A Countess from Hong Kong (1967) User Reviews (67)

Very flawed, still interesting

[ouija-3 · 7/10 · 8 September 1999]

Chaplin's last picture is a film with many faults, yet it's not as bad as often claimed. I've seen it many times myself. Here is my opinion of it:

One of the most important flaws is the miscasting of Brando. He seems ill at ease. Thus Loren has to carry the film virtually alone. The whole structure of 'Countess' is not well balanced. There's too much simple visual comedy for a romantic comedy, and vice versa. The plot is thin (It's supposed to be simplistic). Also, the score is at times muddled as previously introduced dramatic themes come and go without any reason (see and hear Hedren's first appearance.) The film is also a bit overlong.

The good things: There are points when the music is up to Chaplin's usually high standards (Cargill's comedy scene, storm theme). Cameo appearances are nice. Direction is more focused and production values are certainly superior to A King in N.Y. Yes, I believe, that what is often described as Chaplin's 'flat' direction due to a lack of skill is an artistic style by choice. Simpleness is not the same as unskilfulness. For instance, during the dance scenes, the camera movement following actors is subtle and economically made. You'll notice it if you watch them in fast-forward.

And if one may feel disappointed at the film on the whole, there's at least a very beautiful, poignant and simple ending that is in my opinion the best of any Chaplin film I've seen. Its every element is in place.

Therefore it's a rather mixed bag of a movie, most suitable for Chaplin fans and very interesting as a curio, at least.

This could have been a much better movie--as it is, it's still an interesting film

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 27 November 2006]

This film has a pretty poor reputation and in some ways it is deserved, but I also wonder if maybe the reason critics were so hard on the film was because they expected too much from director, Charlie Chaplin. It was the last film he directed and in this sense, it is a disappointment that he made such an ordinary film. But, if they had thought that the director was Homer Noodleman or Myron Lipschitz, would they have been so hostile towards THE COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG?

The biggest problem about the film is probably the choice of stars for the film. While Marlon Brando was brilliant in some films, he also often acted well outside his range--this film is a great example. He just isn't a funny actor no matter how much he tries in the film. The part appears to have been written for someone like Cary Grant or David Niven--but not Brando. And Sophia Loren, while not as badly miscast, also really isn't in her element. Also, Chaplin himself only appears for a few seconds, and I am sure many were disappointed at only seeing this ever so brief cameo.

Now as for the plot, I read one review that said this film was made in the wrong decade, and I agree wholeheartedly. The movie looks much like a romantic-comedy from the late 1930s. This isn't really a criticism--more that this film would have played better and been embraced more in this decade instead of the more jaded and "hip" 1960s. I'm sure than many potential viewers were turned off by it being a movie "for their parents".

Unfortunately, the film apart from these minor criticisms wasn't really a bad film. While not the perfect culmination to his career like it would have been if LIMELIGHT had been his final film, Chaplin had nothing to be ashamed of other than miscasting.

not as bad as critics made out

[fcasnette · 7/10 · 28 July 2006]

an interesting curio as Chaplin's last film. Loren is ravishingly beautiful and carries the whole film well on her shoulders. Brando badly miscast, he shows some great timing in the madcap farce rushing around scenes, but try to imagine how Rex Harrison could have done this type of slamming doors and hiding farce as the uptight diplomat exasperated with his stowaway - think My Fair Lady. Brando's mumbling performance just does not gel. Apparently he had disagreements with Chaplin and maybe was sulking.

Very nice cameos from Margaret Rutherford (British films of the 50s Miss Marple) and Angelar Scoular (batty girl like in her performance in On Her Majesty's Secret Service), also great comedy performance from Patrick Cargill (British TV comedy and a memorable No 2 in the Prisoner) as the butler. Excellent acting going on here.

It is dull to start with, static camera like silent films, stagy, and obvious studio sets, but by the time the sea sickness scene came along I was laughing and drawn in. The post marriage bedroom scene is funny.

There is a scene at the bar with Sydney Chaplin (Charlie's son) where he tries to distract Michael Medwin, where Sydney looks amazingly like Charlie in attitude and timing - but this is probably due to diligent direction by his father.

