TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Kirpianuscus one of films who impress. for the performances. for the modern perspective about social realities. and, in same measure, for the art of director to propose a seductive - bitter story about desire, illusion and happiness. it is a splendid demonstration of high cinema. this fact defines it and, more than a virtue, represents the basic motif for rediscover a pure gem.

MisterWhiplash A Woman of Paris: A Drama of Fate gives us a familiar little story: do you pick the man with the money or the man with the artistic drive and heart (and not really much money)? It's also set in the 1920's since it is, you know, from that decade, but it helps that Charlie Chaplin, in his one and only true dramatic offering, sets it in the milieu of Paris, France of the early 20's when things were bright and alive and Champagne flowed and people danced and so on. It fits to have this story here, and all of the actors are game for it. Ultimately, this may not be the most original story, as it follows a woman who is kicked out of her home (because, in brief, it sucks as we're told) and goes to Paris in a moment of high dramatic tension and then ends up being attached to one man (Menjou) while the other does come to town and becomes a painter. And lordy-lord it has some exceptionally melodramatic beats.But Chaplin's light touch connects well with a honestly dramatic and even existential story of a woman caught in a question of choice, and how the choices of the two men (one who is too guilt-ridden over his mother, the other who has no guilt about anything, certainly not the fact that he's made this woman the "other" woman) are wonderfully well drawn, and the performance by Purviance makes her akin to Diane Keaton to his Woody Allen (and there's Adolphe Menjou, who revels in being a high-society cad). Oh, and the music, while a bit repetitive, is also a great fit for the material.

CJBx7 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

calvinnme 1923's "A Woman of Paris is probably not what you'd expect in a Chaplin film based on the totality of his body of work, both in features and in shorts. However, that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile viewing. It just means if you are new to Chaplin, you might not want to start here."A Woman of Paris" showed Chaplin's talent behind the camera without him appearing in front of it, except for a lone cameo in which he quickly appears and then disappears acting as a luggage boy. He made it for two reasons, to do some pioneering in cinematic technique and to help give his long time costar and companion Edna Purviance a career boost. The film is actually quite good with great performances by Purviance and by Adolphe Menjou as a carefree playboy. The film did make a star out of Menjou. It didn't really help Purviance that much. The film is about a pair of star-crossed lovers that circumstance drives apart and then brings back together and the eventual tragedy that occurs due to the weakness of will of Purviance's character's one time fiancé, played by Carl Miller.The film was a failure at the box office, not because it was bad, but because audiences expected to see Chaplin when they went to a Chaplin film. After the failure of this film, Chaplin went back to formulas that were tried and true for him and never really went out on a limb experimenting again, which is too bad for all of us.