Especially, wanting young Downey to play Chaplin's life, which raises a higher degree of difficulty. With this difficulty, we look forward to seeing excellent makeup and complementary performances by Downey (to offset age). But even though Downey has basically imitated the movements (only about young Chaplin), his performances for middle-aged and old Chaplin are lackluster-it is understandable that cross-age performances have huge risks. This kind of actor setup has its own problems. The makeup of the old Chaplin in this film is basically disastrous. The old Chaplin looks much more energetic than the Anthony Hopkins next to him, especially considering that Anthony himself is a premature senescence. Actor too.
The screenwriter has the greatest responsibility. Although there is an autobiography as a wealth of information, his negligence makes the film no plot, and it is appropriate for many viewers to call it a "flow account."
Because of the above problems, the theme cannot be prominent. Who can experience Chaplin's tears at the end of the play? This should have been better presented. And taking "Chaplin's Lovers" as a very pretentious theme embodies the psychology of fluke.
The subject of biography is very difficult for movies, because it is not clear what the theme of life is, and how to present the legendary experience (not a legend, but a legendary life). The combination of a good subject like "Gandhi" and a good actor is too accidental. If there is no such thing and only running accounts, then there must be a theme like "Forrest Gump". Again, such as "Mozart" and "Sea Pianist", win with something other than the plot. If Downey's physical performance could be more, maybe it would be better for this film.
View more about Chaplin reviews