A really nice theme music from Charlie again. Yes, it is old fashioned, a filmed play, was absolutely released in the wrong decade, with the wrong leading man, but does show some of the Chaplin traits and even perhaps genius, certainly his humanist philosophy in the treatment of homeless or stateless persons.

A real shame it was so savaged by critics at the time and disappointed him in his old age. He deserved better for his lifetime contribution to the art of film.

A movie that was made in the wrong decade.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 28 April 2006]

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/

Naive and Funny

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 9 May 2015]

In Hong Kong, the wealthy Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is traveling in a transatlantic and is near to be assigned Saudi Arabia Ambassador and is divorcing from his wife Martha (Tippi Hedren). His friend Harvey (Sydney Chaplin) and he are invited by their old friend Clark (Oliver Johnston) to go to a nightclub with three aristocratic Russian refugees on their last night. Ogden drinks too much and spends the night with Countess Natascha (Sophia Loren). On the next morning, while sailing back home, Ogdeb finds Natascha hidden in his cabin wearing a ball gown and with no documents. The stowaway explains that she wants to go to the United States and Ogden is worried with his career. But Harvey convinces him to help Natascha. Ogden falls in love with Natascha and together with Harvey, they plot a fake marriage of Natascha with his valet Hudson (Patrick Cargill). But things get complicated when immigration requests her documents and Martha arrives on board.

"A Countess of Hong Kong" is a naive movie by Charles Chaplin but also very funny and with a great soundtrack. The romance between Ogden and Natascha is unnecessarily hard to believe since Ogden is the son of the richest oil tycoon and Natascha is a prostitute; therefore he would be the target of any gold-digger. Ogden could be a simpler character to give more credibility for his crush on Natascha. But the last movie directed by Charles Chaplin is worthwhile watching and may be considered a classic. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "A Condessa de Hong Kong" ("The Countess of Hong Kong")

Good movie made ten years too late. A must see for fans of Chaplin, Loren and Brando.

[Kathy-32 · 24 August 1999]

This is a good movie if you like old-fashioned, 50's style, bedroom farce, romantic comedies. Unfortunately, it was made in 1967 when films for adults were much more direct about sexuality, so this one was already out of date when it was released. It's a bit of nostalgia, but fun.

What I liked the most when I saw this on video last night was the fact that Sophia Loren, who by today's standards would be considered almost obese, was admired for her womanly shape, wit, grace and intelligence. She is absolutely stunning even when she wears Marlon Brando's character's pajamas.

This is Charles Chaplin's last film and I enjoyed his characteristic soundtrack music. It's filmed as a play with only a few sets.

OK end for Chaplin

[lee_eisenberg · 6/10 · 23 July 2006]

Many people have regarded Charlie Chaplin's final film with some scorn, but I didn't find "A Countess from Hong Kong" so bad. True, this seems fairly lame from the man who brought us "The Great Dictator", but it's passable. Marlon Brando plays an American hoping to be an ambassador, who happens upon ex-countess Sophia Loren in Hong Kong, and she wants to return to the United States with him.

In a way, the cast members seem to be sort of stumbling through their roles. Maybe such a routine plot isn't quite fitting for the people starring in this movie. Still, Brando and Loren do bring a certain charm to the flick: he's the uptight dude, she's the pretty woman looking for someone in life.

Anyway, this may be just a way to pass time, but it's still OK. Also starring Sydney Chaplin, Tippi Hedren and Patrick Cargill.

Brando's performance is outstanding.

[maystheaterlog · 7/10 · 1 June 2012]

It may be understandable that viewers would expect Brando performing as a typical Chaplin-style comedian because it is a Chaplin comedy.

From the perspective of almost 50 years later, the movie works it is because of Brando's flawless performance as a upper-class man of his era who is serious, decent and conservative. His response to a desperate but beautiful woman is accurate.

Brando's interpretation of the role of an upper-class man by his gestures, manners and intents is so accurate and consistent that makes the plot believable while allowing audience to relate to the glory of a true love happening in an impossible union.

