Customer Reviews

My Name Is Modesty

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

For fans of Peter O'Donnell's character Modesty Blaise, screen adaptations have been very frustrating. The Sixties flick sacrificed O'Donnell's vision in favor of the campy cool that was in back then, which entertained fans of Sixties cool while forcing livid Modesty Blaise fans to wonder why the movie's producers bothered to pay good money licensing Blaise if they weren't going to use the Blaise they licensed. A later, barely-noticed small screen adaptation similarly put the beloved name of Blaise to the service of a generic action plot about generic characters.

When the highly regarded moviemaker Quentin Tarantino announced that he was a fan of O'Donnell's books and comics about Blaise and wanted to see the Modesty Blaise property done right on the big screen, that gave fans some hope. But he said that ten years ago, and little has been done since -- until this cheap, direct-to-video Modesty Blaise prequel, which was shot in less than a month solely because Miramax would lose the rights to the property if it hadn't made a movie within a certain time. That's right -- this movie is a hurry-up, zero-budget flick about a character that others couldn't get right on a big budget with plenty of time. And it's a prequel, to boot. A recipe for diaster if there ever was one.

But something went wrong with the recipe, and the movie turned out to be the only one so far that deserves fan approval. While its shoestring budget means low production values that will turn off those who don't care much for the character, the script's fidelity to O'Donnell's vision of Blaise will make fans slap their foreheads and shout, "At last!"

This is mostly due to a faithful script that cleverly manages to work O'Donnell's enjoyable account of Blaise's childhood into a conversation between the teenage Modesty and a sadistic thug who takes her hostage at the casino where she works. Also, care went into casting Modesty. Alexandra Staden is clearly not the athelete Blaise is supposed to be -- for all her slenderness, her arms are flabby -- but she otherwise bears a striking physical resemblance, she carries herself well, and she does a good exotic accent.

For those looking for a high-class flick, though, the low production values will be a sticking point. The movie looks like it was made for ten bucks, and though the script manages to justify the low number of sets, the movie is stagebound enough that justification was required. Plus, the action sequences, though rare (this is more of a suspense movie), are not particularly well-staged or effective. This is definitely direct-to-video fare.

But for Modesty Blaise fans, it is direct-to-video fare that will be a blast, and a relief, to watch. If this much care went into putting the Modesty Blaise that O'Donnell fans know and love into a rinky-dink video just made to preserve the producers' rights to the franchise, then we can have confidence that when they finally manage to make the big-budget one, it will be one the fans will love. (Heck, by that time, Staden may be old enough to play the early-thirties Modesty that movie will require.)

I just finished watching the Miramax "My Name is Modesty", and, I'm afraid, actually enjoyed it. Understand something--it's not a full blown, big-budget action blowout. But it tells the story of fiction's most spectacular female agent, one rendered for thirty years in comic strips and more than ten novels. Peter O'Donnell's creation is brought more fully to life here than in previous live-action incarnations, but it's a small film, made so that Miramax could keep their movie rights. That said, I loved it, and real Modesty fans will as well. More to the point, I now have hope that someone might make a "real" full out Blaise film one day. This isn't a bad start at all!

For the uninitiated, this film will probably be hit or miss. For diehard Modesty Blaise fans like myself, however, it is manna from heaven. It is Modesty Blaise portrayed as she should be! I was skeptical when I heard it was shot in only 18 days on a low budget and was only 78 minutes long. On viewing it, however, I was more than delightfully surprised. The film is very much in line with the MB history and mystique the way Peter O'Donnell wrote it for so many years, and those in the know will recognize many of the elements (and a couple of characters) that have played a role in the novels and short stories.

Alexandra Staden was previously unknown to me, but she deftly portrays Modesty (a difficult role at best) true to character, though it's obvious the producers should have had her work with a trainer to build up and tone her body prior to filming. One important bit of lore that was overlooked was that Modesty was never shod until she was 14, but it's a small discrepancy to live with given the film's otherwise authentic portrayal of the character and history overall. Watch for the single, character-defining moment when Modesty rips her skirt. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Modesty Blaise fans like me have come to adore and cheer for! My only real complaint? One film is not enough; I want more!

