Danger: Diabolik!

I first saw 'Danger:Diabolik' on British television when I was 5 years old, peeking from behind the sofa when I was supposed to be in bed fast asleep. The next morning I thought the whole experience had been a vivid and bizarre dream. The film has fascinated me ever since.

Mario Bava's film is a hallucinatory, artistic, but undercooked and under-budgeted concoction which never quite coheres into the film we want it to be. 'Danger: Diabolik' nonetheless conjures up some masterful cult moments that richly reward the intrepid viewer who is willing to brave (and embrace) some ropey filler scenes and awful dubbing.

The magic of this film is sometimes missed by the casual viewer, and many of those who I have lent my copy to have simply stopped watching half way through, as the plot gets bogged down in the muddled, leaden Valmont scenes.

The magic of this film for me lies in this childhood connection that I have. Diabolik is indeed (as many viewers have pointed out) amoral and selfish. He kills people and lives only for his hedonistic indulgence. But this isn't really the point. Diabolik's greed is a metaphor of all our material greed and fantasies of self-indulgence [for more on this, see the definitive article on 'Danger:Diabolik' on the 'dvd savant' website] Diabolik, in all his piecing glances, hystrionic leaping, minimal dialogue, fetishistic costumes, and designer love parlours is very much like an irrational, inexplicable dream that we read our own meanings and desires into. Diabolik is a hypnotic, mysterious figure beyond judgement and law; he's not a real person in any way, and is not supposed to be one. His love for Eva is an erotic, wet dream and has nothing to do with anything except sensual pleasure and wish-fulfillment, and these scenes linger on as if the editor had forgotten to cut the film.

Bava denies us (or is perhaps incapable of constructing) a conventional, well-paced narrative, or a palatable, structured story. Instead he gives us a psychadelic reverie. A string of moments to enjoy and remember. Oh, and some really crap bits too, there's no denying!

DON'T WATCH THIS FILM IF YOU HAVE A SHORT, MTV ATTENTION SPAN OR NO APPRECIATION OF EURO-TRASH / PSYCHOTRONIC CINEMA.

I agree that 'Danger:Diabolik' isn't everything it could be, but it almost succeeds in achieving pop-art genius on several occasions. Definitely worth checking out. Just put your normal movie expectations aside for this one and you might love it!

If you are a big fan of 'Danger:Diabolik', or just feel like debating it, please feel free to email me!....

A quick glance at the user comments for 'Diabolik' will show that it is a movie which divides people to say the least. Some misguided fools and the asinine Mystery Science Theatre 3000 gang (who actually screened an edited version of the movie when they parodied it in their last episode) think it is one of the worst movies ever made. I pity them. The rest of us (including Mike Myers and The Beastie Boys - see their "Body Movin'" video for an affectionate homage) love it as one of the best examples of 1960s Pop Art kitsch. 'Modesty Blaise' was I think the first of the 60s European comic book adaptations in this style, followed closely by 'Barbarella' and then 'Diabolik'. Later in the early 70s there was 'Baba Yaga', the last gasp for this short lived genre. Too bad, because I just can't get enough of this stuff! 'Diabolik's director Mario Bava is a horror legend largely because of brilliant movies like 'Black Sunday' and 'Kill, Baby... Kill!' but he was in fact very versatile, not just making Gothic horror classics, but also science fiction, westerns, Hercules movies and hard boiled crime thrillers. And then there's 'Diabolik', something else again. John Phillip Law, who played the blind angel Pygar in 'Barbarella', as well as appearing in cult favourites like 'Death Rides A Horse' and 'Open Season', is perfectly cast as Diabolik. Many criticize Law's performance, which is admittedly pretty wooden, but I didn't have a problem with it. He suits the material, which let's face it, isn't exactly Shakespeare. Marisa Mell ('Mad Dog') plays Diabolik's beautiful partner in crime Eva Kant, Bunuel regular Michel Piccoli ('Belle De Jour', 'La Grande Bouffe') is Diabolik's nemesis Inspector Ginko, Adolfo Celi ('Thunderball', 'That Man From Rio') plays Valmont, a rival criminal mastermind, and Terry-Thomas ('I'm All Right Jack', The Abominable Dr Phibes') is the Minister Of Finance. Bava was working with quite a small budget (less than half a million US dollars - for comparison 'You Only Live Twice' cost nine MILLION more!) but achieved wonders, a testament to his skill and creativity. It's a very stylish movie with some wonderfully inventive visuals, especially Diabolik's cave which is very impressive considering the lack of money you'd generally expect for this kind of movie. Added to that a fantastic score from Morricone, which many fans believe is one of his very best, if not THE best. If you want to see one of the inspirations for the Austin Powers series, especially if you enjoy 60s pop culture, comic books, Pop Art, psychedelia, trash and the Bond and Flint movies then don't miss 'Diabolik'. The rest of you can wait until 'Bad Boys 3' or whatever drivel you think is a good, fun popcorn movie. In my opinion, anyone who slams this movie is beyond redemption!

This tale about a super criminal mastermind is perhaps the most exciting stylized inventive "true to its source" comic book adaptation ever filmed. Without a doubt, one of the finest performances, if not the finest, by John Philip Law in the lead role. But this film is mainly a feast for the eyes...a common quality trait true of most Mario Bava films.

This is one film that never feels slow to the viewer...it's always fast-paced and is never dull.

The only problem I have with the film is it makes a hero out of a character who sometimes goes too far but again it was simply being true to its source..excellent film! Much too good it should be vandalized by Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which it most unfortunately was).

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.)