As usual, Brando doesn't play himself, but he is in the character he is in.

If stripping out all the elements of supposedly Chaplin style of comedy, the script is well-written. It makes sense and believable.

Here even in Chaplin's supposedly lesser work, his genius shines, at least to me.

Farewell to Chaplin

[theowinthrop · 5/10 · 13 January 2007]

Although he tinkered with an anti-war comedy in the last ten years of his life, Charles Spencer Chaplin's last motion picture was this film: A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. It was not the most dismal one of his career - A KING IN NEW YORK had that melancholy distinction. But A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG is almost as bad.

The distinction between the two is a minor one: A KING was made out of anger - Chaplin had been proud of his adopted country, the United States, but after 1936 he felt increasingly alienated from it. A multi-millionaire, his anti-Nazi stance was not popular in many quarters among isolationists in the late 1930s (and his left of center view on labor's rights did not sit well either). J. Edgar Hoover put him on a list of "suspicious" foreigners to watch. Then came his paternity trial which left a sour taste in his mouth (the scientific evidence against paternity was rejected by the jury). His change of direction with THE GREAT DICTATOR and MONSIEUR VERDOUX lost many fans who could not understand why Chaplin had to turn to monsters like Hitler and Landru in his movies. Then came LIMELIGHT, where he seemed preachy and too full of pompous philosophizing. And then, when going back to Europe on a trip, the third rate Attorney General of the day (McGranary) pulled his passport and refused to allow him to return claiming he was a Communist. This and the McCarthy period's blacklist made him disappointed and bitter - and he used A KING IN NEW YORK to pulverize the defects he now found in American society.

Some of the bitterness is still obvious in A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. The key to the plot is that Marlon Brando (who comes from a prominent American family like the Rockefellers or Kennedys) is about to get an important diplomatic post, which may lead to bigger political prizes (read "the White House") in a few years, if he behaves himself and returns to his icy wife Tippi Hedrin. Anything, after all, for political success in Puritanical America. Brando is almost willing to do it, but he is taking a boat to Hawaii to meet Hedrin (who is coming from the states) and while on the boat he meets Loren. Loren is the title character, a Russian aristocrat who lives as a call-girl in Hong Kong, and has stowed away on the boat. She had met Brando at a party before the boat sailed, so she is sticking close to him and his aide (Sydney Chaplin).

Chaplin apparently planned this film in the 1930s (which would have made more sense - down-at-their-heels Russian aristocrats were more notable in 1937 than in 1967). But the script was never acted on. My guess is that it was really just a passing fancy, and that it lacked the thought that went into CITY LIGHTS or MODERN TIMES or VERDOUX. Chaplin when he really got into a story turned out excellent film. Here his characters go through tired paces: case in point, the scene where Brando, Loren, and Sydney Chaplin are conferring around a table in Brando's cabin during a rough sea, and a burning cigar helps make them all sea sick. Even Chaplin himself (as an old steward) also turns up sea sick. But the timing of the gag is too slow, and it really does not seem that funny to begin with. Compare it with Chaplin's joke at the start of THE IMMIGRANT, where we see the tramp apparently heaving over the side of the boat taking him to the U.S., only to see (a moment later) he is smiling triumphantly - he caught a fish! That was clever.

Some performers were wasted. Dame Margaret Rutherford, who certainly was an expert comic, appears as an elderly nervous passenger for two minutes or so on screen - one never understood why she was even brought into the film. Patrick Cargill was Brando's valet. He is asked to marry Loren in one sequence, and he plays a meaningless game of peekaboo under a blanket with Loren looking surprised at his antics. Well she should be - they were witless.

Yet, to be fair, Loren is on record as thinking A COUNTESS was an elegant film. I really can't see that - there is no delicacy about it. I just think it was passable as a temporary entertainment - something to watch on a wet afternoon, if you had nothing better to watch. It's just too bad it would prove to be Charlie's last work on screen.

