Overrated

It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

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

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

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 after not long before Chaplin had one of his earliest career highs in 'The Kid'. 'A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate' doesn't disappoint, and it shows Chaplin having properly found his style and fully settled. As said with many of his post-Keystone efforts, it shows a noticeable step up in quality though from his Keystone period, where he was still evolving and in the infancy of his long career. The Essanay and Mutual periods were something of Chaplin's adolescence period where his style had been found and starting to settle. After Mutual the style had properly settled and the cinematic genius emerged. Very much apparent here in 'A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate', which may not be one of Chaplin's best but it is to me one of his most under-appreciated.It is let down by the melodramatic ending that comes over too as silly and an interpolated music score composed not long before Chaplin's death that is intrusive and doesn't fit the film. On the other hand, 'A Woman of Fate: A Drama of Fate' looks great, from Essanay onwards, and it is certainly the case here, it was obvious that Chaplin was taking more time with his work and not churning out countless shorts in the same year of very variable success like he did with Keystone. It's actually one of his technically best-looking efforts from this period.'A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate' is also funny and very charming, never coming over as dull and never being too over-sentimental. It features some of Chaplin's most remarkable directing of any effort of his up to this point in his career. He similarly gets the best out of his cast, with the standouts being the ever charming and quite touching Edna Purviance and especially a superb Adolphe Menjou in a star-making turn. Concluding, very well done. 8/10 Bethany Cox

A WOMAN OF Paris tells the story of Marie (Edna Purviance), a young woman of little means who is engaged to be married to Jean (Carl Miller), even though his father vehemently disapproves. They plan to elope when suddenly Jean's father dies. Marie mistakenly believes that Jean has abandoned her, so she heads for Paris. A year later we see that Marie has become a kept woman for the wealthy Pierre Revel (Adolphe Menjou), and lives a dissolute life. Things change when Jean comes back into her life, and Marie must choose between decadent luxury and love…Directed by Charlie Chaplin.SCRIPT: The story is told in an economical fashion. Chaplin, to his credit, does not indulge in histrionics and shameless tearjerking. The story of Marie is presented before the viewer and judgment for her actions is left to the audience. Chaplin incorporates gentle humor into the story and it never detracts from the main thrust of the film. I was surprised at how unsentimental the film is. Marie's actions are not glorified or excused, but at the same time we are able to have a certain compassion for her and hope for her to make the right choice. The ending (which I won't spoil) is very different from what we may expect these days…it's not your pat, standard happy ending, but it concludes the movie on an enigmatic, yet hopeful, note. However, the way Marie leaves Jean behind seems rather sudden and rushed, and the film doesn't really explore Marie's motivations for beginning her relationship with Pierre and becoming his paramour. However, the story is well told overall. SCORE: 8/10 ACTING: This film is marked by very restrained performances by all involved. Edna Purviance is solid and credible as Marie, and she performs her role with realism and discipline, avoiding the arm-flinging and eye-rolling histrionics that marred some film performances of the time. She provides touching moments. Carl Miller is also fine as Jean, bringing the right amount of pathos to his role. Adolphe Menjou looks like he was born to play the role of the oily Pierre Revel, insouciant and decadent in a carefree way. He excelled in this type of role and would return to such parts later in his career. Additional praise goes to Betty Morrissey as Marie's meddlesome friend Fifi, who provides some moments of humor, as well as Lydia Knott, who provides moving moments as Jean's aged mother. SCORE: 8/10CINEMATOGRAPHY/PRODUCTION: The film features rural and city settings, and the sets are convincingly evocative of their time and place. The cinematography is basically limited to fixed-position shots and some medium and close up shots; there's little camera movement. However, the shots are well composed and are used in conjunction with efficient and seamless editing, so that the film does not become stagy or static. In addition, the composition allows the viewer to take in the sumptuous luxury of the city settings, as well as the tranquil beauty of the countryside and the more humble rural dwellings. SCORE: 8/10 SUMMARY: A WOMAN OF Paris is outstanding in its observation of the lead character's fall into decadence and subsequent attempts at redemption. The movie is sober and focused, with moments of humor, and it neither excuses nor villianizes the central character. There are moments of humor amidst the drama, and the film avoids melodramatic mannerisms and emotional manipulation. The settings are beautiful and the cinematography is very evocative. SCORE: 8/10

A Woman Of Paris was edited, written, produced, and directed by Chaplin for United Artists, the company he formed with then film giants Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and screen pioneer D.W. Griffith. The film is historically notable for several other reasons as well. It marked the last collaboration between Chaplin and Edna Purviance, the first film Chaplin directed to not feature himself as the leading actor, and his first entirely dramatic feature film. Perhaps Chaplin already suspected this film was going to be a tough sell when he wrote the disclaimer at the beginning of this film, warning the audience that it was a drama and not a comedy. If he had access to the type of media coverage available to stars today, the audiences' expectations might have been tempered. The film was a tremendous flop at the box office and was banned in several cities due to the 1924 New Year's Day shooting scandal involving Edna Purviance. She stars as Marie St. Clair, a woman led by fate to the bright lights and hedonism of 1920's Paris where she meets the most eligible bachelor: Pierre Revel played by Adolphe Menjou. Menjou epitomizes what women despise in men: Cockiness and emotional bankruptcy. It's clear from the start that Revel will never marry Marie. While she is torn between Revel and her former love Jean, Marie is also torn between continuing to live well as a kept woman or marrying Jean who has become a moderately successful artist. While some plot elements are contrived and creaky, the film is celebrated as a stunning example of contemporary realism smashing old world stereotypes in Hollywood films. Chaplin made the film as a valentine to Edna Purviance and to hopefully boost her career as a dramatic actress, but the film's box office failure and another abandoned effort with her called The Seagull put that notion to rest. Purviance is fine but nothing special as Marie St. Clair, but Adolphe Menjou steals the film from her as the caddish Pierre. The film ended up making Menjou a steady lead actor within months of its release. The last five or six minutes of the film are especially poignant. Chaplin wisely eschewed punishing Marie St. Clair in favor of a visually metaphorical ending in which the newly rejuvenated Marie travels in the opposite direction from the befuddled Pierre. More than fifty years after its release, the film was re-edited and scored by Chaplin himself and has garnered a critical following that has greatly boosted the stock of the film. The cinematography and editing are especially first rate. Chaplin regular Henry Bergman appears as a head waiter in a fancy restaurant, and his secretary Nellie Bly Baker plays a masseuse. Chaplin himself has a very brief cameo at the train station. *** of 4 stars.

Previously my picture of Mr Charlie Chaplin in my mind's eye had been the following: a tiny clownish fellow who kicks other actors in the ass and gets thrashed and kicked in reply. In the course of time my perception changed. His music was playing as the background for the movies he participated in. Surprise. It was not Mozart but the clown himself. Now there is this film and it's definitely cinematic art. So many present-day directors cannot reach even 1/100th of the effect that is achieved by this black-and-white film that is even mute. It has no fountains of blood, no slo-mo, no bullets hitting foreheads, no explosions, no sex scenes, no *beep* words, no crude toilet humour, no trash-talk, no flat melodramatic elements, no crocodile tears, no stupid laughs. What more should a viewer want? The bitter irony and drama are scattered here and there. Its quality can be compared to the quality of the famous "Jeeves and Wooster" before it hit the appalling cast changes (hope, you know what is meant here).Here goes mine 10.Thank you for attention.