Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Michael_Elliott A Countess from Hong Kong (1967)** (out of 4) The wealthy Ogden Mears (Marlon Brando) is in Hong Kong where he is partying a bit one night and then wakes up the next morning with his ship on its way to the next location. The only problem is that Natascha (Sophia Loren) has decided to stowaway on the boat and Mears must keep her hidden so that no one sees her.A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG would turn out to be the final film from the legendary Charles Chaplin. It's really too bad this film was so lame and it's just shocking because you've got Chaplin, Brando and Loren. Three legends of the big screen and it turns into a movie like this. It seems everyone hated one another but this here really doesn't show on the screen. The biggest problem is that this film was simply made thirty years too late.I say that because the structure is something you'd see from a screwball comedy in the 1930s. I mean, why in 1967 would someone be worried about a woman being found in his room? There are many scenes where the two are frantically going from one hiding spot to the next and Brando takes a couple falls along the way. It's just not that funny. In fact, very little is actually funny here and while it's an okay time killer, the film just never adds up to much.I thought Loren was good enough in her role. She's strikingly beautiful and her in that white evening gown was one of the few highlights. As far as Brando goes, yeah, this wasn't the type of role for him. Apparently Chaplin wanted Cary Grant or David Niven and Brando certainly isn't either of them. He's way too stiff in the part and the constant fighting between him and Chaplin behind the camera probably didn't make him want to be much better. He's not horrid in the part but it's clear that he's not right for it.A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG has pretty much been forgotten over the years and it's easy to see why. The film isn't quite as awful as its reputation but when you've got three legends in one movie you just expect more.

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.

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.

MisterWhiplash 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