There's so much going on here. I understand very well that this movie is fully intended to be over the top as an outright comedy, a veritable spoof of everything spy thrillers represented in the 1960s. Yet the sheer gusto with which 'O. K. Connery' throws out all tact and sensibility is astounding, and I struggle to name an immediate comparison. In no time at all the score composed between Ennio Morricone (!) and Bruno Nicolai pointedly mimics Monty Norman's 'James Bond theme,' Dusty Springfield's 'The look of love,' from the flummoxing 1967 "adaptation" of 'Casino Royale,' and still other themes from the Bond films that Eon Productions had released up to this time. We're very quickly shown familiar faces from the Eon franchise (Daniela Bianchi, Adolfo Celi, Lois Maxwell, and many more) to cement the intended connection, and a bevy of finely and/or (gratuitously) scantily clad women for the same purpose. Curious and low-budget spy gadgets, piecemeal advancement of the plot through scenes that don't immediately seem connected (such as an auction), and other details plainly imitating 007 features greet our vision as the length progresses, and there's really just no end to it.
Importantly, when I say "there's just no end to it," that frankly describes the pacing, plot development, and scene writing. I was aghast to glance at the digital timer at one point and see I was only halfway through the first hour, and what was actually just another 18 minutes in real time felt like thirty. 'O. K. Connery' languishes under a lethargic slog of a gait that keeps our attention less because of the quality of the material and more because of the peculiarities of the banality before us. I suppose there's something to be said for the fact that the narrative is complete and cohesive (if not always perfectly coherent). Indelicacies and garishness aside, the costume design and hair and makeup are done well. Yet the story never works very hard to grab our attention. One of the last things a viewer should ever say about a movie is that it fails to evoke a reaction, but the action isn't especially exciting, the comedy is never more than passingly amusing, and any air of suspense, mystery, or tension is mostly intangible. I don't think this feature is altogether bad, but it's entertaining in the same way any rudimentary concoction of light and sound can provide a diversion - and little more.
What's remarkable is that as befuddling as the most outlandish bits are, frankly 'O. K. Connery' would have benefited from more. A scene that meets us just before the 1-hour mark is easily the most preposterous up to that point, but it's also the most enjoyable just on account of the bizarrerie. Where the picture tries to recall its more serious-minded cousins, in contrast, the material often just isn't strong enough to make an impression. This is emphasized by the performances of the cast - many of them are acutely recognizable, and have demonstrated their skills elsewhere, but here the acting tends to feel either merely serviceable, or just lacking. This is emphasized in the ham-fisted effort in the writing to develop a top secret agent's civilian brother into a spy master himself - every attempt, and the character of "Dr. Neil Connery" himself, feels hopelessly forced, and shoehorned, and unconvincing. Ultimately I just feel bad for Neil Connery, the person, for getting roped into this, to say nothing of those that share the screen with him.
In fairness, I think there are some good ideas here, and to my surprise, a lot of real potential in the screenplay. The climax is actually fairly well done. I do appreciate the effort, and the concept, however unsuccessful it may have been. I think Alberto De Martino demonstrates capable abilities as a director, despite the weakness of the film at large, and from a technical standpoint I think it's all just fine. Echos of Eon notwithstanding, Morricone and Nicolai's original music is actually very good - dynamic, spirited, and surely one of the best parts of the title. It's also worth noting that for all its flailing shortcomings, this oddity still manages to be genuinely more fun than some canon James Bond features ('Die another day' and 'Thunderball' being the premier examples - and they're arguably not alone).
Still, I'd be lying if I said this wasn't somewhat a trial to sit through. That which is done well is spotty and loosely connected, not unlike the plot and its progression, and meager strengths are surrounded by ponderous, less than captivating mediocrity. Perhaps some viewers will find more value here than I have, but except for the most open-minded and curious, I can't imagine there's much reason to check it out. Yes, there are worse films you could watch, including some of this one's brethren, though that's just not saying much. At length, 'O. K. Connery' is perhaps best remembered as a weird, mystifying sidestep among spy flicks, and unfortunately, that's about it.
Importantly, when I say "there's just no end to it," that frankly describes the pacing, plot development, and scene writing. I was aghast to glance at the digital timer at one point and see I was only halfway through the first hour, and what was actually just another 18 minutes in real time felt like thirty. 'O. K. Connery' languishes under a lethargic slog of a gait that keeps our attention less because of the quality of the material and more because of the peculiarities of the banality before us. I suppose there's something to be said for the fact that the narrative is complete and cohesive (if not always perfectly coherent). Indelicacies and garishness aside, the costume design and hair and makeup are done well. Yet the story never works very hard to grab our attention. One of the last things a viewer should ever say about a movie is that it fails to evoke a reaction, but the action isn't especially exciting, the comedy is never more than passingly amusing, and any air of suspense, mystery, or tension is mostly intangible. I don't think this feature is altogether bad, but it's entertaining in the same way any rudimentary concoction of light and sound can provide a diversion - and little more.
What's remarkable is that as befuddling as the most outlandish bits are, frankly 'O. K. Connery' would have benefited from more. A scene that meets us just before the 1-hour mark is easily the most preposterous up to that point, but it's also the most enjoyable just on account of the bizarrerie. Where the picture tries to recall its more serious-minded cousins, in contrast, the material often just isn't strong enough to make an impression. This is emphasized by the performances of the cast - many of them are acutely recognizable, and have demonstrated their skills elsewhere, but here the acting tends to feel either merely serviceable, or just lacking. This is emphasized in the ham-fisted effort in the writing to develop a top secret agent's civilian brother into a spy master himself - every attempt, and the character of "Dr. Neil Connery" himself, feels hopelessly forced, and shoehorned, and unconvincing. Ultimately I just feel bad for Neil Connery, the person, for getting roped into this, to say nothing of those that share the screen with him.
In fairness, I think there are some good ideas here, and to my surprise, a lot of real potential in the screenplay. The climax is actually fairly well done. I do appreciate the effort, and the concept, however unsuccessful it may have been. I think Alberto De Martino demonstrates capable abilities as a director, despite the weakness of the film at large, and from a technical standpoint I think it's all just fine. Echos of Eon notwithstanding, Morricone and Nicolai's original music is actually very good - dynamic, spirited, and surely one of the best parts of the title. It's also worth noting that for all its flailing shortcomings, this oddity still manages to be genuinely more fun than some canon James Bond features ('Die another day' and 'Thunderball' being the premier examples - and they're arguably not alone).
Still, I'd be lying if I said this wasn't somewhat a trial to sit through. That which is done well is spotty and loosely connected, not unlike the plot and its progression, and meager strengths are surrounded by ponderous, less than captivating mediocrity. Perhaps some viewers will find more value here than I have, but except for the most open-minded and curious, I can't imagine there's much reason to check it out. Yes, there are worse films you could watch, including some of this one's brethren, though that's just not saying much. At length, 'O. K. Connery' is perhaps best remembered as a weird, mystifying sidestep among spy flicks, and unfortunately, that's about it.