It seems fans of the character of Modesty Blaise, created by author Peter O'Donnell, may finally have something worth their wait in this film, My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Blaise Adventure (2003), produced by Quentin Tarantino. While I've noticed some praise for this film, I can't help but wonder how much of it is due to the fact that previous attempts to breathe life into the character (a film in 1966 and a failed 1982 television pilot) were just so awful that they makes this look good by comparison. Keep in mind I've never read the novels or the comic strips so this is my introduction to the character. Directed by Scott Spiegel, the film stars Alexandra Staden as the title character, along with Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Black Hawk Down). Also appearing in the film is Raymond Cruz (Clear and Present Danger), Fred Pearson (Dr. Vickery from the TV series Dalziel and Pascoe), and someone named Valentin Teodosiu. Of the actors, Cruz was the only one I recognized, which wasn't necessarily a good thing as I find him somewhat annoying in general, stemming from his role in The Rock (1996) in which his character had the sides of his head shaved, and his remaining top locks pulled back into a little ponytail that just angered me for some reason, but I digress...

As the film begins, there's a scene involving some soldiers and a young girl set in the war torn Balkans. Fast forward a number of years and the girl is now a woman, played by Staden, and holds a position as an adept croupier in a casino somewhere in the Mediterranean. There's some voice over featuring Staden, and we learn a little about her character from this, along with her interaction with various casino workers, including her boss Henri Louche, played by Teodosiu. Seem Louche, along with being a successful business owner, also dabbles in more criminal activities, some of which come back to not only haunt him, but those who work for him as a group of heavily armed men, led by Miklos (Coster-Waldau), break into Louche's casino after closing and attempt to steal money from the casinos vault. Circumstances lead to a lengthy interaction between Modesty and Miklos as the two play an interesting game of roulette where we learn a great deal in regards to Modesty's humble beginnings.

Alright, first of all I think the DVD case is a little misleading...just below the title it states `The origin on the world's most lethal female secret agent'...the character in this film is not a secret agent (and really, I didn't see her becoming one in the future), and even if she was, she'd hardly be the most lethal, although she can fight. Perhaps this was more the case in the novels and strips, but no so here, and obviously this element was pushed to make the film more attractive to the fans. And with regards to the James Bond-like action portrayed on the DVD case...there are no high-speed car chases or huge explosions, in case you've gotten your hopes up. This is an Eastern European production (Romania, I think), and it was shot in like 12 or 13 days. Both of these factors are apparent as the film has an inexpensive, almost gaudy feel, much of the story taking place within the limited casino sets, with the exception of the flashback scenes involving Modesty and her mentor Lob, played by Pearson. Despite the factors I already mentioned (limited budget and production schedule, relatively unknown cast), I think the film turned out pretty well and served as a decent introduction to the character of Modesty (again, I am unfamiliar with the original characters, but what little I could glean seemed to indicate this film was probably more representational with regards to the source material than the film from the 60's). I did like Staden's performance, but something felt odd...perhaps it was the fact she appeared so slender, almost anorexic, and hardly came off as `the world's most lethal female secret agent'. Maybe I just prefer women to be a little less boney...anyway, the script was decent, along with most of the performances, but I did think the story got a little too mired in the middle as Modesty is relating her background story in an effort to stall for time. I think this information could have been passed on much quicker than it was, given the superficialities involved (I know, I know, they were trying to create a sense of a deep, meaningful relationship between Modesty and Lob, but it didn't quite make it through). This, to me, highlighted the weakest part of the film in that of a watered down storyline, which was probably the result of having to complete this project as quickly as they did...according to the Internet Movie Database, the production was as rushed as it was because Miramax was on the verge of losing the rights to the character of Modesty Blaise, so they popped this film out in order to retain the rights, hinting at the possibility of more films to follow. Overall I did feel there was an effort here to be overcome the budgetary and time restraints, and also to appear more realistic to the nature of the original material, so I think this film is deserving of a look, but it would be nice to see a more serious effort put forth in the future to capture all the qualities inherent within the character as originally conceived.

The widescreen (1.85:1), enhanced for 16 X 9 TVs, looks very good, and the Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound audio comes through clearly. Special features include separate audio tracks featuring the director and producer, and also one with the writers. There's a `making of' piece, and conversations with the creator Peter O'Donnell, along with another featuring Scott Spiegel and Quentin Tarantino. There's also and extensive retrospective of Modesty Blaise comics and artwork, featuring a detailed synopsis of 95 stories.

Cookieman108

Ive been a Modesty addict since the sixties;

recently reread all and still enjoy them so much.

Hated first movie.

