Istanbul

Yes, comparisons can be made to Casablanca, but this is not a remake of that movie. It is, however, a remake of "Singapore", starring Fred MacMurray and Ava Gardner. Aside from being left speechless by Ms. Gardner's overwhelming beauty, "Singapore" is a dreadful film. "Istanbul", however, is far more enjoyable for several reasons. 1) Errol Flynn. In spite of being older, slower, and puffy from decades of extremely hard living, the man had a personal charisma, effortless charm, and undeniable star quality that transcends all of the decay he had allowed to occur. I know of very few people who take Errol Flynn seriously as an actor, or think him very talented, but any true film aficionado knows the truth. Mr. Flynn's problem was that his performances were so casual, so effortless, so filled with natural humor, that the response was always "Oh it's just Errol being Errol" (not unlike the fate suffered by Dean Martin). I defy anyone to try and find a film where Mr. Flynn was not 100% honest on screen. Do you know how difficult it is to come across as casual on screen...as if the words you are saying are actually your own and not written in a script? Give the man his due. He is one of the most underrated actors in film history, which is a real crime. 2) Cornell Borcher. I don't recall ever having seen her before, nor since, so I looked her up on IMDb. I saw The Big Lift with Monty Clift, but don't recall her performance. Her other films appear to all be European and I haven't seen any of them. For reasons that are unexplained, she stopped acting in 1959. In my opinion, that is a shame. I thought she was really wonderful in this movie. It is rather startling how similar she is in look to Ingrid Bergman (which I am sure is another reason why there are Casablanca comparisons). I wish she had done more films, as I think her departure from acting was a loss for the movie-going public. 3) John Bentley as the customs agent who hounds Errol Flynn for the smuggled diamonds. Here is another actor who I had not seen before, nor since, but who gives a performance that is very nicely executed. His exchanges with Errol Flynn really help elevate the film. 4) Although a color film, there are many nice noir moments, and noir shots by director Pevney that attempt to generate viewer's interest, along with some very nice location shots of Istanbul that add immensely to the color and flavor of the film. 5) The incomparable Nat King Cole. A previous IMDb reviewer knocked Mr. Cole's acting, but I thought he did a fine job in this film, and there isn't a negative word that can be said about the man's singing. He was a one-of-a-kind.

I am certainly not blinded to the films drawbacks, however. Although under 90 minutes, there are times this film feels very long. Sections drag, and the story could have been tightened up quite a bit, but then I assume they were adding filler to make this movie a respectable length. The script is average, most of the supporting characters are one-dimensional or uninspired (with an obnoxious caricature of a petty thief presented by Hogan's Heroes star, Werner Klemperer). Some might also be expecting more action from a film that has Errol Flynn's name above the title, but one must keep in mind that this is a love story, with the smuggling, suspense, and action being truly secondary.

I think people are much harder on this film than they need to be. It is a flawed film, but that in no way keeps it from being entertaining...and, as I stated in the beginning, it is far better than the film it is intended to remake. A must-see for Errol Flynn fans, and a recommended outing for those interested in the kind of romantic-thriller-set-in-an-exotic-country movie that old Hollywood loved to make.

By no means a masterpiece, and far from Errol Flynn's best, Istanbul still has much going for it. The locations and beautiful technicolour cinematography, bring us back to a time long since past. Errol Flynn does show moments of his past glory, and is OK as Jim Brennan, a pilot who's past comes back to haunt him. The picture is actually a remake of 1947's "Singapore", and the story seems awfully contrived and cliche' by today's standards. Also many of the supporting cast seem to be simply "going through the motions" in this picture. Many people have also compared it to one of the all time greats, CASABLANCA. While watching the film, I could see many of the similarities, but hey, Casablanca has inspired countless imitators, so take that for what it's worth. In closing, if you are a fan of Flynn, or old fashioned love stories, you might want to give this film a look. Otherwise, I'd recommend Casablanca, or The Maltese Falcon, as a good introduction to some of Hollywood's classics....

After reading some moderately positive reviews here I approached watching Istanbul with some optimism. I remembered fondly Errol Flynn's late-career turn as "Mike Campbell" in the film version of Hemingway's "The Sun Also Rises". Although too old for the part, he put in a fantastic performance and was the only actor in that film who truly "got" his character from that great novel. Sadly here he is listless throughout whether fighting or romancing or anything. Cornell Borchers plays the love interest done up as Ingrid Bergman but with little of the charisma. As an aside Peggy Knudsen ("Mona Mars" from "The Big Sleep") plays the distaff side of a crass American tourist couple. The roles are played in the manner of Ralph and Alice from "The Honeymooners" and it jars greatly to a modern taste showing yet again that the past is a foreign country. The plot involving lost love and diamond smuggling is ho-hum and the overall entertainment value is passable only.

Istanbul and the associated reviews are really interesting. Yes it is a bit cliché'd and yes some of the characters are one dimensional. Errol Flynn's acting is unique and there are clearly attempts to refer to film noir (even though this a colour film) and there is an attempt by the film studio to lay this film over the moral dilemma of Casablanca and throw in Nat King Cole and "when I fall in love" as a replacement for Dooley Wilson and Time Goes by. But let us not forget films cost a significant amount of money to make and studios are stupid and they feel that they have to piggy back the film's selling point with another film's Unique selling point...see Altman's The Player....if you need proof.

But actually the pull of this film's USP, namely the love interest's amnesia and Errol Flynn's affection for her are quite striking. The diamond smuggling sub plot works to a degree albeit the villains, as one reviewer says, are rather thinly drawn.

What I found interesting as well was 1950's view of women. There was no depth to the relationship between the lead characters just a suggestion of something deep and intense going on. However floating on a love boat in the Bosphorus was all that explained this "love". Also the potential life after the successful acquisition of the diamonds was hinted without any explanation...and the lead female's new life was ugly to the 21st century mind...a suggestion that she would look after Mr Fielding, (presumably cooking, looking nice and proving oral sex) and in return he would feed and clothe her and take her to places like Istanbul, was contrasted with Marge and her husband, where the husband dished out a black eye because Marge might have been tempted by a Frenchman who would have gone with her to see Hamlet in Turkish was almost risible.

But I stuck with this film to the end and enjoyed the mild threat and laughed at the cloak and dagger stuff........no it's not great but it is worth watching.

This must seem like a very superficial second hand plagiarism of "Casablanca" to many, but there is actually much more to it than that, if you bother to look deeper into the story, another fascinating study in a case of amnesia with a lot of question marks, many of which you have to figure out for yourself.

Errol Flynn comes back to Istanbul after five years and remembers the turbulence of his last visit, in which he was involved in some diamond smuggling. He had a great and promising love affair, when everything was brutally interrupted by unforeseen circumstances, and he couldn't come back for five years. On his return he meets again his great love, but she is another person, and he has some trouble in understanding the situation, especially since she is now happily married, or at least so it seems. There is very much in this intrigue of seeming appearances while much more isn't easily told.

The superficial impression and unavoidable associations to "Casablanca" are especially exacerbated by Stephanie's almost irritating likeness with Ingrid Bergman, but there is no Humphrey Bogart here. Instead you have an unusually sober Errol Flynn with almost a stone face, covering up stormy feelings with some difficulty, which must trouble him all the way. But the finale is a wonder of almost metaphysical turnings of a totally unexpected nature, and that's where you have to complete the picture by your own thinking; because Errol Flynn's sober face is never more stony than when he has given up all.