Category Archives: Terence Stamp

Modesty Blaise-1966

Modesty Blaise-1966

Director Joseph Losey

Starring Monica Vitti, Terence Stamp, Dirk Bogarde

Scott’s Review #1,243

Reviewed April 9, 2022

Grade: B

Loosely based on a British comic strip of the same name, Modesty Blaise (1966) is a campy, over-the-top escapist film that features a relaxed style but a convoluted plot.

The story doesn’t matter much and the film feels based on the James Bond film series with some Dick Tracy and Brenda Starr comic elements thrown in.

Throughout the action, I chuckled at the situation comedy antics of the characters. Both heroes and villains get mixed up in one hokey situation after another and all of the actors seem well aware that they are not performing Shakespearean comedy.

They forge ahead with gusto making it as much of a zany offering as humanly possible.

I mused at how much the film was reminiscent of television, Get Smart, a foolish but sweet-natured 1960s spy-genre offering.

I challenge the odd decision to make a film of this genre a bloated one hour and fifty-seven minutes. A spry ninety or ninety-five minutes would have been more than ample time to wrap up the experience and allow audiences to head for the exits.

This might prevent some from realizing how silly a film they’d just sat through

Modesty Blaise is not a traditionally good film but grooviness and pizazz are the main attractions as characters indulge in an orgy of colorful situations, and preposterous setups.

Lavish locales like Amsterdam, London, and the roaring beaches off the coast of the Meditteranean Sea bring the film back from going too far off the rails and pepper it with some cultivation.

If one is in the right mood Modesty Blaise is a chuckle fest but if aching for high art don’t waste your time. The psychedelic and groovy art design and Mad Men-like sets won me over as I quickly forgot to try and piece together the overcomplicated plot.

I simply didn’t care who was who or who was trying to outwit who and why. And I was okay with that.

Gorgeous Italian actress Monica Vitti leads the charge followed by the dashing English actor, Terence Stamp. Together, they make a lusty and good-looking pair though Vitti gets no acting accolades from me.

Her looks are the primary reason for her casting win.

The actress plays a  beautiful former criminal named Modesty who decides to go straight and work for the Secret Service. They send her to infiltrate a ring of jewel thieves. She is not especially respected by the stuck-up older regime but she shrugs it off and offers her best services.

Soon after she joins the gang, sophisticated and dangerous head honcho Gabriel (Dirk Bogarde) grows suspicious of his new charge, and Modesty realizes that British Intelligence gave her a mission they could care less if she survives.

She then enlists her former partner in crime, Willie (Stamp), to help her out of her peril while outsmarting both sides.

Most of the action scenes are ludicrous. The likelihood of any of the stories being true is slim to none. Plenty of sequences take place on a luxury yacht or some other water transportation so that viewers can see Vitti and Stamp clad in as little as possible.

I smirked at more than one James Bond nod though I dare say some influence on the still-to-be-made Diamonds Are Forever (1971) is noticed.

If I’m making Modesty Blaise out to be a terrible film, it’s not.

The gimmicky angle of having Modesty appear with a different hairstyle in every sequence is clever and enjoyable (my preference is for her as a blonde).

When she is imprisoned in a spiraling-colored basement cell and must climb out the roof for help it’s one of the best-looking set designs I’ve ever seen. The creative team gets an A-plus for expressiveness and imagination which is the reason Modesty Blaise is so damned fun.

The cartoonish criminals Gabriel and Clara, played by Dirk Bogarde and Rossella Falk, are deliciously wicked. I was amazed at Gabriel’s towering purple cocktail and craved trying a sip of it to see exactly what he was drinking.

Satisfyingly, both main villains get their comeuppance.

The film is foolish, campy, and a silly time wrapped up in amazing artistry from a creative team who deserves more credit than they probably received.

Modesty Blaise (1966) is a messy film that I enjoyed and found endearing way more than I probably should have. It’s the guiltiest of pleasures in a chest full of sub-par spy comedy films.

Wall Street-1987

Wall Street-1987

Director Oliver Stone

Starring Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Daryl Hannah

Scott’s Review #511

60003330

Reviewed November 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Rather late in the game, but 2011 was my first time seeing the film Wall Street and it was a very good film.

Douglas and Sheen have great on-screen chemistry and the numerous scenes of New York City are pleasing- pre- 9/11 they capture a haunting feeling.

Despite being made in 1987 (not a great year for cinema), it does not feel dated except for the soundtrack.

Unfortunately, the circumstances in this movie still ring true today. There is a lot of dishonesty and greed in the financial world (check out the documentary Inside Job for proof of this).

The financial collapse of 2008 is a great indicator.

Michael Douglas is excellent in the role of Gordon Gekko, a power-hungry, greedy financial mogul.

He encompasses the role in every way and deservedly won the Best Actor statuette for this year.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actor-Michael Douglas (won)

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Far from the Madding Crowd-1967

Director John Schlesinger

Starring Julie Christie, Terence Stamp, Alan Bates

Scott’s Review #315

70111488

Reviewed January 1, 2016

Grade: A-

A sweeping, gorgeous epic made in 1967, Far from the Madding Crowd is pure soap opera (this is not a negative), done very well, which features a woman with three male suitors and contains many similarities to another brilliant epic, Gone with the Wind.