The final film of Charlie Chaplin - a delightful romantic comedy

[bacardi_ben · 7/10 · 20 December 2007]

I Cannot understand why A Countess From Hong Kong was so hated by critics when it premiered in January 1967. I have watched it several times and admittedly don't regard it as Chaplin's best work but it is far from a bad film. For 1967 the film would have been old fashioned but surely that means that 40 years later in 2007 the film should be even more old fashioned but it is still an enjoyable film. The bedroom-farce which is what the film mainly focus around even gave me some big belly laughs. When the doorbell rings over and over again which finds even Marlon Brando's character hiding even though he is supposed to be in the bedroom got me laughing more and more each time it happened. The film also has a love story which develops throughout the film although not realised to near the end. Chaplin himself makes a small cameo as a seasick old steward which is one of the funniest highlights of the film. The music score itself is a reason to watch the film - one of the theme songs 'This Is My Song' reached number 1 in 1967 when sung by Petula Clark. If you are a fan of Chaplin then definitely see A Countess From Hong Kong because it is his final film, because it is his first film in colour, because Sophia Loren and Sydney Chaplin act extremely well and aspects of Chaplin's performance style can be seen in them. Fans of Marlon Brando don't bother watching although he does have some OK moments. All in all not a bad film but not a brilliant film, but not bad for a director aged 77.

Slight romantic comedy, decent enough to watch but considering all the talent you'd be right to expect more.

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 27 January 2013]

The last film of the great Charlie Chaplin (he wrote and directed it, as well as giving himself a very small cameo role) is a rather disappointing swansong. At the time of its release it was pretty much ripped to shreds by contemporary critics; since then other viewers have come out defending the film and praising it somewhat over-enthusiastically. The truth is that the film lies somewhere in between – it's not an absolute calamity as originally claimed, nor is it an unfairly overlooked gem. Just a standard old-fashioned romantic comedy. Considering the sheer wealth of talent involved in the project, it ought to have amounted to a lot more (which perhaps explains why critical and commercial response was so frosty… perhaps people set their expectations a little too high?).

Ultra-wealthy politician Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is on a world tour aboard a luxury ocean liner when he meets a Russian countess, Natascha (Sophia Loren) during a stopover in Hong Kong. The next morning he discovers Natascha hiding in the wardrobe in his cabin, having decided to board the vessel as a stowaway to escape a life of prostitution in Hong Kong. Ogden discovers that he has been appointed new American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, a position he suspects will further alienate him from his estranged wife (Tippi Hedren). More immediate in his ever-mounting problems, however, is the fact that Natascha is an illegitimate passenger on the ship with no official passport or papers who must be hidden at all costs. The only solution is to keep her in his cabin throughout the trip. Being cooped up together in his cabin for days on end is hardly ideal, and it doesn't take long before they're at each other's throats. But somewhere amid their endless bickering lies the seed of romance, the beginning of a beautiful friendship, the sparks of passion waiting to ignite.

The film looked extraordinarily old-fashioned even in 1967, and even more so nowadays. It's almost like a 30s film dressed up in colour – the music, the dialogue and the plot are all extremely archaic. Brando looks somewhat ill at ease in the leading role – Chaplin apparently wanted a big name, and there were few bigger at the time than Brando, but it's not a role that suits his intense Method style. Loren fares better as the titular countess (she never looked lovelier, either), while some of the supporting actors get decent comic roles. Looking beyond the old-fashionedness, A Countess From Hong Kong is put together quite professionally – it looks sumptuous and is handled with complete competence throughout. The most negative reviews hammer the film as if it is some sort of epic turkey, a display of utter ineptitude, which it really isn't. The most disappointing thing if truth be known is that an opportunity for something much bigger and better has escaped here… all this gargantuan talent in one place, yet the result is just a mouse of a movie.

A film that deserves a better reputation

[kfarm2001 · 8/10 · 26 January 2012]

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.

Chaplin's biggest disappointment

[JohnHowardReid · 6/10 · 16 November 2012]

Here is a movie on which everyone agrees -- critics, movie fans, studio publicity flacks and even cinema managers. We all agree that with a story and screenplay by Charles Chaplin and stars of the caliber of Marlon Brando, Sophia Loren, Sydney Chaplin and Patrick Cargill, it should have been much, much funnier.

