Better than average, probably a 3.5 which I'm generously rounding to 4, but not much more than that.

I'm also curious, where are the folks who brand Polanski with the kiddy-raper tag when it comes to this guy? Try to to be consistent, folks.

love his work

Chaplain is mediocre at best and frankly boring. Cinematography is (and would have) gotten along just fine without his childish tedium.

Along with Griffith, Arbuckle, Lloyd and Keaton, Chaplin contributed significantly to cinema narrative with masterpieces such as 'The Gold Rush.' (Extract from my comments on RIA to Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'): Chaplin's "...political views, as subliminally conveyed in his movies - many shorts; 'The Kid'; 'City Lights'; 'Modern Times'; etc. - made many opinion-makers uncomfortable enough to consider him subversive, a sympathizer of Communism and an enemy of American values, any and all of which he might have been at some degree or other. It became enough so by the late 1940s that it was necessary for him to leave and make his home in Switzerland, instead. Had the Soviet Union become more of a threat still, Chaplin conceivably might today be as tainted and repudiated as have been Reich master Architect Albert Speer, Berlin Philharmonic Director Wilhelm Furtwangler, his successor, pianist and conductor Herbert Von Karajan and (Leni) Riefenstahl, among others." But, where does that leave our appreciation of Chaplin's sublime artistry?

Chaplin was not at all an innovator in the art of the cinema; remove him from the equation and the visual element in movie narrative today would likely not be any more advanced today. However, much as his images come uncomfortably near sentimentality (would nevertheless not deny myself the last shots in 'The Kid,' 'City Lights' and in 'Modern Times'), the history of the cinema without him would be lacking considerably in a shared human experience (Roberto Begnini's 'Life is Beautiful' owes more to Chaplin than to any other).

Asked to validate whether his few contributions constitute entertainment in the cinema, I would characterize his legacy (alongside that of a few others before 1940) as truer to its spirit than are many choice dramatizations that derive from the era of social awareness that began with Method acting. Notable directors Elia Kazan (with John Garfield, Brando, Kim Hunter, James Dean and Montgomery Clift), Martin Ritt (with Paul Newman, Anthony Quinn, Joanne Woodwrd and Richard Dreyfuss), Jerry Schatzberg (Al Pacino and Gene Hackman), Arthur Penn (Newman, Dustin Hoffman, Ellen Burstyn, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty and Hackman), Martin Scorcese (Robert De Niro and Newman) and Sydney Lumet (Joanne Woodward, Henry Fonda, Al Pacino, Newman, Hoffman), are each and all of them perennial favorites of ours with whom none of us should, could or would want to do without. But the apparet spontaneity, the refinement and nuances of what is, after all, 90 year-old comedy - Chaplin's and Keaton's art - are considerably more elusive.

He was the hottest ticket around during the WWI era, and used solid gifts to his advantage, but once talkies came along this guy demonstrated that his talents were limited. The first international star due to the lack of language block the silents provided, but once he was required to speak in order to educe comedic effct, he was lost. Did direct two fine films: "The Gold Rush," and "Modern Times," but the rest of the canon is so-so. Today, in comparison to his comtemporary Buster Keaton, Charlot's work seems creaky and clunky, because it is.

Brilliant

Without Charlie Chaplin, the other directors in this chart may not have existed. He turned the movies into an art form through his comedy and pathos. I used to think that silent movies were boring, but how wrong was I!! I only had to watch five minutes of "The Gold Rush" and was hooked. That is the legacy of a good director, that someone like me can come along 80 years later and laugh just as much as those who saw it first time round.

Parctically invented the art form and its first international star. Mixed pathos with comedy and wasn't affraid to have the hero fail at his objective. The Great Dictator defines how to make a parody.