User reviews

If you are a Modesty Blaise fan, you will know if you have watched this film its miles better than the strange sixties one! but it is a rather low budget film, well almost a no budget film in fact.

The problem that Miramax the owners of the rights to make a Modesty Blaise film had was they could not agree on a script for the big budget film version of Modesty and their rights to make a film were about to run out. In order to keep the film rights they had to make a film, and this is it.

In the past such a film would get shown for one night in the middle of nowhere to show it had been made and shown, and then they would bury it in the film company's vaults never to be see again. The only one they wanted you to see was the big budget version they hope to make soon as they had a script they could agree on. However with with DVD rentals and sales, their is alway the chance to make some money on a DVD of the low budget version however little it cost to make (and this one was shot in 18 days with a director hired one week before shooting !!).

However I like it, its not the film of Modesty Blaise I would have expected to see, but it sticks to Modesty's history reasonable well, and for fans the icing on the cake is a 40 minute interview with Peter O'Donnell in the DVDs extras, as well as an annoying one with Quentin Tarantino and his buddy the director at their most infantile. By the way, Quentin Tarantino hopes to direct the big budget version when, and if ever it gets made.

I actually enjoyed the Modesty Blaise adaptation from 1966 more, even though it was extremely campy. The reason spells W.i.l.l.i.e. G.a.r.v.i.n.

This movie takes place before Modesty started her organization "The Net", and thus before she picked Willie off the streets. It offers an interesting tale of her childhood, but a Modesty without Willie is just *wrong*. The dynamic between them has always been one of the most compelling things about the original, and without it this movie isn't as interesting as it could have been. That being said, it's still a decent watch, especially for those who have wondered about Modesty's past.

The casting is alright, but Alaxandra Staden looks too fragile to be entirely believable as Modesty. Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, however, does a great job as the blood-thirsty Miklos. Lookwise he could have been a young Willie Garvin.

Hopefully Miramax will do a follow-up because Peter O'Donnel's novels and comic-strips is a great source material for a movie script. But next time they've better include Willie.

I had a problem as soon as Alexandra Staden appeared on screen. I feel that whoever cast her in the lead role has never read a Modesty Blaise novel. It spoiled the movie for me - I didn't finish watching it. She is the antithesis of the Modesty Blaise character. If she had a full auto pistol in each hand I still couldn't take her as a serious threat to anyone. The character as developed by Peter O'Donnell was a sexy but very fit, active, and martial arts trained woman. A strong woman, tough and resourceful. A woman who could fight a man on a physical basis. Ms Staden looks weak and scrawny, the type of woman a determined five year old could beat into submission. No muscle tone and no athleticism. Possibly as I read so much, my impression regarding series characters become rather indelible.

In the Comic, Modesty is strong. Alexandra Staden who plays Modesty Blaise looks more like an anorectic fashion model. She does not either have the moral or personality that Modesty have in the comics. Modesty would never give a woman an advice to show more skin to earn more money. I cannot see any similarities with my comic books with Modesty and this movie. Its like a Mission Impossible movie would be about Ethan Hunt locked in the detention room in high school talking with the janitor about when he went to junior high school and Hunt would have been played by DJ Qualls (in Road Trip). Soo if you are an Modesty fan do not see the movie you will just get angry. If do not know much about the Modesty comics rent an other movie do not wast your time with this one.I cannot understand how Quentin Tarantino can put his name on it. I will ask for a refund at my DVD rent store tomorrow.

I have grown up reading Modesty Blaise, both the comics and the books, and she truly is a heroine to me. Although not being a great fan of Quentin Tarantino I anyway was interested to hear a few years back that he was considering making a film of her: could he finally give Modesty a nice big screen treatment she's worthy of? I heard of 'My Name Is Modesty' a few months ago and checked the stars it had been given here, and wasn't too surprised to find out the score was not too high, since beloved characters often have hard time melting the fans' heart if not done exactly right. So I decided not to read any reviews and see the film instead, and well, I just finished watching it, and I'm stunned, and sad, and yeah, pretty furious, too. Sad and furious of giving over an hour of my time seeing something so fabulous as Modesty Blaise-character being turned into a film that has nothing to give to a viewer or a fan.

It seems that almost everything about this film is sub-par and unprofessional, although I must admit seeing some actors in other films earlier where they were fine so I can't blame them. But the screenplay and the directing... my god, why even make this kind of crap with production values slightly bigger than your average TV-film but done much worse? I don't know the background of this film and actually I really don't want to know, but I just can't help wondering that how on earth could Tarantino with a straight face tell that he loves Modesty and then put his name on this? He just lost a huge amount of respect in my eyes. The director was not the right man for this job and I can honestly thank him for ruining my night.

