AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

aubygene What seemed to be "out of decade movie" by some critics--it was obvious they had missed the point! It was meant to that! Mr. Chaplin was making a "tongue in cheek" movie as a "throw-back" to the days when such movies were made. As for Brando, he was the somewhat "strait-man" in playing the part of a very important man caught up in a situation that was confusing, funny, and serious all at the same time. He was thinking, "What kind of impact is this situation going to have on my career?! I laughed all the way through the movie. My wife really "got-in-to-it" when Sofia's husband was trying to get comfortable in the bed next to her. Obviously, he was not accustomed to being with women!

Jonathon Dabell The last film of the great Charlie Chaplin (he wrote and directed it, as well as giving himself a very small cameo role) is a rather disappointing swansong. At the time of its release it was pretty much ripped to shreds by contemporary critics; since then other viewers have come out defending the film and praising it somewhat over-enthusiastically. The truth is that the film lies somewhere in between – it's not an absolute calamity as originally claimed, nor is it an unfairly overlooked gem. Just a standard old-fashioned romantic comedy. Considering the sheer wealth of talent involved in the project, it ought to have amounted to a lot more (which perhaps explains why critical and commercial response was so frosty… perhaps people set their expectations a little too high?).Ultra-wealthy politician Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is on a world tour aboard a luxury ocean liner when he meets a Russian countess, Natascha (Sophia Loren) during a stopover in Hong Kong. The next morning he discovers Natascha hiding in the wardrobe in his cabin, having decided to board the vessel as a stowaway to escape a life of prostitution in Hong Kong. Ogden discovers that he has been appointed new American ambassador to Saudi Arabia, a position he suspects will further alienate him from his estranged wife (Tippi Hedren). More immediate in his ever-mounting problems, however, is the fact that Natascha is an illegitimate passenger on the ship with no official passport or papers who must be hidden at all costs. The only solution is to keep her in his cabin throughout the trip. Being cooped up together in his cabin for days on end is hardly ideal, and it doesn't take long before they're at each other's throats. But somewhere amid their endless bickering lies the seed of romance, the beginning of a beautiful friendship, the sparks of passion waiting to ignite.The film looked extraordinarily old-fashioned even in 1967, and even more so nowadays. It's almost like a 30s film dressed up in colour – the music, the dialogue and the plot are all extremely archaic. Brando looks somewhat ill at ease in the leading role – Chaplin apparently wanted a big name, and there were few bigger at the time than Brando, but it's not a role that suits his intense Method style. Loren fares better as the titular countess (she never looked lovelier, either), while some of the supporting actors get decent comic roles. Looking beyond the old-fashionedness, A Countess From Hong Kong is put together quite professionally – it looks sumptuous and is handled with complete competence throughout. The most negative reviews hammer the film as if it is some sort of epic turkey, a display of utter ineptitude, which it really isn't. The most disappointing thing if truth be known is that an opportunity for something much bigger and better has escaped here… all this gargantuan talent in one place, yet the result is just a mouse of a movie.

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.

tmsowell This movie is painful to watch. Given the fact that Charlie Chaplin directed it, Marlon Brando starred in it, as well as two of the most beautiful actresses, Sophia Loren and Tippi Heddren, makes it more painful. Possibly Uwe Boll might have even done a better job of directing it.I think William Goldman said it best in one of his books on the movie business when he said that anyone who believes in the auteur school of film that thinks everything certain directors, like Charlie Chaplin, did was perfection should be sent to a desert island with nothing but A Countess from Hong Kong to watch.