Monday, 2 February 2009

City of Lights

I thought this silent movie was going to be like the rest, bad quality in terms of visually, and a terrible remix score. But I was pleasantly surprised as the film was starting I could see the reel quality was just ten times better than the rest and I didn't notice a score at all, if there was one It did a good job because a sign of a good score is if you don't even notice it.

I found the film started of really strong, had me laughing in no time, and this continued for the large part of act one.
Although I do think the film was confused on wether is wanted to be a comedy or a serious love story, I found it went from happy to a tad depressing to happy again, all in a short space of time. Saying this I do think its the funniest film I have seen in awhile, even compared to new films. Good laughs don't get old. 
I found the story of Chaplin meeting the rich man who only remembers him when he is drunk the strongest part of the movie, they made a great duo. It threw alot of laughs my way. 
But as soon as it went back to the blind girl, I found myself bored very quickly. Maybe because I was looking at the film solely as a comedy and she was the one factor in it that didn't have a comedy slant on it. I find it hard to connect to seriously played characters in comedies, Its either a comedy or not, I don't think there is space in between. 
But saying all that, I do see why her character was created. It was a motivational force for Chaplin to propel him into the comedy.
Overall a brilliant film in my eyes, wouldn't mind watching it again at all.

1 comment:

Murdo said...

Surely you notice a good score - its the music you leave the cinema humming, or which you go off to buy a CD of. Think of Phil and the Lord of the Rings theme!