Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

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.

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/

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Chaplin's final film features Natascha (Sophia Loren) , an impoverished Russian countess, stows away on a luxury liner at Hong Kong, determined to seek a new life in America. Meanwhile, stuffy Ambassador Odgen (Marlon Brando) close to being assigned Saudi Arabian ambassador, and divorcing his wife Martha. Odgen and his friend Harvey (Sydney Chaplin)ar e invited by their old friend Clark (Oliver Johnston) to go to a nightclub with three aristocratic Russians (Sophia Loren, Angela Pringle, and Jenny Bridges) on their last night. Later on, Natasha hides in the cabin suite of millionaire diplomat Ogden Mears , which causes an endless stream of misunderstandings and complications, especially when his wife Martha (Tippi Hedren) joins the trip. The ship is is sailing from Hong Kong to Honolulu and Natasha has until then to persuade Odgen to help her. Fun at Sea! His Cabin, His PJs, Her Move!. It's a She Voyage that rocks the Boat!

A Countess from Hong Kong (1967) is an enjoyable romantic comedy but inferior than other Chaplin films. Dealing with the adventures and misfortunes of an ambassador and a russian countess stowing away in the luxury liner asking him to assist her. A comedy of entanglements with nice performances, mistakes, romantic loves, role changes and anything else.

Duo of protagonists, Loren and Brando, give likable performances although Marlon Brando is really miscast. Marlon Brando was a real fan of Chaplin; however, the two cinema mytical figures did not get along during the shooting of this film. In fact, in Brando's autobiography he described Sir Charles Chaplin as a fearsomely cruel man and an egotistical tyrant. There are several members of the Chaplin family appearing in the film, such as: Sydney Chaplin, Geraldine Chaplin, Josephine Chaplin, Victoria Chaplin and Sir Charles Chaplin himself in his final acting appearance is in a cameo as an old steward. And a good support cast with fine actors, mainly British, such as: Angela Scoular, Michael Medwin, Oliver Johnston, Margaret Rutherford, Bill Nagy and special mention for Patrick Cargill who steals the show as the faithful and embarrassed butler.

The motion picture was well directed and nothing special though. Being first film by Sir Charles Chaplin not only to be in widescreen, but also in technicolor and shot in spherical 1,85:1 hard matte format by cameraman Arthur Ibbetson providing a brilliant cinematography. In his beginnings Chaplin previously had directed 2 or 3 reel short movies, such as : ¨Our hero¨, ¨The fireman¨, ¨Night at the show¨, ¨The adventurer¨, ¨The floorwalker¨, ¨The cure¨, ¨The inmigrant¨, ¨The circus¨ , ¨Burlesque on Carmen¨, among others . After that , he made long feature films such as : ¨The gold Rush¨ , ¨The kid¨ , ¨City lights¨ , ¨The great dictator¨, ¨Modern Times¨, ¨Monseur Verdoux¨ , ¨Limelight¨, ¨A king of New York¨ and his last one : ¨A countess from Hong Kong¨. Rating 6/10 . Well worth watching for Chaplin completists. Essential and indispensable for Charlie Chaplin followers.

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)

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.

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.

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 ****

You can really tell this 1960s comedy was originated by a man from the silent era. Many of the situations rely on physical comedy without a single line of dialogue. It's very funny, but if you don't like that style, you probably won't laugh. I don't usually like Charlie Chaplin's style, and I did notice his tendency to let a situation go on too long; but I did get more than a few laughs out of it.

Marlon Brando, a diplomat, goes to a "gentlemen's club" with his pal Sydney Chaplin on his last night in Hong Kong. He spends an enjoyable night with a Russian "countess", Sophia Loren, but expects to sail home in the morning without any ties. However, he finds a stowaway in his cabin. . . To make matters worse, she has no passport and is seeking asylum in America. He has to hide her, lest he cause a scandal for himself and his country, so he smuggles in extra food, creates excuses not to have anyone over to his cabin, and finds embarrassment when he shops for women's clothing.

Parts of this movie are very funny, and the plot certainly has enough obstacles to keep it going. Sophia looks absolutely beautiful, and her wide-eyed innocent manipulation is very funny. Her hats and costumes are very cute, too! You'll see the writer-director in a cameo, as well as Tippi Hedren in a small role. Check it out if you like the cast, or if the complicated plot appeals to you.

DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not be your friend. Since the movie takes place on a ship, there are some camera bobs that will make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

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

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.

When it was announced that Chaplin was to direct a new film, naturally expectations were sky high. The casting of Brando and Loren further boosted these expectations. To call the final result disappointing is to be kind.

While "A Countess from Hong Kong" does have an antiquated charm about it, it remains an unsightly blemish on Chaplin's career as well as Brando's. Having been away from making movies for a number of years, the ageing Chaplin had lost touch with the media. There's precious little in this film that remotely recalls his genius. It's only the old fashioned and overdone musical score that recall the Chaplin of times gone by.

Those who remark on Brando being miscast in the role insinuate that he was incapable of playing light comedy which simply is not the case. ("Bedtime Story" being a case in point). He simply turns in a very poor performance. He seems remote from his character and from the whole project as a whole.

The real surprise is Sophia Loren. Despite the mediocre material and a wooden acting partner, she is on top form proving to be a terrific comedienne as well as touching in the tender moments. Combine that with her stunning looks and you have the only reason to possibly want to give this one another look.

I finally got round to seeing this one recently though it has often appeared on French TV and is noted above all for being Chaplin's last film and first and last colour film. I was enchanted by it ; the music is fantastic and the physique and voice of Sophia Loren (especially in pyjamas) is just.........so loveable gorrrrrrgeous and erotic ! Marlon Brando seems a little out of it all at times was perhaps not the right actor for the Role ; Margaret Rutherford in the personage of " Mrs Gaulswallow " ( just where to God's name did they think up a name like that ?? ) had me in total fits of laughter during her short appearance. The film is strange as it is in modern colour with good picture quality but the sound and dialogues as well as being poor acoustically are reminiscent of the 40s or 50s but obviously in keeping with Chaplin's style. I have always liked most of Chaplin's (talking) films but it is the quality of his musical scores that really get me. The score from Limelight and "This is My Song" which comes from A Countess in N.Y. are absolute masterpieces of Romanticism. Lovely !!!