A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)

I think that the film is a natural consequence of Chaplin´s life maturity although it may have some old-fashioned elements. As for me, it´s a very well constructed film from the beginning to the end. The way the film starts and introduces the place is the proof that it is not one more film. The music is our guide that leads us through the film. During it, we can see how the wonderful Charlotte goes from one character to another, specially performed by Sophia Loren. As for me, the only faults are the sea and the beach shots. Even though, we go on leaded by this beautiful music to an end that appears as a natural result. The way it is filmed converts it in one of the best ends I have ever seen. It is a great film to end a genial film career.

Fmovies: Movie goers, film critics, and people in general have at least one tendency that often clouds our judgment. It's called stereotyping. In this case, it seems to be a consensus of many in all three above groups, that Marlon Brando was miscast as Ogden Mears in "A Countess from Hong Kong." And, apparently to the detriment of the whole film. But, was he? Or have many people viewed this film bitten by that stereotype bug that can infect our brains? Marlon Brando – the serious actor! The master actor of dramatic roles! How could he be any good in comedy? He doesn't even know how to smile or laugh!

Well, after seeing this movie, I have to think that Charlie Chaplin knew full well what he was doing. Even if the critics of the time and many viewers then and now can't see it, or appreciate it. Chaplin, the comedy genius and super-talented actor, writer and composer, did not just put out a flop for his last film. He managed to do another very clever, funny and entertaining piece of the milieu in which he excelled. No, it's not his best, but it fits nicely with all his other films in the "better" category.

"Countess" has a good serving of wit and sight gags – two hallmarks of great Chaplin comedy. Not as many as in "The Great Dictator," "Monsieur Verdoux," or "A King in New York." But his inimitable style for simple, yet sophisticated comedy is stamped all over this film. Others have commented on his musical mastery and a little history behind this film. Since much criticism is aimed at Brando and his part, I'll just dissect that a bit. Brando's role was the perfect straight man for this scenario. Only, he doesn't have one joker, buffoon or eccentric sidekick. Rather, he is the central character that several others play off of in comedic interplay – mostly light, but at times very funny. His serious side is exactly what is needed to make the rest of it work as it does.

Some have noted that Cary Grant or Rock Hudson would have been more natural in this role. Sure, they would have added their amusing, bewildered or befuddled expressions to the dialog for good laughs. And, their characters would have been more in tune with that of the countess. But I don't think that's what Chaplin had in mind. Remember – Ogden Mears was prominent in political circles and feted as ambassadorial material. So, Chaplin wanted a real person, from real life, to put in this role to add a sense of sharper contrast to the humor of the plot. I think Brando was his pick for that reason. And, I think it works well. All we need do to thoroughly enjoy this film, is cast aside any preconceptions we may have about who can play what type of roles. Then, sit back and watch this film as it is. And enjoy the wonderful Chaplin wit.

As for the family fest – his son Sydney did quite well as Harvey, one of those who played nicely off Brando's straight man. And daughter, Geraldine, was among the club dancers early in the film, though without any lines. Charlie's two cameos were nice; the latter very funny where the chief steward himself was fighting seasickness. All in all, those of the Chaplin clan made nice filler for his last film.

What seemed to be "out of decade movie" by some critics--it was obvious they had missed the point! It was meant to that! Mr. Chaplin was making a "tongue in cheek" movie as a "throw-back" to the days when such movies were made. As for Brando, he was the somewhat "strait-man" in playing the part of a very important man caught up in a situation that was confusing, funny, and serious all at the same time. He was thinking, "What kind of impact is this situation going to have on my career?! I laughed all the way through the movie. My wife really "got-in-to-it" when Sofia's husband was trying to get comfortable in the bed next to her. Obviously, he was not accustomed to being with women!

A Countess from Hong Kong fmovies. Not as dull as I was lead to believe... Brando is miscast, he seems to have participated as favour to the legendary Chaplin. (Chaplin shouldn´t have asked him. Maybe the stuffy Sydney Chaplin would have been better in the lead...) Sophia is a trouper, jumping out of chairs, pretending to be sick... very kind of her to sink to that level... Again, it must have been the honour of having been chosen by Chaplin...

The story has potential as a romantic comedy but the film is a bit too long and slow with the sometimes funny jokes far between...

Very interesting to see though, with many interesting side characters like the butler Hudson, Tippi Hedren from "The Birds" in a thankless role as the chilly wife, granddaughter Geraldine Chaplin in a bit part and the very underrated Angela Scoular as the society girl who steals the entire movie... The film must have seemed quite dated when it was released in the restless sixties. Worth checking out...

This is an old fashioned simple comedy, in the same style as the (talking)comedies from the '30's and '40's. The style and sense of humor is not fitting for a 1967 movie and everything feels terribly out of place.

Despite that the movie is far from an 'horrible' one, it still is a disappointing last movie for Charles Chaplin who directed, produced, wrote, composed and acted in this movie. His wonderful comedy career deserved a more worthy last movie. It's sort of ironic and maybe even sad, that man to blame for the failure of the movie is Chaplin himself. What ever made him think that an old fashioned story and style of film-making would make a successful and good movie? Had this movie been made in the late '30's or '40's the movie would had felt more right. Everything than would had more sense and everything in the movie would had connected better to each other. The style of film-making and the story itself simply work too old fashioned for an 1967 movie. As a result of this the story feels childish and throughout its running time, mostly not funny enough. This movie was made in the wrong decade.

But there are more problems with the movie. Another one of those problems is Marlon Brando. Of course he's a great actor and without doubt one of the very best of all time but I'm sorry, he just wasn't much good as a comical actor. He doesn't seem at ease in most of the comical sequences and he just feels totally miscast. Sophia Loren on the other hand is fine in this movie, as is Tippi Hedren. Chaplin's son Sydney Chaplin also plays quite a big role in the movie and he plays a surprising pleasant character, who gets more important in the movie as the story progresses. Charlie Chaplin himself also shows up in a very small role. Another very pleasant cameo is by Oscar winning actress Margaret Rutherford. The scene with her is perhaps the very best of the entire movie. The rest of the characters and actors just seem pointless and don't really make a lasting or important enough impression.

So does the entire movie to be honest. It feels like a pointless movie, that doesn't add anything and has no surprises in it, or reasons to make this movie a must-see. No, not even for the Brando, Loren or Chaplin fans. This movie is certainly not one of their best moments, out of their long careers and none of them really make a wonderful shining impression in this movie.

Sure, it does have its moments but overall it's filled with too many old fashioned sort of comical situations that are too often stretched out for too long and too much. As a movie it's entertaining enough to make it worth your time but as a comedy it really isn't good or funny enough to consider this movie a great or really memorable one.

I agree with Quentin Tarantino on this issue (see "My Best Friend's Birthday"), this is not Charlie Chaplin's finest moment.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

It is gratifying to see such understanding reviews! This film was savaged at the time it was released, partly because it was considered old fashioned, but partly also because Chaplin's reputation and entire artistic legacy were under attack from reactionary critics. The negative view of this movie as a "bomb" persisted for decades. I recommend producer Jerry Epstein's book of memoirs, "Remembering Charlie", for an enlightening description of the process of making this film and its aftermath. The book goes on to give a haunting description of Chaplin's unfinished final film, "The Freak." It is a pity he could not make it.