The problem is that Brando is not a particularly good comedian. The role is well outside his range. He is glum when he should be effervescent, introspective when he should be outgoing, stolid instead of devil-may-care.

Sophia Loren can play comedies -- and play them well -- but here she seems to be misdirected. Worse, there is obviously little chemistry between the leads, and that undermines the movie too. True, there are still one or two amusing moments, but the best scenes are delivered by newcomer Patrick Cargill and -- in an all too-brief cameo -- Chaplin himself.

A Countess from Hong Kong

[austrianmoviebuff · 4/10 · 9 July 2006]

Chaplin's last (and by far worst) film was also the first one he shot in color. It is an often bizarre but strangely appealing film that doesn't work either as a comedy nor as a love story: Sophia Loren plays the little tramp just like Chaplin would have done it thirty years earlier and Brando gives the most unusual (and maybe worst) performance of his lifetime. The supporting cast, though, is magnificent: Patrick Cargill steals every scene he's in as Brando's kinky butler Hudson, Margaret Rutherford does a heartbreakingly funny cameo as an old lady mistaken as Miss Loren, Geraldine Chaplin appears briefly as a detached society girl, Sydney Chaplin and Michael Medwin prove their comedic skills and Charlie himself tops it off in a one-minute-shtick as a seasick steward.

The secret star of "A Countess from Hong Kong", though, is Tippi Hedren in her small role as Brando's snobbish wife who gets dumped for the whore/Countess. She is icier, prettier and even more sophisticated than in her two Hitchcock movies. To me, her Martha remains one of the best performances she gave in her career.

Brando and Loren. One of film history's most famous cases of miscasting! As a pair, they just don't match, there is no spark or affection or whatever between them. Unfortunately, this was supposed to carry the movie for two hours.

Universal tried to tighten the ill-fated comedy by shortening and re-dubbing it for the video release (it's now 103 instead of 118 minutes, and some other actors dubbed some of Brando's and Hedren's lines), but this only made it worse and almost unwatchable. I was fortunate enough to watch the unedited version of the film a couple of years back on TV, and I kind of liked it even though I noticed its shortcomings.

One of the biggest mistakes, I think, lies in Chaplin's script itself. Apparently, he wrote it in 1931 as a vehicle for himself and his then-wife, Paulette Goddard, and didn't change a single line when he shot it 35 years later. This, among other things, makes "A Countess from Hong Kong" look strangely old-fashioned and out of time. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, and it failed miserably when it came out, but it's one of the "great sick films" and definitely worth a look.

Daddy says it´s not so bad...

[Xanadu-2 · 19 March 2001]

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...

Average comedy.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 16 January 2002]

Not particularly bad, but not particularly good, either. Merely average and harmless. The biggest problem is the unconvincing staging; the exterior shots of the sea and the ship look like stock footage, and the actors appear never to have set foot outside the studio. Brando is never particularly funny, but Sophia Loren is as busty and sensual as ever! Anyway, you may have expected a more triumphant closure for Chaplin's career, but considering his age at the time (78), it's an adequate job. (**1/2)

weirdly funny

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 3 April 2020]

Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is the son of an oil tycoon and an ambassador for peace. He's rumored to be the next Secretary of State but the President picks someone else. He travels the globe trying to save it. His cruise ship arrives in Hong Kong and he is presented to three Russian aristocratic beauties who escaped dire circumstances in Shanghai. One of them is Countess Natascha (Sophia Loren). She's hiding in Ogden's room as a stowaway to America.

It's royalty from two different cinematic eras. Charles Chaplin is the filmmaker. Brando and Loren are the stars. I got surprised when the actors start doing screwball comedy until I realized that Chaplin is making this. He shot it like an old stage play inside that room. It is notable for being Chaplin's last. I can see the reason for the critical dismissal but I find Brando and Loren trying to do slapstick rather endearing. I even laugh a few times. They take their serious acting skills and go slip on a banana peel. It's somewhat fun. Even when the movie spreads out, there is still a smallness to the comedy. It's little moves and slights of hand. They are not the types to go big and broad with the humor. It's a bunch of serious actors trying to be wacky and that's weirdly funny.

