Desertman84
A Countess from Hong Kong is a comedy film and the last film written and directed by Charlie Chaplin and his only color film. The movie starred Marlon Brando, Sophia Loren, Tippi Hedren, and Sydney Earle Chaplin, Chaplin's second son.The story is based loosely on the life of a woman Chaplin met in France, named Moussia Sodskaya. She was a Russian singer and dancer that "was a stateless person marooned in France without a passport".Wealthy American diplomat Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is sailing from Hong Kong to Hawaii, where he hopes to meet and reconcile with his estranged wife Martha. However, while the ship takes on passengers in Hong Kong, a stowaway slips into Mears' suite. Natascha (Sophia Loren) is a White Russian countess who was forced to flee the country following the revolution and ended up in Hong Kong, where she earns a meager living as a dime-a-dance girl in a sleazy ballroom. When Mears discovers that Natascha is an uninvited guest in his quarters, she begs him to help her emigrate to the United States; when he refuses, Natascha tries a new tack, threatening to tell Martha that they've been sharing a stateroom if he doesn't cooperate. Mears grudgingly allows Natascha to stay with him and keep her secret until he can figure out a clever way to get rid of her. While many considered this as Chaplin's worst effort,it was still a lovely film.It may not be an excellent movie,but it is still a pleasure to watch for Brando and Loren alone.
maystheaterlog
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.
kfarm2001
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.
nyp01
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.
AD
