Wordiezett So much average

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

calvinnme This is a parody is based on a British comic strip, and the film came off as another one of the James Bond spoofs that littered the screen in the 1960's (The Matt Helm series, the Dr. Goldfoot series, etc).The movie is about superspy Modesty Blaise (Vitti), who can change her appearance just by snapping her fingers. She is hired by the British government to protect a shipment of diamonds, which international thief Gabriel (Bogarde) is after. Blaise only accepts the job if Willie Garvin (Stamp) is allowed to work with her. Film goes on its way from there.Script is infuriating because it misses opportunity after opportunity for satire. It assumes that just because Blaise is a woman superspy, that alone is hilarious. Vitti does her best, and sounds like a smoky voiced Garbo, but the script leaves her high and dry. She gets most of her laughs from intonation, sight gags, and the glint in her eyes. Stamp is on the sidelines, although his appearance changes at will also. Bogarde as Gabriel is the funniest person in the film, whether he's refusing an egg because it's overcooked or reminding a potential killer that it's rude to point.This one does have Bogarde, and Blaises' changes are spectacular, and so are the sets. There are setpieces that are homages to famous directors, which I found amusing. However, it just goes on too long for what little it is trying to do, there are too many dry spells without laughs, and Bogarde and company are off-screen for too long. Still worth a watch--maybe.

Enoch Sneed Obviously this was intended as an over-the-top spoof of extravagant 1960's crime and spy thrillers. As some reviewers have noted, if you watch it in isolation and forget the excellent source material it can be enjoyed on that level. Even so, a spoof does not have to be one long joke. There was room for some genuine suspense here, particularly at the climax, where Modesty and Willie escape from their cells and set out to foil arch-villain Gabriel. This would have given the film a sharp edge after all the camp hamming that went before.One of the problems seems to have been that (according to Terence Stamp's autobiography) Monica Vitti was totally lacking in physical co-ordination and just could not handle action scenes. This makes what should be her climactic confrontation with Mrs Fothergill a really limp effort - shot from above to allow a stunt double to do the work with awkward close-up inserts of Vitti and no true physical contact at all.Still, I always relish the sight of Dirk Bogarde pegged out in the desert calling out for "Champagne!" and squealing as the loyal McWhirter comes to the rescue: "I thought you were mother!" Good fun, but it could and should have been better

MARIO GAUCI Truth be told, I hated this movie on first viewing many years ago and, in fact, I only just now purchased the utterly bare-bones Fox DVD for three reasons: the disc is now out-of-print; I found it very cheaply (surprisingly) at a local retailer; and, most importantly perhaps, I was prepared to give it another chance thanks to my ongoing (and very rewarding) Losey-thon.To say that Joseph Losey was a strange choice to helm this picture would be a massive understatement. In his previous films, very rarely (if at all) had he shown that he had any sense of humor, much less the kind of campy, knowing and irreverent one essential for successful comic strip adaptations. As it happens, the film was not well-received and both leads - Monica Vitti (who apparently phoned Michelangelo Antonioni everyday during the shoot) and Terence Stamp - were unhappy making it; there are those who even go so far as to consider it not just Losey's nadir but quite simply one of the worst films ever made! Well, based on that first TV viewing of it, I probably would have endorsed such sentiments myself... However, my re-acquaintance with it proved something of a minor revelation: while still as uneven as I recalled, I couldn't now deny that there were some delightful elements which, on the whole, made the film palatable and, at times, even endearing: Evan Jones' script was occasionally quite witty, Losey's own trademark odd compositions (usually so overpowering in his melodramas) suited the "anything goes" mood of the material, Jack Hildyard's glossy cinematography of attractive Mediterranean locations, outrageous outfits and groovy production design was top-notch and Losey's frequent composer Johnny Dankworth provided an infectious score.And what about that cast? Monica Vitti (who would have guessed that she could ever be as attractive and sexy as this judging by her work for Antonioni?), Terence Stamp (gleefully throwing knives, bedding women and engaging in a charming, impromptu singing duet with Vitti while driving up a mountaintop and reprising it for the action-packed finale), Dirk Bogarde (ironically named Gabriel, he was never campier - or gayer - than as the silver-wigged, self-proclaimed "villain of the piece"), Michael Craig (as Vitti's ex-lover and pursuing British agent), Harry Andrews (as a top British Secret Service official firing away bullets from his umbrella), Alexander Knox (as a bumbling British MP forever mispronouncing names and giving out the wrong information), Clive Revill (for no apparent reason in a dual role: as Bogarde's right-hand man who keeps the accounts even on the field of battle and as Vitti's "father", an Arabian Sheik!), Rossella Falk (as the lethal Miss. Fothergill, Bogarde's manly assistant, who keeps a regiment of mostly aging men in shape through arduous physical exercise), Saro Urzi (as a lowly, opera-singing henchman of Bogarde's), Tina Aumont (as an ill-fated conquest/informer of Stamp's) and real-life magician Silvan (as a duplicitous circus performer).Ultimately, while the plot is too convoluted to follow at times and the film itself may not be in the same league as Mario Bava's DANGER: DIABOLIK (1968) or even Roger Vadim's BARBARELLA (1968), it's certainly an engaging spy spoof and far better than its reputation suggests.

ingemar-4 This movie seems to be made with the sole purpose of hurting Peter O'Donnel and insulting his fans. The entire Modesty Blaise concept is completely ignored. O'Donnel is said to have cried when he saw it, and I can believe that.The choice of Monica Vitti as the heroine is disaster #1. The long, dark, strong and mysterious Modesty is played by an average blonde bimbo. It is as if Rick Moranis had been chosen to play James Bond in the very first Bond movie. It may have been somewhat amusing but no "Bond fever" would have resulted. Modesty Blaise is the perfect character for a female Bond. This movie wasted a golden opportunity.The next shock comes when we see the actors chosen as Gabriel and Garvin. The evil, short, slimy scumbag Gabriel is played by a long and handsome man, who could have done a decent Garvin. Garvin is played by someone who could have made a decent Gabriel. Was anyone thinking when doing the movie or were they simply busy wasting O'Donnel's concept?And the coffin is put firmly into the ground by the ending, where the script writer show that they understood so little of the relationship between the heroes that they had to point it out.The plot otherwise follows the book fairly well, but without the essential magic of the heroes, it is just another B-movie. To those who don't know Modesty, it may be somewhat charming due to its age. For us who do, it is painful to watch, knowing that it is the movie that blew all chances for a series of great Modesty movies.PS: Modesty Blaise fans should watch the new movie, from 2003. That's something entirely different.