Diagonaldi Very well executed

Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

aceellaway2010 It's unfortunate that this movie happened close to the end of Ursula's most successful years, as she is easily the best thing in it.Looking absolutely gorgeous-in or out of her clothes- and it must be said she is treated very much as a sex object in places, she is seen fully frontal nude, while the men (admittedly pretty unattractive are kept under wraps, but you can't help seeing it as sexist and exploitative to a degree. But she is still funny and entertaining in this underrated movie.Somewhat of it's time =swinging London etc, but nevertheless deserved to be seen more than it was.

philkessell Well I won't give the ending away folks, but you will see it coming a MILE OFF!!Stanley Baker, in his last film performance, plays a tired, jaded under manager in a bank he's worked at for the past ten thousand years. He longs to escape the futile tedium of work, but is, on the surface at least resigned (and apparently content) to working out his days in a gold fishbowl office where his superiors can see him but he can't see them. 'I'm poor and broke' he sighs as he neatly summarises his attitude to 'work'. If we all have to do it (as most of us sadly do) we might as well acquire as much financial gain as we can. Very early on, it's clear that Baker's character is already painfully aware that he has gone as far as he is going to go, and that alternative action is required if he is not to give way to perpetual professional atrophy.So, in comes Britt (can't think where they got that foreign sounding name or accent from, eh chaps). I disagree with some who say that Andress can't act. True, her range is limited, but so were those of luminaries like Bogart, so I feel it's a little unfair to admonish her professional credentials in this way. Also, let's not deny that there are worse things to clock within the cinematic pantheon that Andress's 'undress', and there's plenty of that here. I make this point from a purely 'cinematic' perspective, you understand.True, the characters are all pretty unlikeable, Warner's in particular, yet it's interesting to see him turn from repellent upper class knob into Baker's whipping boy, mysteriously travelling up and down the country for no apparent reason. (What was THAT all about?) His gesture of defiance towards the end just comes across as toothless, when it's obvious to all who the real winner of the piece is going to be....Anyway, not bad as it goes, but far from perfect. I always love films for this era (1969-72), just for the 'feel' of the piece, and the washed out yet oddly warm feel of the print itself. As one other reviewer said, there are still traces of 'swinging' London to be found here (in the feel of the film and knowing it was made in 1970), whereas by 1972, that eponymous decade had cinema well and truly contained within it's er' 'distinctive' sartorial grip. We're on the cusp here folks, and all the better for it. Worth watching, but don't expect to remember it tomorrow.

Jim (jim-1225) Appreciation of this film depends very much on taste. Although it foundered for me, the plot was interesting and many might find it an enjoyable viewing. Mr Graham (Stanley Baker), Lord Nick (David Warner) & Lady Britt (Ursula Andress) all played their parts in an intelligent and consistent way, and Mr Smith (T P McKenna) stood out simply by good acting as a normal individual. Clearly, Lady Britt had few inhibitions, being quite happy to run around the house in the buff, and seeming equally at ease sleeping naked with both Mr Graham and her husband. Separately, I might add!As a person who values integrity, commitment and knows the reality of 'happy ever after', it's hardly surprising that a film about deceit, theft, greed and infidelity doesn't grab me. While Lady Britt is undoubtedly physically attractive and has the warmest personality of the three lead characters, she just ain't my kinda gal. OK, I'm taking it all far too seriously, but my greatest enjoyment comes from entertainment that leaves me with a feeling of warmth, and a hope for the future for the principal characters. The most distasteful aspect of this movie for me were a couple of nasty blasphemies - bang went three of the ten stars straight away!Altogether, an amusing and interesting film with a good plot that was cleverly revealed, but (Sorry!) not really my cup of tea.

erolgalip I don't know why, but every time I think of this film, I'm reminded of "Fish Called Wanda, A". John Cleese, and Stanley Baker seem to be almost impersonating each other. They both play stuffy, uptight people, who end up becoming mixed up in some sort of convoluted plot involving grand larceny, etc. (after being introduced to some glamorous female). And there's the third party - in "Fish Called ...", it's the incredibly stupid American (Kevin Kline), however in this film, it seems to be the equally daft Earl of Dorset (David Warner). Both films end up with a sort of race to Heathrow Airport, but the similarities in plot-lines end about 5 minutes before the closing titles. I did like the way the robbery was handled (very cute) - particularly the 'phone conversation between Mr Graham's immediate superior and the parts played by both David Warner and Ursula Andress in the adjacent office. Some nice shots also of seventies London, and great comments by the Earl of Dorset on British Rail (as it was then known).