Die Gräfin von Hongkong

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/

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.

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...

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.

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.