In Hong Kong, the wealthy Ogden Mears is traveling in a transatlantic and is near to be assigned Saudi Arabia Ambassador and is divorcing from his wife Martha. His friend Harvey and he are ...
See full summary »
Three Chaplin silent comedies "A Dog's Life", "Shoulder Arms", and "The Pilgrim" are strung together to form a single feature length film. Chaplin provides new music, narration, and a small... See full summary »
In Hong Kong, the wealthy Ogden Mears is traveling in a transatlantic and is near to be assigned Saudi Arabia Ambassador and is divorcing from his wife Martha. His friend Harvey and he are invited by their old friend Clark to go to a nightclub with three aristocratic Russian refugees on their last night. Ogden drinks too much and spends the night with Countess Natascha. On the next morning, while sailing back home, Ogdeb finds Natascha hidden in his cabin wearing a ball gown and with no documents. The stowaway explains that she wants to go to the United States and Ogden is worried with his career. But Harvey convinces him to help Natascha. Ogden falls in love with Natascha and together with Harvey, they plot a fake marriage of Natascha with his valet Hudson. But things get complicated when immigration requests her documents and Martha arrives on board. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Toward the end of the film Ogden, Natascha, Harvey and Martha sit around a restaurant table. Ogden and Natascha sit with their backs to the camera and very far from each other so they won't obscure Harvey and Martha at the other side of the table. When they get up to dance, the camera cuts to a close up of Ogden and Natascha which are suddenly almost touching shoulders. See more »
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.
24 of 31 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?