Clunky in every aspect.

Tim always primed to like anything Chaplin does, but I couldn't get into this one. It's neither funny nor suspenseful.

Charlie Chaplin thought it was the cleverest and most brilliant film of his career. Orson Welles boasted that he had assisted in the film's conception, although the extent of his involvement is disputed. Yet Monsieur Verdoux was Charlie Chaplin's first cinematic flop in over twenty years. Not only was Monsieur Verdoux a flop – it was a disaster. The film was booed at its premiere. Cinemas showing it were picketed, and there were calls to boycott it. While the film somehow secured an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, it was swiftly withdrawn in America. How could this happen to the onetime darling of American cinema? Following on from Chaplin's attack on industrialisation in Modern Times and his famous pacifist speech at the end of The Great Dictator, Chaplin was already considered suspicious, and Monsieur Verdoux served only to fan the flames, as its anti-hero made speeches comparing his own murderous activities to the behaviour of government and big business. Even setting aside the controversies, the film was hardly of a kind that would readily appeal to admirers of earlier Chaplin films. Audiences knew what to expect from a Chaplin movie – they would get to see a charming and clever comedy, often sentimental, with the flawed but essentially loveable hero, who was usually an anonymous tramp. This is not what Monsieur Verdoux offered them. As the title suggests, the central character is not known simply as a tramp, prospector, worker or Jewish barber. He has a name. In fact he has several, but his real name is Monsieur Verdoux. For this time the farcical slapstick and sentimentality of the usual Chaplin film has been replaced by black comedy. Even the subtitle of the film is "A comedy of murders". And the character of Henri Verdoux was inspired by a real-life figure called Henri Désiré Landru, man whose claim to fame was that he was a serial killer who murdered his wives. The same is true of Henri Verdoux (played by Chaplin). He too murders his wives. There is no plot to the film as such. It is a set of incidents showing us how Verdoux works. He meets rich women, whom he marries quickly. He then takes their money and sells their property. Due to his multiple identities, Verdoux is able to have several wives at once. What prompts Verdoux to murder women? He is not driven by sexual sadism or misogyny. Admittedly Verdoux's views of women are scathing, and the viewer is never encouraged to pity his silly shrewish wives. However satirical comments about marriage are only incidental here. Verdoux has another motivation for his killings, and that is money. This may seem like a trite reason, but it is not in the context of the movie. For Verdoux the business of marriage and murder is just that – a business. He arranges everything professionally – he forges signatures, he arranges postal deliveries, he counts his money and so on, often cheerfully humming as he disposes of his victim's property soon after disposing of the victim. Indeed he takes his moral attitude from the political climate around him. The film shows us footage of Hitler and Mussolini, making the point clear that murder is now the order of the day. At one point, Verdoux quotes the words of Bishop Beilby Porteous: "One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. Numbers sanctify…" Monsieur Verdoux was the ruination of Chaplin because of the time when it was made. Nowadays audiences are more receptive to tasteless humour, and the political climate has changed. It is possible to criticise the world of government and big business without finding yourself in danger of being blacklisted. Monsieur Verdoux can now be seen as an audacious and radical departure for Chaplin that managed to effectively combine humour and entertainment with a social and political message. I wrote a longer appreciation of Monsieur Verdoux on my blog page if you would like to read more: https://themoviescreenscene.wordpress.com/2018/12/22/monsieur-verdoux-1947/

Ethernal. A villain I started to compassionate by the second half of the story with good laugh moments, eloquent gentleman lines and a philosophy of hope for the limited comfort and optimism as components to the life formula

Charlie Chaplin is of course best known for the slapstick work he did in the silent period. He however made some equally good and also equally funny talky movies, of which this movie is perhaps his greatest moment as a talking actor.

A suave but cynical man (Charles Chaplin) supports his family by marrying and murdering rich women for their money, but the job has some occupational hazards. This film is brilliant, because it is not just entertaining, but also has a strong message. On the surface, it is a man who marries women and kills them in order to get their money. This in itself makes for a good film (and is somewhat risqué for the 1940s). But then, it is also a metaphor for society -- capitalism, imperialism, war... Chaplin takes on the Great Depression and the war industry.

As a fan of Charlie Chaplin, while Monsieur Verdoux is not his best film or anything, it is along with Limelight one of his most underrated. It looks striking, has great music and dialogue(particularly with the final speech) and an interesting story about a bank clerk turning to killing women. Monsieur Verdoux is also expertly directed, and Chaplin himself does a great job as Verdoux, just see him rifling through those bank notes and you'll know what I mean. It is not all dark, chilling and fastidiously cruel, as it does show Chaplin's contempt for the middle-class. There is an element of sentimentality to it too with the appearance of Marilyn Nash in contrast to a more vulgar Martha Raye. Overall, this is a very good and I think underrated film.

