jongibbo

It can be interesting to look at films from years ago and see how one's views have changed. I saw this when it came out in 1965, and again when it was revived a few years later. I quite enjoyed it then, although the critics were not impressed, however it must be fifty years since I last saw it, so when I saw that Talking Pictures TV were showing it, I set my TV to record it so that I could watch it at my leisure. Looked at today, my impression is that it has not aged at all well. There seems to be a lot of energy expended to little effect. At times, it resembles a Carry-on movie, and it hardly helps that Kim Novak seems to be miscast. However credit is due to Leo McKern playing Richard Johnson's sidekick, who adds some much needed fun to the proceedings. It has a good supporting cast, but I can't help but feel that with this cast, it really should have been a lot better.

I view this film with some affection. I first saw it in 1966 in the 70mm version, and I found it to be hilarious. I also recall being impressed by the stereo sound. There were three of these big budget movies that came out in the sixties, but for me, this was the best, it seems a more likeable film than It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. Looking back on it now more than fifty years later, one thing that strikes me as a bit odd is that a film running over two and a half hours should be dedicated to those masters of the short film format, Laurel and Hardy. However, I think it stands the test of time pretty well, and is still great fun to watch. Jack Lemmon's performance as the dastardly Professor Fate was wildly over the top, but I'm sure that plenty in the audience were cheering him on rather than the rather boring hero played by Tony Curtis.

This was originally shown on the Cinerama screen (in Newcastle, it ran for two months at the Queens Cinerama) but I did not see it until it was revived a few years later, when it was shown on normal sized screens. What I do remember was the poor state of the film, some of the scenes were like watching through a blizzard, but this was all too typical of the film industry in the seventies. As regards the film itself, it seems to have been made by people with no sense of comic timing. It does have some good ideas in it, but they are done to death. If only someone had taken a pair of scissors and drastically cut it down. There are some talented people in this movie, such a pity that they don't get to properly show off their skills. However, I do have a soft spot for the delightful Dorothy Provine, even if she has hardly anything to do in the movie except act as a counterpoint to a rather over-the-top Ethel Merman.