Not so bad...

[nyp01 · 6/10 · 9 August 2010]

Well, *I'm* certainly not going to pan a Charlie Chaplin film. Like all his films, it's certainly worth viewing. While it doesn't completely gel as a whole, it is an artistic film - that is to say it is an expression of the artist's vision of life at a certain point in his life - for Chaplin, the final years. There is dialog about politics, about death, sex, love, art. These comments often fly by at the speed of lighthearted comedy, but it is worth the time to watch the film a second time to catch them all.

I found Brando's performance mesmerizing, though, again, did not gel with the film as a whole. Add to this the fact that he is acting with much inferior actors (Sophia Loren and Sydney Chaplin do not come to mind as great actors of Brando's caliber, as impressive as they may be).

My chief regret is that the film was not as funny as I'd hoped. The glaring exception was the scene with the bedridden British dowager, played to hilarious perfection by Margaret Rutherford.

A nice little flawed farewell from Chaplin

[fredrikgunerius · 6/10 · 18 August 2023]

Chaplin's final film almost feels like an anachronism and a throwback to the 1930s with its screwball comedy and asexual romance between a whimsical Sophia Loren struggling to come off as pristine and a semi-inspired Marlon Brando who couldn't quite convince himself that his co-star was all that, and who reportedly clashed with both her and the director, whom he dubbed "the most sadistic man he'd ever met".

Chaplin filmed in colour, cast his son Sydney in a charming part as Brando's right hand, and went all-in with elegant sets and locations, but his film was completely slaughtered by contemporary critics who thought it was dated and unconvincing. And although they were largely right, there is nevertheless more than enough golden moments and fine filmmaking here to make A Countess from Hong Kong into a worthy watch. Chaplin's eye for simple physical comedy creates some great scenes, such as when Patrick Cargill as Brando's hapless, kinky butler Hudson is to spend his first night with his new pro-forma wife Loren, or when Sydney completely emulates his father in a short segment at a bar.

The story as such is slight and simplistic, and constantly marred by the fact that there is minimal chemistry between Brando and Loren. Still, it has a perpetual drive to it that keeps you on board (literally speaking), and the fine work by the supporting characters popping in makes you forget about the film's shortcomings and accept it for what it is: a nice little flawed farewell in the same style and tone that the great Chaplin once perfectioned.

Sophia's ravishing beauty is wasted on absolute piffle

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 5 September 2017]

Door-slamming, buzzer-ringing boudoir farce aboard ship, balefully written, directed, co-produced and scored by Charles Chaplin, who also has a cameo. Unhappy concoction with miscast, mumbling Marlon Brando in the lead, playing wealthy future ambassador to Saudi Arabia who is matched with Russian countess and dance hall girl Sophia Loren when his ship docks in Hong Kong; she wants to go on to America despite having no papers, and stows away in Brando's cabin. Chaplin must have conceived this material at one time as a play; the right-to-left action on the main set is static and uninventive--and for laughs, everyone gets seasick and needs a place to vomit. Brando is far too serious and heavy-spirited for chasing-around-the-table comedy. Loren fakes her way through (when she says "I'll be glad when it's over", one can take the comment literally). Her beauty, however, is a compensation; also, Patrick Cargill as Brando's valet has a funny bit getting into bed, and Tippi Hedren is a nice surprise, popping up late in the film as Brando's haughty wife. *1/2 from ****

Nice to watch.

[sb-47-608737 · 7/10 · 3 February 2019]

I had never been a fan of Chaplin, so probably I could be a bit pragmatic. The movie, from my view point has its positives and negatives. The plot has been covered in several reviews - in short - the aristocrats of the White Russia escaped and ended up in China, which wasn't Red yet. There the Countess was born, orphaned in early teen, and became a Gangster's, himself one of the White's Mistress. Due to Chinese upheaval - must be early forties - she escaped to Hong Kong along with all similar Count and Countesses and stayed there as taxi dancers or worse, a few of course got sugar daddies. One of Natascha (Loren)'s friend was lucky to get one, and with his help, Countess and another of her friend Countess got to be Gentlemen's companions during their stay in Hongkong. Unhappy she stows away in ship and the Hero Ogden (Brando), a multimillionaire is there. rest is predictable.