The cinematography, score, and writing are excellent, and, at close to three hours, are a lengthy experience.

The film is based on the popular novel, written by Thomas Hardy.

The setting is lovely, rural England, the landscape green and lush- mostly farmland, where Bathsheba resides having recently inherited her Uncle’s enormous estate and is, frankly, overwhelmed with the heavy responsibility required to successfully run it.

Three men appear in one form or another to lend a hand and each falls madly in love with her- she had her choice of any of them. Throughout the film, each is given a chance to win her heart, and the trials and tribulations of each occur.

The wealthy neighbor, William Boldwood, is older and insecure. Frank Troy is a bad boy who is a cavalry sergeant, and Gabriel, a former farmer, has lost all of his sheep.

Having only seen this film twice (so far), I notice more and more the similarities to Gone with the Wind. Both are set around the same period (the 1860s) and both films feature very strong, independent, gorgeous female characters with multiple male suitors.

Unlike Gone with the Wind, though, Bathsheba is not self-centered, but wholesome and honest.

Julie Christie was certainly the “it” girl during the time in which the film was made, having recently starred in Darling, and Doctor Zhivago, among others, and Far from the Madding Crowd is a perfect film for her, focusing on her beauty and earnestness.

She is exceptionally cast.

What I enjoy most about the film is we do not know which of the men Bathsheba will wind up with…if any of them. Gabriel Alan Bates) is my personal favorite, but at the beginning of the film, she rebuffs his marriage proposal.

In a heartbreaking scene, one of his dogs goes mad and leads his entire flock of sheep to their death. He then is forced to work as her shepherd, a job beneath him. He is the most likable of the three men and it is fun to root for their ultimate union. But is he prone to bad luck?

Frank Troy is dashing- a clear lady’s man, yet I did not root for him. A character, which I found to have strange motivations, having impregnated, and almost married a young lady named Fanny, only to turn her away based on a misunderstanding, then ultimately change his mind about Bathsheba.

In one scene he manipulates his way into getting the townsmen drunk on brandy, which leads to a crisis. He is charismatic and used to getting his way.

Finally, Boldwood is wealthy and sophisticated and appealing to Bathsheba in a certain way (main stability), but there is also something I find “off” about the character throughout the film- unstable maybe, needy? I did not find his character likable either.

The overlap and the relationships between the men are also interesting aspects of Far from the Madding Crowd. Will they become friends? Would they kill each other for Bathsheba’s affection?

Many emotions run through all four characters, which makes the film rich in character development.

Grand, sweeping, and beautiful are words to describe Far from the Madding Crowd, a film that I enjoy exploring and evaluating upon each viewing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Music Score

Teorema-1968

Teorema-1968

Director Pier Paolo Pasolini

Starring Terence Stamp, Silvana Mangano

Scott’s Review #234

70039263

Reviewed April 10, 2015

Grade: A-

Teorema is a 1968 Italian art film directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini, who later would go on to direct the dark and disturbing 1975 masterpiece, Salo- 120 Days of Sodom.

If one is looking for a concise, mainstream plot with a fixed, to-the-point, beginning and ending, one will be disappointed. Rather, Teorema is an exhibition in artistic style and interpretation and succeeds in mesmerizing this viewer in thought and contemplation.

A mysterious stranger, simply known as “the visitor”, suddenly arrives to stay with an affluent, Italian family in their sprawling estate. The family consists of a father, mother, son, daughter, and maid, all with issues of loneliness, boredom, fear, rage, or repression.

The handsome stranger successfully beds all members of the family and just as suddenly as he arrives, he then disappears from the household leaving the family members with different thoughts, feelings, and actions upon his departure.

The film is highly interpretive and every character can be analyzed.

All of the characters are seduced by the stranger and the family’s wealth can be studied. Is Teorema (which translates to the theorem in Italian) a commentary on the bourgeois society? The father, Paolo, owns a factory and appears to be in turmoil- is he a repressed homosexual?

The conclusion of the father’s story is very interesting as he turns his factory over to the workers, strips naked, and roars with anger and frustration.

Is the mother simply a wealthy, bored housewife or much more than that? This character might have been explored more thoroughly.

The maid, devoutly religious, becomes suicidal after her tryst with the stranger. The others confide in the stranger about how they feel about themselves and, at times, the film is like watching a therapy session as each character delves more into their personal feelings.

Only the maid is a bit different than the others, but could this be because she is of working-class and the others affluent?

The daughter, Odessa, approximately, sixteen years old, becomes depressed after her liaison. The frightened, weak son appears to have a crisis and is consoled by the stranger in a loving, tender fashion.

Interestingly, the film at the time was resoundingly denounced by the Vatican, which took offense at the controversial tone of the film and its focus on “obscenity”.

Could this be because of some people’s interpretation of “the visitor” as being a Christ-like figure? One must argue the difference between “obscenity” and “art” after viewing this groundbreaking and visionary film. I viewed Teorema as a thought-provoking experience and did not feel as if the film was going for shock value. The film is lightweight in this regard compared to the hauntingly brutal Salo, which followed years later.

Teorema delves into the psychological abyss and portrays an Italian family as more than wealthy- they are people with emotions, fears, desires, and complexities.

Not for mainstream audiences, but meant for lovers of interpretive film, it can be debated and discussed for ages to come.