A brilliant and funny film. Some have even called this Chaplin performance the greatest acting in the history of film. This film came out long before the term serial killer was even a thing. Here the term is mass killer, and it's also hard to argue with his character's assessment that governments of the world are truly the biggest of all mass killers, (Now referred to as serial killers.). In typical Chaplin fashion, this film often challenges and questions the integrity of various powers/authorities and even capitalism itself. Truly though this is sort of a sweet film at it's heart, as most Chaplin films are. A dark comedy with heart, but in truth I feel this film is much more than a dark comedy. There is a much grander subtle narrative in this film. Many a well known critic even have often drastically underrated the writing, the in fact brilliant storytelling of Chaplin. He was in truth one of the first great master storytellers in the history of film, and he really doesn't often get the credit he deserves in this regard. He is more known for his comedic brilliance and comedic writing, but overall the man was extremely brilliant and talented beyond measure. Storytelling itself was really Chaplin's greatest talent in my view. Not just in the comedic sense, but in an intellectual sense. To me, this is definitely an intellectual film even much more than it is a dark comedy, and overall one of Chaplin's greatest films.

Wow, this is a great film. One of the most underrated Chaplin films, this may not appeal to the ultra-sensitive. Although that is odd since it is a very deeply feeling film. Underlying issues dealing with hypocrisy in (then & now) modern society. Believe it or not, this is an anti-war and violence film and it is one of the smartest ones I have ever seen. Murder and Mayhem has never been as funny but Chaplin somehow makes sure that his character is not a hero while still achieving his trademark pathos and sympathy from the viewer in the end. The final scenes are surprisingly important and contributes to the growing revisited relevance most Chaplin films are receiving.

Many viewers say that Chaplin's character in Monsieur Verdoux as being cast against type, but it really doesn't seem to be, at least not to the degree of other classic examples of the trend like Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West or Tom Cruise in Collateral; the film bears many similarities to Chaplin's earlier The Great Dictator in its general escapades culminating in a philosophical ending and a high-minded speech or two, though much more generally serious in tone, if not in subject (remember that the latter was literally parodying and criticizing the rise of Hitler). There are plenty of the comic legend's practical antics, even if they are not as frequent, and the man can still move with a light touch. A focus on Chaplin's Verdoux as a victim of a dynamic, uncaring world that has been made a victim of capitalism and war, though an unsympathetic one, drive the narrative to substantially greater substance than its base Bluebeard narrative (which would have been shocking enough given the reputation of the lead). Verdoux survives on a dangerous mix of cynicism, amorality, and adaptability beneath a thick varnish of charm, nimbly slipping between the cracks caused by change that wracked the world from WWI to WWII and the constantly shifting tones in the film; his previous life as a functioning member of society was left abandoned despite his embrace of its values and demands, and his reversion to crime is a rebellion against that system, in a darkly comic way. Seeing a young woman who has yet to suffer similar misfortune and retaining a naive inner radiance, he questions his stance, only to later learn that her fortune would be secured by a personal stake in human suffering - a rather morose moment. Though it may have been box office poison in the States (where his criticisms of social suffering were unsurprisingly met with head-in-the-sand viewers who lashed out at him personally), this is a creative if not always consistent film that puts a cap on a stellar career in film for Chaplin as an actor and director that evolved beyond the Tramp. (4/5)

The legendary Charles Chaplin's films are as fresh today as they were when then were made. There was more to Chaplin though than the Little Tramp that he immortalized. This brilliant film, based on an idea by Orson Welles, and written by Chaplin himself, is his first picture not portraying the Little Tramp. It is a Black Comedy about a bigamist who preys on wealthy older women and murders them for their money. Martha Raye and Marilyn Nash were both brilliant in it. The film was very controversial for its release date 1947 but the speech that Chaplin delivers at the end, soon after the end of WW 2, was simply incredible. Highly recommended. Chaplin didn't make any poor pictures.

