Konterr Brilliant and touching

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

LeonLouisRicci Dr. Robert Vaughn (Ph.D Communications), one of the Hardest Working Television and Screen Actors, Stars in this Low-Key Spy Thriller that Manages some Intrigue, a Beautiful Landscape, and a Decent Score from Lalo Schifrin, a few Good Supporting Actors like Ed Asner, Boris Karloff, and Karl Boehm do Good Work, and Elke Sommers Doesn't Do Much.The most Interesting Part is Not well Integrated, the Secret Psychotronic Weapon. The Third Act Picks Up the Pace that Lingered and Stalled previously. It's a Slow Burner for sure. The Plot can be Hard to Follow for a While, but there is just Enough Professionalism on hand to make this Worth a Watch.Don't Expect James Bond's High Tectonics and a Silky Smooth Platte and You Might Like this, another Sixties Spy Thriller, one of the Super Serious Ones. Karl Boehm Almost Steals the Show in a Small Part.

kensolar Being in high school at the time my friends and I read all the spy novels we could get our hands on. I had read 'The Spy Who Came in From The Cold'. The book and movie were both first class. Then I read 'The Venitian Affair' and it was also top notch, a first class suspense novel with all the twists and turns, very dark. When they announced that Robert Vaunghn was going to play the lead we were ecstatic. Unfortunately, the movie, while not bad, just didn't live up to the billing. Why, well the book was almost 500 pages and the movie was 89 minutes. The movie skips a lot of details and worse, it tries to rush to fit as much as possible in. James Bond thrillers are non-stop action, but most realist spy movies are slower and paced, as is most real spying. It feels like they tried to do this on a budget and use TV pacing. Hiring Vaughn was probably due in part to his television background, thinking he would be more acceptable to this approach. He wasn't and it shows. Being a real actor with the chops to really shine in a great role, he must have been very disappointed when he got the final script. It lacked much of the character development and brooding pace. As I said, it's not a bad movie, just far short of it's potential. And, there is the classic line from the airport scene when he first lands in Veinna. Read the book after seeing the movie, it's a classic spy novel with tension that crackles.

morpheusatloppers When I saw this film advertised in my satellite listings mag, it merely said, "The Venetian Affair"...'67...starring Robert Vaughn. Hmm, I thought. I believed I'd SEEN all the "U.N.C.L.E." films - "The Helicopter Spies", "To Trap A Spy", "One Of Our Spies Is Missing", etc. And anyway, the "The...Affair" titles are only for the TV episodes from which the "movies" hail.So I began to watch it. The first thing I noticed was that it'd been made in scope. This further puzzled me, as the "U.N.C.L.E." "movies" are all in standard ratio, having been culled from TV.Of course, I now know better. The "Affair" in the title is merely what the producers must at the time have thought was a VERY happy COINCIDENCE, "The Venetian Affair" being the original title of the source novel by Helen MacInnes.But is it also a coincidence that they chose to star Robert Vaughn and a number of lightweight actors in the film? I suspect NOT. In those days, many people went to see a film solely on the strength of the POSTER (which is why the two "Carry On"s that for contractual reasons did not originally bear the Carry On prefix still did well) so they HAD to know that many would assume it was an "U.N.C.L.E." movie.Which means that I'm sure many viewers of this film, both on it's original theatrical release and later (if their TV listings mag only featured the basics) were BITTERLY DISAPPOINTED with it.It might have been better if it had turned out to be a serious and GOOD spy thriller - like "The Naked Runner" (athough those waiting for Sinatra to take off his clothes would have been disappointed too) - but it WASN'T. It was, and still is, SLOW, DREARY and BORING!I mean, after I'd realised it wasn't an "U.N.C.L.E." romp, I was happy to judge it on its own merit - but it doesn't HAVE any!Incidentally, I notice that various listings for this piece have it as coming out in 1957 - including THIS august service - whereas it ACTUALLY came out in the GOLDEN year of 1967. I wonder why?

djb896328 In 1967, when the spy genre became well and truly a parody of itself, there were only some spy films that were serious attempts in the genre. "The Venetian Affair" is one such film. It's a very well made, suspenseful and dramatic work, based on Helen MacInnes' novel of the same name. Still TV's super-spy Napoleon Solo, Robert Vaughn plays the anti-hero, antithesis of Solo/Bond/Flint etc, as former-CIA man, now downtrodden journalist Bill Fenner. He plays Fenner extremely well, a perfect role for Vaughn's sensibilities as a thoughtful, intellectual man. Aided magnificently is a strong European cast - Elke Sommer, Boris Karloff, Luciana Paluzzi and Karl Boehm to name just a few. Also prominent is Edward Asner as the tough CIA chief Rosenfeld.Overall, this is an excellent and often misunderstood film. Most people and critics alike, expected the any spy film from this era to be more glamorous and fun a la "In Like Flint" or "You Only Live Twice" which came out the same year. However, looking in retrospect some thirty-years on, one can appreciate a fine dramatic work, one which stands up to the test of time much better than any of its more outrageous competitors.