies were really p” read more
Cast : Charles Chaplin
What was it about?
Disguised as a priest, an escaped convict makes his way to Texas. He ends up in a small rural town where the townsfolk mistake him for their new church minister.
My two cents:
With almost 50 mins of running time, I'm not sure if it should be really considered as a short. Anyway, probably because of the slightly longer running time, they had to come up with a plot which was refreshing. Sure, it was basically still a succession of sketches, sight-gags and other stunts but the end-result was less random and chaotic than usual. It was also interesting that Charles Chaplin played his tramp differently than usual here. Indeed, he was this time a convict, obviously a thief, who was drinking and smoking. Sure, he was still not a full-blown villain or a real thug but I think there was still a big difference with his classic naïve tramp with a heart of gold. So, it was some solid material and Chaplin was really strong as usual and, yet, somehow the damned thing didn't really grab me though. Maybe I watched too many of these short silent comedies recently. Anyway, even if it might not be one of his best movies, it was still pretty good.
My rating: 07/10
Check the full review
Notes: With almost 50 mins of running time, I'm not sure if it should be really considered as a short. Anyway, probably because of the slightly longer running time, they had to come up with a plot which was refreshing. Sure, it was basically still a succession of sketches, sight-gags and other stunts but the end-result was less random and chaotic than usual. It was also interesting that Charles Chaplin played his tramp differently than usual here. Indeed, he was this time a convict, obviously a thief, who was drinking and smoking. Sure, he was still not a full-blown villain or a real thug but I think there was still a big difference with his classic naïve tramp with a heart of gold. So, it was some solid material and Chaplin was really strong as usual and, yet, somehow the damned thing didn't really grab me though. Maybe I watched too many of these short silent comedies recently. Anyway, even if it might not be one of his best movies, it was still pretty good.
Notes: With almost 50 mins of running time, I'm not sure if it should be really considered as a short. Anyway, probably because of the slightly longer running time, they had to come up with a plot which was refreshing. Sure, it was basically still a succession of sketches, sight-gags and other stunts but the end-result was less random and chaotic than usual. It was also interesting that Charles Chaplin played his tramp differently than usual here. Indeed, he was this time a convict, obviously a thief, who was drinking and smoking. Sure, he was still not a full-blown villain or a real thug but I think there was still a big difference with his classic naïve tramp with a heart of gold. So, it was some solid material and Chaplin was really strong as usual and, yet, somehow the damned thing didn't really grab me though. Maybe I watched too many of these short silent comedies recently. Anyway, even if it might not be one of his best movies, it was still pretty good.
“I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this flick but since there was a decent cast involved, I thought I might as well check it out. Well, even though the material was actually really interesting, I’m afraid that the end-result turned out to be some kind of 3rd rate copycat of ‘Traffic’. ” read more
“I remember it very well, back in 2000, ‘Jackass’ was at the time a big hit on MTV but, to be honest, it seemed to be so stupid so I pretty much boycotted the damned thing back then. Eventually, it took me more than 20 years to finally watch these movies and you might wonder why I changed my mind” read more
“By now, I have seen all the full-length features directed by Charles Chaplin but it had been a while since I saw one of his shorts. In fact, with almost 50 mins of running time, I'm not sure if it should be really considered as a short. Anyway, probably because of the slightly longer running time, t” read more