I give this film 3 stars and those stars go to the actors and the technical quality which could've been worse. The other seven stars missing are what this film was not good at. Oh well, hopefully at some point there will be a serious production of The Modesty Blaise Movie that has some other goals than to steal money from the Modesty fans. Although if people like Tarantino are the ones making the decisions I'm not holding my breath.

Unfortunately many consumers who write reviews for IMDb equate low budget with not good. Whatever else this movie might need, more budget really isn't part of it. Big sets and lots of special effects would have turned it into another Lara Croft movie. What we have here is a step or two better than that.

The nearly unknown Alexandra Staden is captivating as the enigmatic Modesty, and this is crucial for this movie to work. Her wise little smiles and knowing looks are formidable, and you find yourself wishing that the camera won't leaver her face. It makes it workable that the bad guy Nikolai, played by also little known (in the U.S. at least) Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau might take an unusually cerebral interest in her, something Modesty can exploit. She is able to divert his raping her with just a shove and spitting out "stop wasting my time!" then storming off between his heavily armed yet suddenly diffident henchmen. Making a scene like that plausible doesn't happen by accident.

Probably the biggest problem I have with the rail-thin Staden playing Modesty is it just isn't very believable for her to go hand to hand with an athletic and muscled looking guy like Coaster-Waldau and beat him. She just ain't a Peta Wilson or a pumped-up Hilary Swank type actress who can throw a convincing punch. Coaster-Waldau letting himself be overpowered by Staden looks like he's just roughhousing with his little sister.

Since this is not really an action film, this isn't a big flaw. I just hope they do better on that if and when they make sequels.

Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.

Rented and watched this short (< 90 minutes) work. It's by far the best treatment Modesty has received on film -- and her creator, Peter O'Donnell, agrees, participating as a "Creative Consultant." The character, and we who love her, are handled with respect. Spiegel's direction is the best he's done to date, and the casting was very well done. Alexandra Staden is almost physically perfect as a match to the original Jim Holdaway illustrations of Modesty. A terrific find by whoever cast her! Raymond Cruz as a young Rafael Garcia was also excellent. I hope that Tarantino & co. will go on to make more in the series -- I'm especially interested to see whom they'd choose to be the incomparable Willie Garvin!

I just saw the DVD and ask myself why Quentin Tarantino agreed to have is name mentioned as "Quentin Tarantino presents"? Alexandra Staden is so bad as Modesty Blaise that you spend most of the time wondering why the chief gangster doesn't kill her immediately to make her shut up. And, by the way ,Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, the actor playing the "bad guy" looks too good looking for that part. Never witnessed such a stupid casting. The film is about a hold up in a casino. Hostages are taken and what do we get?... The girl telling the boring story of her life.

The worst movie I've seen in recent memory. By far.

I quite liked the O'Donnel books, they retain their charm several decades after they were written. And Modesty herself, is sassy, sexy, intuitive and capable.

This movie does not do them any justice. The acting ranges from bad to painful to watch. The direction and editing would have looked cool 25 years earlier, but they are laughable by 2004's standards.

Worst of all, the plot. It mostly takes place over a game of roulette, with flashbacks to tell Modesty's story, parts of which bear an uncanny resemblance to Karate Kid. I'm not joking.

There's a good franchise in the MB books, but this movie is nowhere near the origin story it pretends to be. Don't waste your time. Honest.

There was a Modesty Blaise film in the 60s, and Quentin Tarantino produced this low budget version to preserve the rights until he could direct a big budget film.

It stars Alexandra Staden as Modesty. No shame in not knowing who she is, as she has no great credits.

More likely, you will recognize Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau (Nightwatch, "Game of Thrones"), or Raymond Cruz (Training Day, "The Closer"), or even Eugenia Yuan (The Eye 2, 3 Extremes II).

Lots of talking and little action until the very end. Staden is just a bit too skinny to be believable.

I totally agree: it is a TV pilot! In short this has nothing to do with the Modesty Blaise we know from the comic strips. Expectations was high in these times of comic strip superhero's, being made into high budget action movies, and with the name Tarantion on the cover my appetite was ready to be satisfied with the pleasure of his work. Major mistake, this is not even remotely exciting or interesting. The lesson to be learned from this is whenever Miramax presents a "movie" with the Words: "presented by Quintin Tarantino"- be prepared things are not what they appear to be. What I really would like to know is why Mr. Tarantino let them abuse his good name like this? Is it because he has been promised an opportunity as to redeem him self in the making of the real movie?