The negatives first - there had been a few directorial blunders. At least two of them were too obvious to be missed. First one was Ogden unable to recognise her, despite having met her in quite sober condition. Second was Ogden's wife, martha, able to get all the information of Natascha's past - probably from the only chance passenger on ship Felix (Michael Medwin) who knew of that. That was a bit strange, since he wasn't from their part of society (Ogden didn't know him and vice versa). A third of course was "His Excellency" that had been often used to address Ogden. Not normal for American Citizen, even if a multi-millionaire, but yet to be bestowed the title through Ambassadorship. In Chaplin's country that was possible, since Ogden could have well been a Lord Ogden. Well those are the things I had observed. And along with the poor performance of almost all male leads - especially the main one. I don't have much to complain about. The Plus point of course is the simple story, without any complication, melodrama, in fact even skipping episodes, and covering them up through reminisces (e.g. Ogden's Drunken Brawl). Sophia of course deserved her award, and looked as charming as she most of the time did, and she anyway was quite good as actress. She didn't disappoint. Another major plus is the flow of the movie. It didn't bore me. Unlike many movies, where I will fast forward a few segments, this one didn't call for. Leave a few directorial flaws, and with Sophia around, at least the males of the specie won't bother about Marlon or his lack of chemistry, which Sophia could supply for him too. I do agree, with a better man, the movie could have been much better, and that even goes for the Butler husband Hudson (Cargill). But, well, still it wasn't a loss of money.

a disappointment, but not the failure many critics make it out to be

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 7 July 2008]

It's a sad thing to see a director not go out on the note that is most worthy of him/her. In the case of Charlie Chaplin, he did his usual auteur-touch (writer/director/producer/composer, in this case no significant acting) on a story that was, more or less, a trifle. If he had made another movie before he passed on, a great one perhaps, then it wouldn't be too much of a problem. But the pounding that critics gave him for 'Hong Kong' was pretty voracious, making it probably more-so about him than the actual film, as he had taken so long- as he had since City Lights- in making a movie that in truth wasn't to his usual standards. Some of the criticisms aren't totally fair (i.e. "directing style is tired"), and others are (i.e. "Brando was miscast"). It's very problematic, but at the same time it has moments that hint at the joy that Chaplin could conjure, and it shouldn't be completely disregarded as a disaster or train-wreck.

Is it dated? Sure. Chaplin sticks to old-fashioned filming techniques (however not too turgid or unwatchable as far as studio movies go from the period) and attitudes between men and women, almost despite the innuendo thrown in like in the scene between Loren and her "husband" in the bedroom with his peaks behind his covers. The premise is simple, as is usual for the director: an ambassador (Brando) is en route from Hong Kong, and a stowaway/'countess' (Loren) stays in his room. He keeps it all quiet, and despite being something of a stuff-shirt is generous, bringing her clothes (however not fitting) and food, and in the meantime as he tries to figure out how to get her to US shore without a passport, they fall in love. This last part, falling in love, is predictable and cliché and doesn't even quite work because of the short amount of time and razor-thin line between the two characters getting on each others nerves and feeling genuine affection.

To say that Brando was miscast goes with saying something else: other actors could have played his part, probably better, but at the least he does try his hardest to fit into this kind of stiff, repressed kind of turn, and in a sense does a good job if looking past his usual bravura being absent in place of what is required. It's just, well, compared to his best work that he falters here. Loren does a little better, albeit with only a little to do really with such a two-dimensional character with only vague plans once reaching American shores. And people like Sydney Chaplin and Tippi Hedren make their impressions on screen, but only for so long. And, sadly, a lot of jokes Chaplin hoped would probably hit off well like the sea-sick bit, or the repetitive "better hide!" moments Loren has to do to not be caught, fall flat. Only a few really catch on, like the scene where the old lady (the 'other' Natascha) is greeted by flowers and chocolates from a wrong admirer, or some of the scenes with the 'fake' husband and his idea of consummating the marriage.