Hopeful about this version.

BUT, allowing for cost and time issues,

I agree with others that the biggest drawback is the

empty and stilted plot.

I admire the effort to inject complexity into the

Modesty character,

considering how badly most women action

characters are written.

MY BIG HOPE

For a long time I have been hoping Joss Whedon would produce,

write and direct a full length Modesty movie. His ability

to surround main action character with real life aura and humor

would serve the series well.

Why doesn't Quentin T's mother, a Modesty fan, urge QT in that

direction???

ABSOLUTE BEST PART OF THE DVD

was Peter ODonnell describing the Modesty background,

a girl in the desert during the war. It was a vivid and very touching description that clearly resonated for him after all these years and makes clear that the foundations of the Modesty character come from a deep well of feeling.

It would have been an excellent brief flashback word over

in the film, presenting in 1 minute what the film took 40 minutes to do.

I SUGGEST

people urge QT to get Miramax to offer Modesty rights to Joss.

As previous reviewers point out, the DVD case is completely misleading. Whoever designed the front cover and wrote the back copy clearly had never seen the movie.

* There are no car chases in this movie

* "most lethal secret agent"?!? (She's not a secret agent)

* "sexy spy" (She's not a spy.)

* "revenge ... payback..." (C'mon ... the women is trying to get out of a hostage situation ...)

In addition to...

* While the female lead had her moments, she looks anorexic (not very attractive). There are SO many beautiful women out there ... where do they producer/directors find these boney women?!?

* The overall acting is stilted at times.

If you can get past the lies on the front cover and the low budget production feel, this movie provides a fairly good story.

I'd give it a higher rating, but the unethical false advertising of the cover is something I find very disturbing.

I'm sorry, I just couldn't like this movie, even though I wanted to. As a long-time fan of the Modesty Blaise books and comic strips I was really hoping that they had finally gotten it right, but my conclusion is that once again they've blown it.

What worries me especially is that poor sales of this movie may result in Miramax deciding to drop the idea of making big-budget Modesty movies based on the books. And by the time Miramax's license expires ("My Name is Modesty" was primarily made to allow Miramax to hold on to the license) it may be too late. We die-hard Modesty fans are getting up in years and movie studios don't make movies for an intended audience who lives in old folks homes.

What was wrong with "My Name is Modesty"? Primarily two things: the leading character was poorly cast and the script was embarrassingly bad.

Alexandra Staden was unable to project the personality or presence necessary to be Modesty. An actress was needed who could make you feel that here was a person who had incredible self-assurance and self-control, and Alexandra Staden just didn't cut it.

On top of that, Alexandra Staden didn't have the physique to be Modesty. Nor, in my opinion (but this is very subjective), the attractive good looks.

The story was also very poor. They decided that they wanted some kind of prequel movie where Modesty would be introduced. What they came up with was a film with a very contrived here-and-now story that provided a vehicle for a large number of flashbacks to Modesty's past. But neither the story of Modesty's background nor the here-and-now story work very well.

In the background story the most important person is Lob, an old man who Modesty befriends and who becomes her tutor, teaching her everything most children learn in school and much more. Lob was a professor who spoke seven languages and had extensive knowledge of many things. So far so good - this is consistent with the books about Modesty.

But in the movie Lob is also a martial arts guru who has killed two prison guards! And yet 12-year-old Modesty has to save him from a couple of rag-tag boys who try to steal from him! Sorry, but it just doesn't work, both because it's inconsistent and because the idea of Lob being both the intellectual mentor and the martial arts teacher is too far out. (In the books Lob was totally helpless without Modesty, and Modesty first learned unarmed combat at a later time in her life.)

As for the current story, Modesty is apparently the casino owner's right-hand man, but without any indication of how or why she got this position. Miklos (the bad guy) shows up with a gang of heavily armed nasties, kills a couple of people just to prove that he is indeed the bad guy, and then sits around all night listening to Modesty tell tales of her childhood! How unrealistic and contrived can you get?

With the above problems going against it the film just doesn't make the grade.

The film was shot in only 18 days in Hungary and is very obviously a low-budget film. This I don't hold against it - if the casting of Modesty had been better and the script wasn't so dumb I would have accepted the low-budget aspect as an unfortunate fact of life and lauded the film within it's limitations.