Bad story, acting, timing, directing. Maybe I'm just not in the target public. I started watching this film after i was told that it's directed by somebody else (the rental company doesn't give the original cover and I missed the director's name at the beginning) and I kept hoping that all that I was seeing was a joke, a twist and i'll see later why. Well, I didn't. Some movies ruin a story. I guess it's not the case here. And all the atmosphere is rather medieval and has nothing to do with what happens in Balkans. The worst is the wrong impression that there's a never ending war and people hunt each other like beasts. After a feature like this the next one is always better.

I did not know the comics whatsoever, I watched this because it was a Quentin Tarentino Presents DVD, knowing that not all the QT presents movies are any good.

I watched this film and enjoyed it. The storyline was OK, the conversation between Modesty and Miklos was entertaining. The flashbacks however were a bit messy sometimes and this made them less fun to watch. This is kinda a big deal, because the flashbacks are a big part of the film.

In summary this film did not surprise or disappoint me. It could have been better, but certainly could be worse. Actually, it should have been better, I saw a lot of potential in a cool action film, sadly, this just didn't make it.

If you have enough time, watch it, if not, watch something better.

I have read modesty Blaise for several years now, collecting numbers of the strip. After the fiasco movie made many years ago based on the first book "Modesty Blaise" I was surprised the result got this good.

What I got was a movie not based on action or violence. The director had focused on history and psychology. How was Modesty created based on the own tale and what parts in her life was affected by her non-childhood. I think this thougths will give a greater understanding to the next (I hope) film. I simply loved the movies old-fashioned style.

However everything wasn't that good, the gambling wasn't that good. almost boring and unreal. The acting could have been improved too. I'm not thinking the bad guy in this movie felt real, the only reason he was there was so Modesty could have someone to tell her story for. Also they could have expanded the movie, showing more about when she builds up "The network" but I'll guess thats for the next movie.

And please forgive me for my bad English

If you are already a fan of Peter O'Donnell's wonderful Modesty Blaise books from the sixties, you will really enjoy this movie. If you have ever seen the 1966 "Modesty Blaise" film, forget it! That was camp. This is the real Modesty Blaise. The story and character are both true to the Modesty that fans of the books know and love. It's a long way from Joe Losey's 1966 travesty, and it takes our Modesty quite seriously. Alexandra Staden is quite good and believable in the part, and yes, we do get to see her kick butt. chuckle

This is likely meant to be the first movie of a series and as such it serves to introduce Modesty, her childhood and her days with Lob.

Since Peter O'Donnell was the creative consultant on the movie, everything really rings true. Even the story O'Donnell told of how he conceived the character is just as he told it. Having read all the books, I enjoyed the movie even more for that.

Now that Miramax has kept their option on the property by having Quentin Tarrentino make this film, I do hope to see more of the Modesty stories asap. Especially as the wonderful character of Willie Garvin makes Modesty's character really come alive. To that end, I really hope the film does well in Europe. I have no idea if Miramax intends to ever distribute the DVD in the USA. I suspect it might not do that well in the USA in general distribution. I wonder how Miramax decides where and how to distribute it's films.

In the story, Modesty is in her early 20's, working at Louche's casino in Tangier. The flashback sequences are artfully done and take Modesty from about 9 years old, through her teens up to her current age in the movie - about 21-22, I'd guess. I really don't think there's a "perfect actress" for Modesty. For many of us Modesty fans, she's much too powerful a presence in our imaginations already. Alexandra Staden is credible. She is very slim, graceful and poised. She has lots of closeups. She has a great face - one that sticks in your mind well after the movie is over. According to O' Donnell's illustrator, Romero, Modesty has rather a fuller figure than Staden, but I'm willing to overlook that. If Staden continues in the role, I think she will mature into it - just as Modesty grows more powerful and skilled as she gets older. Staden already conveys Modesty's humor and absolute assurance very well. Go ahead and rent this movie, it's not like anything else you've seen and even though it was directed by Scott Spiegel, it is full of Tarrentino touches, great camera moves, lighting and well-done action sequences.

...but I gotta say, this is the worst piece of poo I've seen in a very long time, I usually get off on bad movies, but this is horrible, and I really don't think everything is the actors or the directors fault, I think it's been Thoth of as a deadbeat crappy production all the way from the top, with a very strong sense of bullpoo all the way. What I'm saying is that everyone have to work together as a team to be able to create something like this, so in a sense, it's a very successful movie too.. Confused? who me? he? They made the movie to keep the right for modesty, and they rights they will keep.. for what? They cant make another movie, nobody will watch it..

I still wake up screaming at night..

The story is very bad, and Alexandra Staden is not pretty enough to portray Modesty Blaise. why would Tarantino put his name on this?