This is a pretty surprising role that Chaplin played. Usually he plays lighthearted and silly roles but this one is a bit darker and more two-faced. It's interesting to see how he has a family of his own but then has a double life where he has relationships with other women who are rich which he then ends up killing so that he can take their money. He's got quite the little operation going on. God I can't imagine how tiresome that must be trying to remember all your lies. The women who he's trying to rob from all have less than desirable personalities, except for the last one that almost got away. A clever psychopath with a heart. What a confounding paradox. Very funny at times with callbacks to Chaplin's silliness from his past movies, but it's also a pretty stark and probably one of Chaplin's darkest movies. He's almost like a philosopher in a sense making these enlightening speeches throughout his movies that speak truth about the dark realities of our world and he does it with such elegance. Definitely a social commentary on how unfair companies can be where one minute you're working for them for 30 years and the next, you're the first one to go. Can you blame him for being so cynical towards life and wanting to start his own business. The problem was the business he was into actually hurt people, literally. The message here is that people turn to crime because of desperation and because of how cruel and unforgiving life can be. Verdoux is probably one of the most complex characters I've seen to date. Here is a man who obviously has psychopathic tendencies but also someone that has nothing left to live for other than getting back at what the world did to him. And yet I couldn't help but sympathize for him. This is what makes me want to re watch it. The complexity of it all. Very interesting movie on a moral, ethical and philosophical point.

Charlie Chaplin plays a murderous, sweet-talking, bigamist based in the French countryside. Flamboyant, narcissistic, cynical, and calculating, the protagonist manipulates everyone around him in order to maintain his lifestyle for his handicapable wife and young son. Marilyn Nash is very pretty as is Isobel Elsom, but the best scenes were with Martha Raye. Awfully dark for its time - "Wars, conflict - it's all business. One murder makes a villain; millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify, my good fellow!"

The beginning of the death of utopia as a consequence of the World War II. (Mauro Lanari)

Chaplin's style saw no limit in terms of comic material. As a Tramp, he would easily laugh at hunger, poverty and politics. As the negative image of the Tramp, that is, Monsieur Verdoux, he makes a sarcastic social mockery that he calls a "comedy of murders", embodying an anti-hero that's both a criminal and sensitive, and being the source of rather tasty scenes (with a welcome participation from William Frawley) of sheer dark humor without forgetting its touching signature. 'Monsieur Verdoux' is an efficient mixture of elegance and bad taste.

France, early 1930s. After working for 30 years at a bank, Henri Verdoux is laid off. The world is in the middle of a depression and work is hard to find. To support his wife and child, Verdoux takes to a life of crime - marrying rich women, murdering them and taking their money. After a while the police start to piece the puzzle together... A dark comedy-drama from the great Charlie Chaplin. Not a laugh-a-minute, unlike his best works and a bit uneven. The first hour is quite dry and contains very few laughs. In addition, the drama is slow-paced and the movie doesn't seem headed for much. However, things pick up considerably in the second half with some hilarious scenes and some interesting dramatic themes developing. The main reason for the better second half is the performance of comedienne Martha Raye, who plays one of his wives. Wonderfully over the top, she provides most of the best comedic moments and breathes life into what was otherwise a fairly stuffy, play-like affair.

Charlie Chaplin's most peculiar film has its moments. There are some funny scenes thrown it with its suspenseful nature. I didn't like the ending at all though. It was annoyingly preachy. (First and only viewing - 2/20/2017)

It feels more like a Hitchcock movie than a Chaplin one. This one is pretty short on laughs. Chaplin plays the titular Verdoux, a serial killer married to about a dozen different women across France. Chaplin's performance is wonderful. He's charming, witty, and has a gift for gab. Interesting for one of the best silent comedians ever to be a gifted talker, yes? Chaplin's performance is one of the few bright spots. The film bills itself as a comedy of murders, but there's very little comedy. There are a few attempts, yes. One or two gags land, but this feels more like a thriller than anything else. There are definitely a few scenes that would be right at home in a Hitchcock movie. As a matter of fact, Chaplin's tension building in this one rivals the master of suspense himself. The film gets a little preachy towards the end. Verdoux's social commentary feels very tacked on and forced. It has nowhere near the power his amazing speech in the Great Dictator did. Still, it is entertaining, if only to watch a man known for making us laugh transition so effortlessly into one who shocks us with his horrifying deeds.

It tries to be a dark comedy of murdering the unmurderable. But it's too slow to build up to hijinks and not over the top enough when hijinks ensue to come across as anything but glorifying a killer. I understand Chaplin was trying to make a statement at the end, but it didn't pay off the same as his previous work.

Probably my least favourite Chaplin film. By no means a bad film, but I don't find it to be particularly funny, leaving me wondering what the point is. It all leads to a startlingly dumb concluding speech from the main character, leaving me to conclude it wasn't really about all that much after all.