TheLittleSongbird 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political element, and do have to agree that its approach is more suited to the 30s than the late 60s because it felt out of date even by 60s standards.Marlon Brando was an amazing actor responsible for some of the best performances on film (his performance in 'The Godfather' in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

arminhage There are some famous names, Charles Chaplin, Marlon Brando... Sophia Loren, yes, her! As usual playing a woman from slum who tries to blackmail a man of status, 120% cliché! But the cliché and predictability is not a major problem, I never expected Billy Wilder from Charles Chaplin. The problem is that the whole thing happens in room in a ship with essentially 2-3 characters. It could be a good play for theatre or even Broadway adding some songs but making a feature film based on a play so simple and lame? Sophia Loren would jump on it I bet but I really don't know what Chaplin persuaded Brando to play in it as the movie was so bad that it had the potential to single handedly end his career. May his soul rest in heaven but I guess it was time for Chaplin to just give up on cinema and enjoy his rest of the days.

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!

tieman64 This is a brief review of Charlie Chaplin's last six feature films.A comical take on Lang's "Metropolis" (1927), Chaplin's "Modern Times" opens with the words "a story of industry and individual enterprise, humanity crusading in the pursuit of happiness!", an ironic jab at the mantras of industrial capitalism. The film then finds Chaplin reprising his iconic role as "the tamp", a poverty-stricken but lovable outcast whose ill-fitting clothes epitomise, amongst other things, his inability to fit in.The film watches as the tramp struggles to survive in a depressed economy. Like "Metropolis", it satirises labour, management and dehumanising working conditions. Elsewhere life for the worker is seen to be precarious, alternatives to playing the game are but death or prison, giant clocks speak to the daily grid of blue-collar workers, bosses are shown to be obsessed with speed and production, the property class relies on police brutality and all-encompassing surveillance, and the workplace itself is painted as an absurdest torture chamber. The film ends with the tramp on a road, America's future uncertain."Modern Times" made waves when it was released. It was banned in fascist Germany and Italy, then allies of the West, and scorned by those in power in the United States. It was also heavily praised in the Soviet Union and France, particularly by philosophers Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and Maurice Merlau-Pony. The film's middle section, which featured Chaplin waving a red flag and unwittingly leading communists and worker unions, would get Chaplin on several government watch-lists.Chaplin followed "Times" with "The Great Dictator". Hollywood studios wanted the film scuttled, so Chaplin financed it himself. It contains two criss-crossing plots, one about a Jewish barber who is essentially persecuted by Nazis, the other about a brutal dictator, a stand in for Adolf Hitler. Funny, scary and sad, the film would rock the US establishment. Hitler was, at the time, a US ally and good for business. What's more, he was viewed by those in power as a tool to destroy communist Russia. For many, Chaplin was a "subverisive" who was "inciting war with an ally". Deemed particularly offencive was a last act speech in which Chaplin urges the people of the world to "love one another", "throw away international barriers" and foster an "international brotherhood". Though deliberately vague, this speech was viewed as inflammatory. Was Chaplin extolling the virtues of the United States or the Soviet Union? Regardless, the US' approach to the conflicts in Europe promptly shifted. It became an ally with Russia, Hitler became the enemy and Germany attacked Russia. In the blink of an eye, "Dictator" went from being sacrilege to prophetic.Chaplin, British, was born into extreme poverty and often found himself sleeping on the streets of London. As such, he identified with his "tramp" character completely, as did millions word-wide, who saw themselves in the tramp: desolate, poor and forever bumbling down life's highways. Prior to shooting "Times", Chaplin would embark on a tour of the world, intent on seeing the effects of poverty. He'd talk to many prominent figures, most notably Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Einstein and Gandhi.As Chaplin grew in consciousness, so would FBI files on Chaplin. He was put under government surveillance and forced to appear before a Senate subcommittee in 1941 where he was accused of being "anti American" and an "unofficial communist". Many newspapers, including the Times, began a campaign attacking Chaplin, and called for his deportation. In the mid 1940s he was charged with the Mann Act and the FBI would collude with newspapers to smear Chaplin as a sex maniac who "perverted American culture". From here on, conservative political pressure groups would attack each new Chaplin release. Some of his films would be boycotted or outright banned. In 1947 he'd be brought before the HUAC committee.Chaplin followed "Dictator" up with "Monsieur Verdoux". A black comedy, the idea for which came from Orson Welles, the films stars Chaplin as a bank clerk who loses his job and so murders women for cash and land. The film's point is explicit: if war is an extension of diplomacy, then murder is the logical extension of business. And so banking terminology is used to rationalise murder, weapons manufactures are idolised and the poor are condemned for trying to play by the rules of the wealthy. "Numbers sanctify!" Chaplain says, pointing to Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the ruthlessness of post-war capitalism; kill millions and you're a hero.Next came "Limelight", Chaplin's ode to silent film. Elegiac and autobiographical, the film stars Chaplin and the legendary Buster Keaton as two fading comedians. A meditation on time's passing, the film's also relentlessly optimistic; man must assert his will, his desires, no matter how glum the times! The film would be banned from several US theatres. Chaplin himself was swiftly banned from entering the US and several of his assets were seized. He'd live in Switzerland henceforth."A King In New York" followed. It finds Chaplin playing an usurped "dictator" who seeks refuge in America. Also autobiographical, the film pokes fun at various aspects of US culture, its irrational hatred of all things left-wing and the way in which humans are both always branding and refuse to look beyond the political, beyond superficial branding, to tolerate even the slightest bit of difference or dissent. Chaplin's son would play a hilarious anarcho-communist, but the film as whole messily mixed silent gags with sound comedy.Chaplin's "A Countess from Hong Kong" confirms that Chaplin's films were moving from the lower to the upper echelons of society. Here Sophia Loren plays a Russian "tramp" who is taken in by a wealthy politician (Marlon Brando). His worst feature, the film watches as "humane" capitalism benevolently absorbs the "detritus" of Russia and Asia. Chaplin accepted an honorary Oscar in 1972. He received the longest standing ovation in Oscar history.4/10