You missed the point, your analysis is based on the premise of this filme is a linear narrative rather than a multiple effort to recreate the Bond iconography.This filme should be appreciated in the context of London of the 60's. Sorry for you.
has anybody else seen the female ghost-like caracter in that movie?
near the end of the movie (during the huge brawl) there is a 5 second scene in black and white, if you watch closely on the left of the screen you'll see a rose-dressed lady turning around a light pole.
Yeah..... you did absolutely no research into this movie, did you? Not to mention, you were so busy bitching that you failed to notice the massive problem - the 'Mata in Berlin' and 'training Sellers' scenes were accidentally swapped, and have remained that way since day one. That's why Le Chiffre decides to play baccarat AFTER Sellers is trained.
I enjoyed this wacky movie. The actors were just having a lot of fun. The ending was the same as the Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles so what's the big deal? The women are beautiful and sexy. The "Look of Love" scene between Ursula Andress and Peter Sellers is priceless.
Yet such movies have a purpose now: When you need to empty your brain of all the stress of daily living, you can't get much more escapist than THIS stuff!
Okay, I guess this old broad has to point it out to you: The sixties were chock-full of films that were basically an acid-induced series of fluffy romps through psychedelic images and kicky music. If this wasn't enough to convince you, then check out the Matt Helm movies, or Derek Flint vehicles. Plot holes you could drive a train through, painfully-obvious villains, sexism, schlock, and whatever else is deemed politically incorrect and vile these days.
From what I've heard the Peter Sellers part was filmed first and sellers walked off the film. I agree Woody Allen is really good in here, my favorite line of his is "my doctor told me not to let bullets enter my body at any times." great review, seeing one of my favorite series raped like this is just sad.
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
Anyway, The eye of Horus ...taking over the world scheme...How many James Bonds were there in this film?
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
Anyway, The eye of Horus ...taking over the world scheme...
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
I learned a few things about this film I've had on tape for ever, and which I love though no one I've ever tried to show it too has stayed awake...
One thing: the Peter O'Toole cameo is a a reference to What's New Pussycat, where Peter O'Toole plays the main character and meets Richard Burton in a strip-club, briefly.
Anyway. I found your review unbelievably smug, but still, cheerio and bravo for the effort and for sharing your opinion on this film.
While I agree with your review that this is a terrible, bizarre movie, I do think it has 4 plus factors:
1) The Woman
2) Woody Allen
3) The music
4) The last 7 minutes which I find hysterical in a Blazing Saddles kind of way.
Would be interesting to see if someone had an opportunity to have access all the footage shot would they be able to edit a better cut of the movie or is the movie completely beyond repair?
.....6 directors and Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Niven, Welles, Allen, Deborah Kerr, Huston, Belmondo, Geraldine Chaplin, Anjelica Huston, Peter O'Toole NOW I AM CURIOUS!
Average moviegoers? Marketed? Problems with nonsense? You are really an American! (c'mon the "american" invasion at the end and the scottish nightmare are so funny) Really thinking that is some kind of British farce but the curious thing is that apparently you like the Monty Phyton!! Anyway, still enjoying your reviews.
I think part of the problem with the film is that it aged poorly. The references to Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and German Expressionism would have been picked up on by a 1967 audience, but your right that most modern filmgoers will miss it.
Yes it has 6 directors but the three main ones who filmed, filmed separately from each other. They didn't even work together. Then the other 3 directors put their separate movies together as one. If you have the DVD I would recommend watching it with the commentary, it is very interesting and informative. But even after all that, I like the movie as a surrealist film not as a true bond film.
Yes, I was actually aware that they didn't even work together, but I'm not quite sure why I didn't mention it...perhaps I felt it would interrupt the flow of the narrative?
But to treat this movie as a surrealist film...THAT is interesting! I didn't even consider that. Still, I feel that, if you've never seen this movie before, you're expecting either a Bond film or a Bond spoof, not a surrealist film. Badly marketed, perhaps.
i bet you can't get your head round monty pythons flying circus.retard.
rowanmark21 2 weeks ago
Terrible movie, awesome revue
Sunsetsmiles3 3 months ago
You missed the point, your analysis is based on the premise of this filme is a linear narrative rather than a multiple effort to recreate the Bond iconography.This filme should be appreciated in the context of London of the 60's. Sorry for you.
joemouse 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
has anybody else seen the female ghost-like caracter in that movie?
near the end of the movie (during the huge brawl) there is a 5 second scene in black and white, if you watch closely on the left of the screen you'll see a rose-dressed lady turning around a light pole.
freaky!
goformorgor 5 months ago
The film is great, I wish you would shut up.Who are you anyway,please go away.
rowanmark21 5 months ago 2
Good Movie...Bad Review
TISFYproductions 6 months ago
it made money... I´m speachless ...
elisa02s 6 months ago
is this just one film??? WEIRD
elisa02s 6 months ago
Yeah..... you did absolutely no research into this movie, did you? Not to mention, you were so busy bitching that you failed to notice the massive problem - the 'Mata in Berlin' and 'training Sellers' scenes were accidentally swapped, and have remained that way since day one. That's why Le Chiffre decides to play baccarat AFTER Sellers is trained.
SecretTimeWarp 6 months ago
7:54-8:42 is my favorite part
Mario36Bros 8 months ago
Wow...you get nothing...