Strangely enough, the thing I liked best about "My Name is Modesty" was the casting of Miklos, the bad guy. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau had an impossible role to play because of the poor script but he did a good job, better than Alexandra Staden's portrayal of Modesty. In fact, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau could have been a fairly good Willie Garvin. (Willie Garvin is Modesty's trusted sidekick, who enters her life a couple of years after the events shown in this movie).

The DVD includes a 50-minute interview with Peter O'Donnell, the now-retired creator of the Modesty Blaise character and author of the books and comic strips. He tells again the very moving story about his meeting with the real-life little girl who later inspired him to create Modesty Blaise. (His telling of the story is much more moving than the re-enactment that we see at the beginning of this movie.)

The DVD also includes a 40-minute interview with Quentin Tarantino, a long-time Modesty fan who is the driving force behind Miramax getting the movie rights to the character. There is also an extensive index to all of the Modesty comic strips.

Despite me giving only three stars I'm recommending this movie if you're a Modesty fan. If not, then it's best to avoid it.

Rennie Petersen

For a prequel, this was surprisingly good, expecially when compared with previous attempts. As other reviewers noted, production values are not what they could be and Modesty is too flabby to be the fighting machine she is supposed to be. But the director and actors and the writers actually seemed to understand who and what Modesty Blaise is supposed to be about. As for flab, the TV blonde Modesty played by Diana Crosby (I think that was the name) was flabbier and much more of a weakling and the later dark-haired one on TV smiled too much. Except for the flabbiness, I could almost believe this Modesty. I wish they would start making the Modesty Blaise movies. The public is now ready to accept a strong physical woman such as Modesty. If you are a Modesty Blaise fan, the DVD is worth having. Forget the Monica Vitti version however.

I have read all the Novels, and have most of the Comic Collections. I'm not sure I'd LIKE Modesty if I met her socially, but I would RESPECT her. This film is from the time before her operation of The Network. Indeed it's the story of HOW she went from being a Nobody, to a recognized SOMEBODY. Modesty is in all ways a Self-Made Person, and here we see her doing it.

We are told (in the EXTRA's) of how Peter O'Donnell created the character, based on a wartime incident that any other man would have forgotten long-ago. That is the key to the Magic of Modesty, she "feels" as if she could be real because she is IN FACT based on reality. An unpleasant reality, but reality, nonetheless.

She's NOT "James Bond" killing, under orders, for "Queen and Country!" She's NOT just "out for herself," although, given her history, she could be forgiven for doing so. No, she is someone who has found herself to be capable of doing things others either CAN NOT or WILL NOT do, and that NEED to be done! She cares about people and will not allow them to be harmed, un-necessarily, if there's anything she can do about it. She's also willing to Judge People, whether they are deserving of Friendship, of Love, or of being allowed to Plague the world with their presence. If the latter, she Is willing to act. Unlike most people who will aquiesce to Evil for as long as they can convince themselves that "It's someone else's problem."

Modesty's life has taught her that that sort of cop-out CANNOT EVER work. If She knows about it, it IS Her problem, and she WILL make the hard choices required.

THIS is what a HERO does.

This is, WHAT she IS.

This is how she became one.

Although I bought the DVD when it first came out, and have watched it several times, I never wrote a review.

I loved it when I first saw it and I love it still.

Sadly, it seems it never made enough money to motivate anyone to do a follow-up. I assume QT still controls the rights, but after Kill Bill if he does a film that is as true to the source material as this film is, since it has another tough female lead, anyone not familiar with the character will see this as a let-down as they won't go into it prepared for what it is supposed to be.

Peter O'Donnell wrote his stories to focus more on character and psychological suspense rather than action thrillers.

The tug of wills between Modesty and Miklos is very true to the source material and is tense, suspensful and facinating to anyone who doesn't have to have gore and explosions. Alexandra did a great job in playing how O'Donnell's character would have taken control of the situation. Yes, she is younger than the written Modesty. Yes, there is no Willie Garvin. The reasons are that this is an origin story and takes place at least a decade before the first written Modesty Blaise. That could even explain why Staden's body is thinner than the character as written and drawn, which is an issue that a lot of O'Donnell fans seem to have with this film. Psychologically, though, I thought she nailed it.

I find this particularly ahead of the curve following the sorely needed reboots of Batman and James Bond. After 2 dismal earlier efforts, although the character isn't nearly as well known to the public as Batman and Bond, this is a reboot as well, and it is really sad that probably no more films about her will be made.