A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Let's be realistic.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Am a big fan of Charlie Chaplin, have been for over a decade now. Many films and shorts of his are very good to masterpiece, and like many others consider him a comedy genius and one of film's most important and influential directors. It is hard to not expect a lot with all his feature films between 'The Kid' and 'Limelight' being very good to masterpieces. On that front Chaplin's penultimate film 'A Countess from Hong Kong' disappoints . As far as his feature films go it is his weakest and is really not a worthy film to go out on, being nowhere near the standard of 'The Gold Rush', 'The Kid', 'Modern Times', 'The Great Dictator' and especially 'City Lights'. As far as his overall career goes it is among his lesser efforts, though marginally better than his early career short films it is much better than the worst of his Keystone period and even his much improved Essanay period had a couple of lacklustre ones. He also did a couple of historical curios and patchworks that this is also superior to. Not an awful film and better than its reputation, but really not great or a good representation of a genius and talented cast. Not really much to add here.'A Countess from Hong Kong' has its very big problems. It is one of Chaplin's least visually refined feature films. Some of the camera work and editing are rough and the setting is not convincing at all, not evocative in any way and more reminiscent very obvious stage-bound sets. Chaplin's direction is him at his most uninspired and unfocused, he came over to me as not very interested.The film does feel rather ponderous and stagy, and suffers further from being simplistic, even for a film intended to be slight, and repetitive. This is also apparent in the script, which doesn't sparkle enough and too often lacks sophistication and wit. It does feel bland, with the biting satire being absent, the comedy lacking variety and inspiration (some of it feeling fatigued) and the pathos too far and between, didn't mind the lack of the political element, and do have to agree that its approach is more suited to the 30s than the late 60s because it felt out of date even by 60s standards.Marlon Brando was an amazing actor responsible for some of the best performances on film (his performance in 'The Godfather' in particular is iconic), but he was not immune to bad performances. Of which his painfully miscast role here is one of his worst, he is completely out of his depth, looks uncomfortable and miserable and plays the role too seriously and heavily. The chemistry between him and Sophia Loren is not there and too many of the cameos are pointless and wasted.However, Loren does inject some charm and sensuality, while Tippi Hedren is a high point in a suitably icy, charming and ironic performance. Margaret Rutherford is great fun, but other than Hedren the performance comes from a delightful Patrick Cargill. Chaplin's music score is beautifully incorporated and is a vibrant, characterful and pleasing to hear score in its own right. There are amusing moments, some wit and charm and a couple of the latter dramatic scenes have touching tenderness, again not coming consistently.Overall, rather disappointing swansong, with everybody involved deserving much better, but it for all its faults is not as bad as its lukewarm at best reputation. 5/10 Bethany Cox

I watched this film after reading some of the reviews thinking that even a bad Chaplin movie couldn't be all bad but this so-called comedy is a real stinker. I really don't know what Chaplin thought he was doing as nearly everyone seems to act like a lunatic in it. There are some real lows like when Brando buys clothes for Loren that are obviously ten times too big for her or Sydney Chaplin jumping up and down on the beach or Patrick Cargill thrashing around in the single bed which are all just plain silly. It proved one thing, that only Chaplin could do Chaplin and it's a pity that he hadn't been twenty years younger as he could have given a good performance in either the Brando role or the Cargill role. As it is, he is funny in the two brief scenes he appears in as the "Old Steward". Even the great Margaret Rutherford, in one of her last film appearances sadly, seems wasted in the brief scene she's in, which could have been a lot more humorous than it is.The script, apparently written by Chaplin, is just banal. The dramatic scenes, near the end of the movie are good, especially with Tippi Hedren, but Brando looks like he's thinking, "How did I get myself into this". He actually does have comic ability, as he proved in "A Bedtime Story" a couple of years earlier, but not in this turkey.Very claustrophobic for the first hour of the movie with the scenes mostly taking place in Brando's luxury cabin, with he and Loren running madly from room to room like idiots. The three stars are for Chaplin's brief appearance, Tippi Hedren's dramatic performance and, of course, the lovely music composed by Chaplin himself. Indeed, Petula Clark had a number one hit with "This is My Song" derived from the love theme in it, even though apparently Petula hated the song. To sum up, viewer beware.

A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)** (out of 4) The wealthy Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is in Hong Kong where he is partying a bit one night and then wakes up the next morning with his ship on its way to the next location. The only problem is that Natascha (Sophia Loren) has decided to stowaway on the boat and Mears must keep her hidden so that no one sees her.A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG would turn out to be the final film from the legendary Charles Chaplin. It's really too bad this film was so lame and it's just shocking because you've got Chaplin, Brando and Loren. Three legends of the big screen and it turns into a movie like this. It seems everyone hated one another but this here really doesn't show on the screen. The biggest problem is that this film was simply made thirty years too late.I say that because the structure is something you'd see from a screwball comedy in the 1930s. I mean, why in 1967 would someone be worried about a woman being found in his room? There are many scenes where the two are frantically going from one hiding spot to the next and Brando takes a couple falls along the way. It's just not that funny. In fact, very little is actually funny here and while it's an okay time killer, the film just never adds up to much.I thought Loren was good enough in her role. She's strikingly beautiful and her in that white evening gown was one of the few highlights. As far as Brando goes, yeah, this wasn't the type of role for him. Apparently Chaplin wanted Cary Grant or David Niven and Brando certainly isn't either of them. He's way too stiff in the part and the constant fighting between him and Chaplin behind the camera probably didn't make him want to be much better. He's not horrid in the part but it's clear that he's not right for it.A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG has pretty much been forgotten over the years and it's easy to see why. The film isn't quite as awful as its reputation but when you've got three legends in one movie you just expect more.

This is a very sad movie. Sad because one expects a good deal more from three giant names linked together--Brando, Loren, Chaplin. Primarily sad because the two usually charismatic leads lack any kind of genuine chemistry together; it's clear that free-spirited Brando at this point in his career was unable to adapt to Chaplin's micromanagement style and merely looks frustrated--it's clear that he was not paying attention to much other than the paycheck--as an example, he's playing a high-ranking government official, he looks dowdy, badly needs a haircut and looks ready to go home; Loren, always the professional, really has no one to play off of, and the old-fashioned shipboard romance, so successful in another era, does not jell.There are a few funny moments, but they are forced; there are many more hilarious moments in the average Abbott and Costello comedy, and a good deal more honest humor. The cardboard sets don't help much, either, nor do the lilting Chaplin waltzes that belong in another film entirely. This is a fascinating film for students of Chaplin or Brando, but for a general audience, inconsequential. There are far too many worthwhile shipboard films that capture the magic of romance as would-be lovers gaze at the waves on a calm moonlit sea: The Lady Eve, for instance, or Follow The Fleet. Sadly, this ain't it