NewtonFigg Mr. Chaplin should have heeded Goldwyn's advice. A telegram is terse and to the point. If the message of this movie is to call attention to the evils of McCarthyism, the message has been diluted by jabs at TV advertising, Cinemascope, teenagers, and by the inclusion of dragged out archaic slapstick, and an implausible romance. Falling fully clothed into a bathtub was old twenty years earlier. The business with the fire hose went on much too long and looked as if it had been lifted from a 1918 Chaplin short.The denouement is witless. If only HUAC could have been wiped away by spraying it with a fire hose. The kid, Rupert, had a stage father instead of a stage mother.

Martin Bradley Someone once described "A King in New York" as the worst film ever made by a major artist. I can think of many worse examples and while this late Chaplin picture may lack the genius of his earlier work, (it was his penultimate film; he made it several years after "Limelight" and before "A Countess from Hong Kong"), it is an often very funny satire on what Chaplin perceived as 'the modern age'. Driven out of America by McCarthyism, Chaplin constructed his New York in a British studio and typical of its writer, director, star and composer it makes no apology for its attack on right-wing politics, in particular the HUAC, as well as television, Cinemascope and plastic surgery. It's also less sentimental than it might have been, (always Chaplin's biggest fault), but the plot involving a child played by Chaplin's own son Michael, does the film no favours. On the other hand, Chaplin himself is superb and Dawn Adams is surprisingly good as a television star. No masterpiece, then but not quite the disaster some people have said of it either.

Dimitri44 As I see it, first, with quick comments: The technical aspects of this film were perfect. Chaplin evidently had a high IQ, and he expressed his rebuttals in a light-hearted and dignified manner. The juxtapositioning of the Queen and the TV producer may have been his way of telling his personal life critics cast the first stone if you're qualified.Now, for a somewhat more extended commentary. Chaplin and his wife Oona may have made at the time what I see as a pandemic cult mistake that many made at the time of imagining that the Bolsheviks could have somehow meant well; but the reaction from politicians at the time was much worse. For them, an exorcist was and is needed, but such politicians were and are into an evil hopelessly too deep. Some of them even say that they've heard of Moses, Jesus Christ and Apostle Paul. Have they? Finally, Chaplin's script and delivery were superb. If this was 1957, this was an encore from the Golden Age.**Here is an addendum to this review. The purpose of congressional committee hearings is to gather facts, opinions, etc. for providing guidance for possible future legislation, and so the naming of names has nothing to do with this. In other words, the investigators for these committees always had all of these names in advance all the time; and so the committees were merely playing a trick in order to humiliate the witnesses, and to score points with the voters. This means that the judges should have always found that it was the committee chairmen who were in contempt of court.

jeremy3 Of course, Charlie Chaplin is mostly remembered for non-speaking roles. A King In New York is a satire by Chaplin about his impressions of America. It is refreshing to see a movie that is critical of America. Chaplin plays a king of a fictitious eastern European country who is forced, due to a coup, to flee to New York City. Chaplin show his versatility as a talking actor by really sincerely getting down the mannerisms of a European monarch. He is an older man, but very charming. Soon, however, the king finds that his natural goodness and true compassion is exploited by commercialism and political opportunism. At first the king is entranced by America's freedom, but soon discovers that American is a brash society of loud big bands, and brash advertising and movies. When the king finds himself broke, he is used by a beautiful young woman (Addams) to do advertisements. Addams excellently plays the superficial American. She is always smiling, but ever criticizing about the monarchs age and lack of television persona. When he gets self-conscious, she says 'No, you're great. You just can't appear on TV with a sagging face'. She convinces him to get a face lift, but it ends up that his face is so tight that if he laughs, he will end up in the hospital. The evening after the face lift, he unfortunately goes to a club and is subjected to slapstick humor that literally forces him to go back for emergency surgery.The movie's only flaw is that at times it gets a little dull. Other than that it is a brilliant look at America - where image and appearance are everything. The climax of the movie deals with McCarthyism. For dare helping out the child of disgraced communists (the child played by Chaplin's real life son), the king is forced before the Committee On UnAmerican Activities. The conclusion of the movie is very funny. In conclusion, this movie displays the full range of Chaplin's great talents. His comic touch, his dramatic-ism, his political satire, his slapstick gifts, and his kind demeanor are fully displayed in this film. I highly recommend this film.