IMDb RATING
6.0/10
7.1K
YOUR RATING
In Hong Kong, an ambassador returning to America meets a Russian countess, a refugee without a passport, who decides to hide in his cabin.In Hong Kong, an ambassador returning to America meets a Russian countess, a refugee without a passport, who decides to hide in his cabin.In Hong Kong, an ambassador returning to America meets a Russian countess, a refugee without a passport, who decides to hide in his cabin.
- Awards
- 1 nomination
Anthony Chinn
- Hawaiian
- (as Anthony Chin)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWhile Marlon Brando had always greatly admired Sir Charles Chaplin's work and looked upon him as "probably the most talented man the [movie] medium has ever produced," the two superstars did not get along during the shooting of this movie. In his autobiography, Brando described Chaplin as "probably the most sadistic man I'd ever met." Chaplin, on his side, said that working with Brando simply was "impossible."
- GoofsDuring "everybody is getting sea-sick" scene Ogden, Natascha and Harvey push an ashtray around the table until Ogden angrily swipes it off the table. Shortly after it's back on the table in front of Natascha's chair and in the next shot it moves over to be in front of Ogden's chair, although nobody is at the table at that time.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Biography: Sophia Loren: Actress Italian Style (1997)
Featured review
This is an old fashioned simple comedy, in the same style as the (talking)comedies from the '30's and '40's. The style and sense of humor is not fitting for a 1967 movie and everything feels terribly out of place.
Despite that the movie is far from an 'horrible' one, it still is a disappointing last movie for Charles Chaplin who directed, produced, wrote, composed and acted in this movie. His wonderful comedy career deserved a more worthy last movie. It's sort of ironic and maybe even sad, that man to blame for the failure of the movie is Chaplin himself. What ever made him think that an old fashioned story and style of film-making would make a successful and good movie? Had this movie been made in the late '30's or '40's the movie would had felt more right. Everything than would had more sense and everything in the movie would had connected better to each other. The style of film-making and the story itself simply work too old fashioned for an 1967 movie. As a result of this the story feels childish and throughout its running time, mostly not funny enough. This movie was made in the wrong decade.
But there are more problems with the movie. Another one of those problems is Marlon Brando. Of course he's a great actor and without doubt one of the very best of all time but I'm sorry, he just wasn't much good as a comical actor. He doesn't seem at ease in most of the comical sequences and he just feels totally miscast. Sophia Loren on the other hand is fine in this movie, as is Tippi Hedren. Chaplin's son Sydney Chaplin also plays quite a big role in the movie and he plays a surprising pleasant character, who gets more important in the movie as the story progresses. Charlie Chaplin himself also shows up in a very small role. Another very pleasant cameo is by Oscar winning actress Margaret Rutherford. The scene with her is perhaps the very best of the entire movie. The rest of the characters and actors just seem pointless and don't really make a lasting or important enough impression.
So does the entire movie to be honest. It feels like a pointless movie, that doesn't add anything and has no surprises in it, or reasons to make this movie a must-see. No, not even for the Brando, Loren or Chaplin fans. This movie is certainly not one of their best moments, out of their long careers and none of them really make a wonderful shining impression in this movie.
Sure, it does have its moments but overall it's filled with too many old fashioned sort of comical situations that are too often stretched out for too long and too much. As a movie it's entertaining enough to make it worth your time but as a comedy it really isn't good or funny enough to consider this movie a great or really memorable one.
I agree with Quentin Tarantino on this issue (see "My Best Friend's Birthday"), this is not Charlie Chaplin's finest moment.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
Despite that the movie is far from an 'horrible' one, it still is a disappointing last movie for Charles Chaplin who directed, produced, wrote, composed and acted in this movie. His wonderful comedy career deserved a more worthy last movie. It's sort of ironic and maybe even sad, that man to blame for the failure of the movie is Chaplin himself. What ever made him think that an old fashioned story and style of film-making would make a successful and good movie? Had this movie been made in the late '30's or '40's the movie would had felt more right. Everything than would had more sense and everything in the movie would had connected better to each other. The style of film-making and the story itself simply work too old fashioned for an 1967 movie. As a result of this the story feels childish and throughout its running time, mostly not funny enough. This movie was made in the wrong decade.
But there are more problems with the movie. Another one of those problems is Marlon Brando. Of course he's a great actor and without doubt one of the very best of all time but I'm sorry, he just wasn't much good as a comical actor. He doesn't seem at ease in most of the comical sequences and he just feels totally miscast. Sophia Loren on the other hand is fine in this movie, as is Tippi Hedren. Chaplin's son Sydney Chaplin also plays quite a big role in the movie and he plays a surprising pleasant character, who gets more important in the movie as the story progresses. Charlie Chaplin himself also shows up in a very small role. Another very pleasant cameo is by Oscar winning actress Margaret Rutherford. The scene with her is perhaps the very best of the entire movie. The rest of the characters and actors just seem pointless and don't really make a lasting or important enough impression.
So does the entire movie to be honest. It feels like a pointless movie, that doesn't add anything and has no surprises in it, or reasons to make this movie a must-see. No, not even for the Brando, Loren or Chaplin fans. This movie is certainly not one of their best moments, out of their long careers and none of them really make a wonderful shining impression in this movie.
Sure, it does have its moments but overall it's filled with too many old fashioned sort of comical situations that are too often stretched out for too long and too much. As a movie it's entertaining enough to make it worth your time but as a comedy it really isn't good or funny enough to consider this movie a great or really memorable one.
I agree with Quentin Tarantino on this issue (see "My Best Friend's Birthday"), this is not Charlie Chaplin's finest moment.
6/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
- Boba_Fett1138
- Apr 27, 2006
- Permalink
- How long is A Countess from Hong Kong?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Languages
- Also known as
- Die Gräfin von Hongkong
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $3,500,000 (estimated)
- Runtime2 hours
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was A Countess from Hong Kong (1967) officially released in India in English?
Answer