L'arnaqueuse

A film about a complicated bank robbery. Doesn't sound too exciting does it? It starts very well with particularly stylish look and intriguing set up. The surprising thing is, that it continues like this throughout. Some complain about Peter Hall's 'clumsy' direction and I admit there are one or two moments when you wonder, why he did this or that but in the main its fine. I also imagined the robbery might get a bit tedious but no and we even get some humour, which considering how well Warner and Andress deal with it, we could perhaps have done with some more. But no matter, Andress shines throughout this film and the fact that she is naked for a lot of it is simply a bonus. Stanley Baker works very well with her, I wasn't sure about bed scenes with the pair of them, but its all good and this has to be one of his very best performances. Warner is maybe the only person who is a bit inconsistent but then considering the personae he has to convey he can be forgiven.

Still very well worth watching 50+ years since it was made and it gives us a look at London of yesteryear with all the now classic cars to admire. Very entertaining from start to finish with the audience wondering often what was going to happen next.

Did I predict the ending correctly, no I didn't and I was sure that I was on the right track.

Great performances all round with Stanley, unusually, in a non tough guy role. An original plot, or original to me at least, which runs along very pleasantly with no bits that drag along.

The time passes quickly so it is an an enjoyable watch and not just because of Ursula's frequent habit of taking her clothes off.

In the first half, the elliptical narrative is very confusing for a first-time viewer; throughout the movie, the direction is sometimes unnecessarily gimmicky, employing fast cutting and close-ups a little too often. Still, the movie has some truly suspenseful set pieces (where you're afraid that even an accidental "wrong" glance may destroy everything), several nude scenes with Ursula Andress and a kicker of an ending. Much better than "Dollars" with Warren Beatty. (**1/2)

It comes as quite a surprise to see the name of the venerable Peter Hall on this cynical caper movie filmed on the streets of London and full of nasty, self-centred characters; which provides copious quantities of nudity courtesy of top-billed Ursula Andress as a high maintenance shady lady who obviously spends most of her ill-gotten gains on cars, clothes and hairdressers.

Once again Stanley Baker plays a little man with big dreams and an enormous chip on his shoulder as a Deputy Under Manager in a bank in spectacles and a bowler hat; while David Warner does his supercilious bit as a jaded aristocrat who is of the opinion that "you can't understand what an ordeal it is to wear clothes made by a stranger!"

Neither seems particularly aware that the film is supposed to be a comedy, but Johnny Dankworth's fairground score makes sure we get the message.

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.