Una condesa de 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Unfortunately, it was made in 1967 when films for adults were much more direct about sexuality, so this one was already out of date when it was released.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.

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...

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.

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 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/