grantss 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.

Ross622 "Monsieur Verdoux" is unlike any other Chaplin film that I have ever seen before for two reasons only, reason 1 the story is much different than Chaplin's stories to his other films for example The Kid (1921),and The Gold Rush (1925), reason 2 because Chaplin doesn't usually play villains in his movies and in this movie he does play the bad guy for the first time ever in his career and as a result he was deliberately snubbed for a best leading actor Oscar as well as an Oscar for best director but only got a screenplay nomination. The movie tells the story of a killer named Henri Verdoux (played by Charlie Chaplin) who murders women in order to support his wife and son (that is a true idea for Orson Welles to give to other filmmakers that were working around the time he started working in Hollywood), this movie is not only one of the best movies of 1947 it is one of Chaplin's best movies period alongside The Kid and the gold rush.

SnoopyStyle Henri Verdoux (Charles Chaplin) is a prim and proper man who kills for a living. He seduces middle age women, steals their money, kills them, and dispose of their bodies. To him it's just a way of living. He invests his money in the stock market and support his wife and son in their country home. Even in the end, he sees nothing wrong with his killings. "Wars, conflict - it's all business. One murder makes a villain; millions, a hero. Numbers sanctify, my good fellow!" This is very much about Charlie Chaplin's performance and the character. One of my favorite show is Dexter. The difference between the two is that Dexter struggles whereas Verdoux does not. Verdoux is as amoral as they come. It doesn't make for a compelling watch. Chaplin tries to inject a lot of humor in this character by portraying lot of odd behaviors and funny errors. It's cute but none of it made me laugh.Overall I do commend Chaplin for pushing the envelope by creating an unique character. It makes up for the slow pace and unfunny jokes.

Scott44 Chaplin's 'Monsieur Verdoux' takes risks but is flawed, and I recommend that readers search for Michael Coy's review ("Dire Chaplin Black Farce", 1/99) because he identifies many of the problems with it. Chaplin was a genius in many ways, including physical comedy, film scoring and by writing unique cinematic moments. Chaplin's anti-capitalist political views were keen, and his monologue at the film's conclusion strongly resonates today.However, Chaplin wasn't top-shelf as a director. There is some dramatic tension, but not as much as one hopes. Chaplin also brings silent-era slapstick along (when possible) and mixes it in with serious undertones at the conclusion. It is a soup with many ingredients.There are some typically wonderful Chaplinesque moments. Martha Raye's scenes as the unkillable wife and then the inconvenient spouse are the film's highlight. I also think the scenes with Marilyn Nash are also very good. Nash's beautiful, "what if" Belgian girl is a moral counterweight to the misogyny experienced elsewhere.Chaplin deserves a lot of credit for taking on such a risky role and expressing his populist views so succinctly. With another director it could have been great. It is still worth viewing, but will disappoint those who mind its obvious flaws.