A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)

Overrated and overhyped

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Blistering performances.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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

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 ****

Here it is, Charlie Chaplin's final film. My final feature length film of his to watch and the last film he ever made. A King In New York was a pleasant underrated surprise but unfortunately A Countess From Hong Kong deserves any lament it receives. It's the definition of a misfire. The problem stems from the cast. Marlon Brando and Sophie Loren aren't loose enough for Chaplin's brand of slapstick and sharp tongued humour. Instead, it comes off tense and awkward, making Chaplin's words seem juvenile out of nowhere as character's suddenly belch. There isn't a likable character in the bunch. It may have been okay to have been made in the 1940s when the screwball films had the energy to pump into its premise, but for 1967, it doesn't work. Chaplin works within his own limitations of shooting styles which don't work with technicolour or such obvious sets. It's not a total disaster as it's not particularly boring, but it's never funny either. Shame this was his last but it doesn't drag his filmography down as a whole.5/10

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.