GrandFunker 9 months ago
Why have you ruined the film BY TALKING OVER IT. IDIOT
TheChazman101 9 months ago
I enjoyed this wacky movie. The actors were just having a lot of fun. The ending was the same as the Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles so what's the big deal? The women are beautiful and sexy. The "Look of Love" scene between Ursula Andress and Peter Sellers is priceless.
BooBoo0818 10 months ago
"So where's the movie?? This guy loves the sound of his own voice!!"
Grifiki 11 months ago
great movie, but your voice annoying me!
watcher05er 1 year ago
Yet such movies have a purpose now: When you need to empty your brain of all the stress of daily living, you can't get much more escapist than THIS stuff!
BaronessErsatz 1 year ago
Okay, I guess this old broad has to point it out to you: The sixties were chock-full of films that were basically an acid-induced series of fluffy romps through psychedelic images and kicky music. If this wasn't enough to convince you, then check out the Matt Helm movies, or Derek Flint vehicles. Plot holes you could drive a train through, painfully-obvious villains, sexism, schlock, and whatever else is deemed politically incorrect and vile these days.
BaronessErsatz 1 year ago
Fire indeed HOT!
Shyguy825 1 year ago
From what I've heard the Peter Sellers part was filmed first and sellers walked off the film. I agree Woody Allen is really good in here, my favorite line of his is "my doctor told me not to let bullets enter my body at any times." great review, seeing one of my favorite series raped like this is just sad.
woollybully100 1 year ago
@woollybully100 Oh, please. If you hate this movie, you have to hate "Moonraker" just as much.
SecretTimeWarp 6 months ago
@SecretTimeWarp hmmm interesting point. you know what? you're right, this and Moonraker have to tie for the title worst James Bond film ever.
woollybully100 6 months ago
@woollybully100 ...What does that make Die Another Day?!
SecretTimeWarp 6 months ago
@SecretTimeWarp a close but firm second place for worst.
woollybully100 6 months ago
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
Anyway, The eye of Horus ...taking over the world scheme...How many James Bonds were there in this film?
jdcc061 1 year ago
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
Anyway, The eye of Horus ...taking over the world scheme...
jdcc061 1 year ago
I think it was all intended for the Illuminati (Shadow Government)...it isn't intended for an average adult....(if you believe in that sort of thing...which I don't think youdo)...LOL!
jdcc061 1 year ago
I learned a few things about this film I've had on tape for ever, and which I love though no one I've ever tried to show it too has stayed awake...
One thing: the Peter O'Toole cameo is a a reference to What's New Pussycat, where Peter O'Toole plays the main character and meets Richard Burton in a strip-club, briefly.
Anyway. I found your review unbelievably smug, but still, cheerio and bravo for the effort and for sharing your opinion on this film.
lemoncurry19 1 year ago
You're a braver man than I am for watching this again to review it. Entertaining review well put together.
dafmurray 1 year ago
Comment removed
nickatreadinguni 1 year ago
While I agree with your review that this is a terrible, bizarre movie, I do think it has 4 plus factors:
1) The Woman
2) Woody Allen
3) The music
4) The last 7 minutes which I find hysterical in a Blazing Saddles kind of way.
Would be interesting to see if someone had an opportunity to have access all the footage shot would they be able to edit a better cut of the movie or is the movie completely beyond repair?
Bob
bobm174 1 year ago
.....6 directors and Peter Sellers, Ursula Andress, Niven, Welles, Allen, Deborah Kerr, Huston, Belmondo, Geraldine Chaplin, Anjelica Huston, Peter O'Toole NOW I AM CURIOUS!
Average moviegoers? Marketed? Problems with nonsense? You are really an American! (c'mon the "american" invasion at the end and the scottish nightmare are so funny) Really thinking that is some kind of British farce but the curious thing is that apparently you like the Monty Phyton!! Anyway, still enjoying your reviews.
2010tomas 1 year ago
Perhaps it's just an absurdist parody or something of a curate's-egg.
And there should always be a few curate's eggs in the basket of life? Keeps things interesting..
Lytton333 1 year ago
I think part of the problem with the film is that it aged poorly. The references to Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and German Expressionism would have been picked up on by a 1967 audience, but your right that most modern filmgoers will miss it.
mfparrish 2 years ago
im so glad i watched this review before i watched this movie lol, im a bond fan, and i think this looks insanly pointless lol
wallybescotty 2 years ago
Fantastic review. It was funny and witty.
Keep up the good work. :)
bluemidget276 2 years ago
You missed this biggest problem of this film.
Yes it has 6 directors but the three main ones who filmed, filmed separately from each other. They didn't even work together. Then the other 3 directors put their separate movies together as one. If you have the DVD I would recommend watching it with the commentary, it is very interesting and informative. But even after all that, I like the movie as a surrealist film not as a true bond film.
Drumman1001 2 years ago 5
Yes, I was actually aware that they didn't even work together, but I'm not quite sure why I didn't mention it...perhaps I felt it would interrupt the flow of the narrative?
But to treat this movie as a surrealist film...THAT is interesting! I didn't even consider that. Still, I feel that, if you've never seen this movie before, you're expecting either a Bond film or a Bond spoof, not a surrealist film. Badly marketed, perhaps.
FilmPoe 2 years ago