Mario Bava's Gefahr: Diabolik

I think there may be some misunderstandings going on here, re: the MST3K coverage of "Diabolik". Any fan of the MST series who followed the creators' commentary and blogs on the Sci-Fi channel website and via their newsletters, etc, knows that the Best Brains crew really ENJOYED "Diabolik" and saved it for their last episode as sort of a going away present for themselves. And anyone who paid attention to the way Mike and the 'Bots riffed through the movie would know that most of their comments were pretty good-natured, and mostly about the sheer silliness of the proceedings.

Certainly, "Diabolik" is head and shoulders over typical MST3K fare. Only "Marooned/"Space Travelers","Squirm", "Hercules", and the Russian Finnish trilogy come close to it in terms of actors, budget, energy, set design and general competence and ingenuity. Oh, and the black-and-white German TV staging of "Hamlet". (Even "starchy, pork-filled German Hamlet" is still "Hamlet", and it does have Maximillian Schell).

While the movie is (purposefully) lighter than cotton candy, and not meant to be taken at all seriously, it does do a great job of adapting the essence of the Italian comics anti-hero to the big screen. At a couple points, the Bava even has pencil graphics from the series integrated in stop motion into a couple scenes as a tribute to the feel and atmosphere of the "Diabolik" comics. They got the costume right, they got the hot blonde babe right, and they even had the audacity to try to pull off some of the gimmicks and plot devices typical of the series (much easier to do for an artist with a pencil and a drawing board than a stage and special effects crew!) And the whole thing is kept cooking and perking along with an incredibly insistent soundtrack that is built around catchy motifs that sink their hooks into the brain.

People don't really "act" in a film like this. Instead they invest energy inhabiting the cardboard characters who populate the film and trying to bring them to life. But Law and his hot blonde paramour do a splendid job of being magnetic and compelling (in a very clichéd, two-dimensional way, of course) and are fun to watch and they run around pulling heists, duping the law, making love atop piles of money, casually murdering everyone who gets in their way, etc. Even the supporting characters (the Inspector and the chief mob guy, recognizable as "Blofeld" from the early 007 movies) are fine and perform their thankless roles as Diabolik's dupes admirably.

It's not like anyone who ever heard of "Diabolik" didn't know what to expect. And it's not like anyone who spent more than 30 seconds watching it with an open mind wouldn't find plenty to enjoy as a harmless piece of escapist fluff. So I can't quite see the harsh reception and bad comments on the movie.

I rate it 7 out of 10, since I refuse to penalize it for dated pop culture references or the questionable morality of the source material. If I even find the 'straight' version on DVD somewhere for under $7, I might pick it up for my collection, especially if there are some background extras.

Watching the featurette that accompanies this DVD did help me to appreciate this movie more. Namely, that Diabolik (pronounced Dee-abolik in the Italian) is an anti-hero thief rather than a government sponsored spy and is all about 'sticking it to The Man' as befits the 1960s counterculture. Being Italian, it also contrasts with the American idea of a superhero. The Italians lost the last war, they had Mussolini and no faith in the government. This anti-hero is on the same page, whereas Superman is all in favour of the President. I suppose this is the superhero's answer to Burlesconi.

Point no 2: unlike Fleming's James Bond, Diabolik is based on a comic strip hero and many of the shots mirror that panel shape in the way they're framed: the shot of the couple talking, reflected in the rear view mirror of a car, for instance. For all that, the style is more dynamic than other comic-based films like Barbarella.

Otherwise, it's astonishing how many scenes anticipate similar ones in Bond films, from the opening helicopter car chase along the winding mountaintop road which predates that of The Spy Who Loved Me by nine years, along with other scenes that pop up in Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only, A View to A Kill and GoldenEye.

Sadly Diabolik (played by John Philip Law, who was the angel in Barberella) is a humourless blank, a charisma-free zone who scarcely utters a witticism in the entire film. I think the only reason such lusty or promiscuous attitudes prevailed in the 1960s is because the likes of Sean Connery and Michael Caine put a positive spin on it.

This is a guy in superhero guise who has no alter ego - and therefore no social life. Batman has Bruce Wayne, Superman has Clark Kent. He is just Diabolik and when he retreats to his lair to bang his bird, fine, but he doesn't actually have any mates at all so it's hard to connect with him. It's like if Superman decided to not bother to save lives but just went on Viking-like pillages once in a while, holing up in the Fortress of Solitude every so often to shag his mistress and count the cash.

The anti-hero and his girl are so unlikeable and ruthless that you do feel excluded from their activities. They remind me of the charmless pair from Topaki, though the film has more to offer than that and is superior to many Bond knock-offs of the day.

This movie has instantly become one of my very favorite Mario Bava features. Think James Bond, as a suave master thief, filmed in a psychedelic, occasionally campy, comic book style. (Diabolik was a comic first.) Add to that some fun humor and very fitting themes by the legendary Ennio Morricone, and you have one cool, little cult flick! The cheap DVD comes with some great extras, like a pleasant and informative commentary by star John Phillip Law and Bava expert Time Lucas. The short featurette was very good too, going over just how well Bava captured the comic book stylings in the film. Recommended purchase! By the way, Diabolik's mask and laugh---perfect.

What's the matter with you people? Doesn't anyone enjoy a good, fun, cheesy Italian spy flick anymore? These are the same people who don't like Godzilla films because they can't get over the low-budget special effect and the "silliness", and who can't tolerate anything different than mega-budget hollywood blockbusters, and that just breaks my heart. I kind of enjoyed seeing it on MST3K, but I was dissappointed that they included it in the same league as the truly awful (but no les enjoyable) Hobgoblins and Space Mutiny. This is one of the great 60s films as far as i'm concerned. What really sets the films apart is stylish cinematography and direction by the great, sadly underappreciated Mario Bava, also responsible for great films like Black Sabbath, Planet of the Vampires, Bay of Blood, Lisa and the Devil, and the gritty, cynical Rabid Dogs, which was a real surprise after Diabolik. (Even if you hated Diabolik, you owe it to yourself to track down a copy of Rabid Dogs). Also noteworthy is the psychedelica-tinged score by the great Ennio Morricone, my favorite film composer.

Another great visual piece by the great Bava, this film is a faithful adaptation of the popular European comic about the anti-hero master criminal Diabolik. Almost overdosing on intense 60s color and style, the film moves through comic-style adventures with considerable European flair and well captures the atmosphere of the original material and the time.

(Yes, I understand that this made the last installment of Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I'm a MiSTie myself. But Diabolik is a good film, whether it has riffing potential or not.

Say you never heard a thing about Batman (as so many seem to never have heard a thing about Diabolik)--if you saw the 1988 Batman film, you'd think it was pretty stupid and over the top, wouldn't you? Unrealistic? Stupid, even? Maybe even think that the main character wasn't much of a hero, so dark, so sinister? And if you think that a lot of 'stylish' 90's films with their music-video montages aren't going to look dated in twenty years, you're kidding yourself. I'd advise supposed 'reviewers' to stop being such contemporist snobs.)