These flaws pointed out, it isn't very dreadful an experience, and sometimes it's fun seeing Brando and Loren in their personality tug-of-war, plus the cheerful and usually spot-on Chaplin score. It's worth watching once... if not for more than that. It's a sad way to go, but it could've been worse. 5.5/10

A pleasant surprise

[Tashtago · 10/10 · 29 October 2004]

I'd always read that this was not only one of Chaplin's worst films but also one of Brando's worst. But you know it's not bad at all. There are some very funny moments early on and Brando plays the role of the uptight politician perfectly. The only reason that people feel he is miscast is because they are expecting Stanley Kowalski . Even Jack Nicholson singled out this film as one of Brando's best performances. That said the film really belongs to Sophia Loren ( a much underrated actress) who is genuinely heartbreaking . Add to that a haunting musical score. At the time it was hammered by the critics for being dated but now it seems no more dated than any other film to come out of the same period "Bonnie and Clyde" , "the Graduate" etc.

A Comedy Vehicle Named Misfire (with heart)

[TheFearmakers · 6/10 · 5 April 2023]

By the late sixties, Charlie Chaplin and Marlon Brando were both iconic performers known for their topnotch skills: The first a physical comic and the latter extremely dramatic...

So when Brando tries for slapstick comedy in Chaplin's final directorial effort, A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG, it's one of the most dramatically awkward and totally ill-suited performances ever... by anyone, perhaps...

But it's mostly Chaplin's fault. Having once told Orson Welles that he needn't move the camera using creative angles because his antics made up for it, he should have realized that wasn't the case with Brando and/or Sophia Loren; the latter our titular stowaway on a ship holding the multi-millionaire oilman/ambassador "captive" in his cabin while on the verge of gaining importance in politics, or something like that...

The gimmick is that he... or, they... need to avoid getting caught. Making for ninety-minutes of perpetual sideways motion...

Whenever their cabin bell buzzes, Sophia leaps up and races into the bathroom with Brando scooting behind her...

Then Brando doubles-back at the last minute... but without the suspenseful timing for that last minute to matter... heading anxiously for the door while adjusting either his robe or tie, or sometimes both at the same time: meeting with important people he's hiding Loren's Countess from, eventually with the aid of his faithful sidekick, Charlie's son, Sydney Chaplin, a genuinely good character-actor in his own right, playing Brando's assistant/cohort who helps him cover things up...

Overall, the focal point is Loren's infectious charm, beauty, and how she slowly melts the icy heir. And not all scenes take place in the room. Once or twice they go out to the upper deck, or a grand dancing room, where the dialogue neither moves the story or makes it any more interesting, which doesn't seem to matter...

This isn't meant to be a scalding or negative review because there's an addictive pleasure in watching the famously stern method actor attempt the kind of physical comedy that his director was known for, only tapered down...

Speaking of, Charlie Chaplin himself appears as an old purser; his daughter Geraldine a philosophical girl in the ship's dance hall countered by two time "Bond Girl" Angela Scoular representing the filthy-stupid rich; and THE BIRDS starlet Tippi Hedren, as Brando's classy wife, shows up at the 11th hour...

Which... after all the tedious running around, including a drunken British dolt desperately trying to hook up with Sophia followed by a surprisingly randy (and actually somewhat humorous) suitor (Patrick Cargill) who started out initially uninterested in women... seems like the millionth hour. And yet, still somehow, it's a letdown that the characters had to leave that room - the repetitive comfort of its limited space, with our miscast yet breezy duo, was the best thing going: not fully realized till it's gone...

Oh and at one point an old rich woman, having nothing to do with anything before and after (with a nurse played by Monty Python regular Carol Cleveland), is lying in her bed, and orders the Captain to throw away her Russian Teddy Bear because "the tongue's too Red." Get it?

Didn't rock my boat

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 11 July 2018]

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