There’s an art to watching bad films that, in all honesty, escapes me.
For example, a number of years back – when I was one of Amazon.com’s Top 1,000 Reviewers – I was frequently contacted by distributors who wished me to take a gander at their latest and greatest with the intent that I’d give them a positive word or two on the consumer giant. A great deal of requests I turned down, mostly because these were newer releases, rarely (if ever) screened, and were obviously so poorly produced that I felt I’d have little to nothing constructive to say about them. However, there was one auteur who was very insistent, and he kept coming back to me, asking more politely. Eventually, I agreed to watch his little opus, a very low-budget docudrama that explored the life and times of a former celebrity. (I’m specifically avoiding spoiling anything because I know this fellow occasionally still checks out SciFiHistory.Net, and I’m really not looking for another throwdown.)
Ahem.
As you might guess, the picture was a disaster; and that’s really putting it mildly. On top of a poorly written story, he had cast talents who couldn’t quite carry the scenes with any emotional impact. While I’ve no problem with substandard production work (I really show up for characters and story to most dramatic pictures anyway), the entire feature was hobbled by poor lighting, even poorer sound work, and a score that sounded tinny in much the same way ancient player pianos ‘ping’ out notes a bit too shrilly. The saving grace was that it only clocked in at little over an hour’s running time, so it wasn’t as if I felt I had invested a good amount of time with the exception of penning a review … which I did and then prepared to post.
Because I like to think of myself fundamentally as a nice guy, I reached out to this producer and warned him that it wasn’t as grand an experience as he had promised. I told him that if he wanted me to post my thoughts – the good, the bad, and the ugly – that I was willing to do so, but I cautioned him that I didn’t want to appear unkind in any way, that his project just wasn’t to my liking, and I had a professional duty to say so. Ever the optimist, he wanted me to go ahead and post my remarks mostly as he felt having the ‘input’ from one of Amazon.com’s reviewers would help his exposure.
Well, it wasn’t but a few days later he reached back out to me demanding that I remove my review. When I asked him why, he insisted that – based on what I wrote – his film clearly wasn’t intended for me as an audience; and he only wanted reviewers involved in his efforts who both understood and appreciated the “unique subculture” he sought to develop with his “brand” of “storytelling.” Over and over again, he stated that it wasn’t because it was a negative review but rather it was that I didn’t grasp what he was trying to accomplish as a viewer, so he felt it best that I take my thoughts down.
I didn’t, and here we are today … with yours truly talking about another really, really, really bad movie. Its name: The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967), a production I’ve long been told is a “cult fascination” that deserves to be rediscovered because it “demonstrated peak camp” at a time when watchers just didn’t understand “peak camp.” Directed by Lindsay Shonteff, this Action/Adventure stars Shirley Eaton, George Nader, Frankie Avalon, Klaus Kinski, and Wilfrid Hyde-White in key roles in a story about an egomaniacal woman named Sumuru is hell bent on global domination by the fairer sex.
Buckle up, kids. This might get controversial.
For example, a number of years back – when I was one of Amazon.com’s Top 1,000 Reviewers – I was frequently contacted by distributors who wished me to take a gander at their latest and greatest with the intent that I’d give them a positive word or two on the consumer giant. A great deal of requests I turned down, mostly because these were newer releases, rarely (if ever) screened, and were obviously so poorly produced that I felt I’d have little to nothing constructive to say about them. However, there was one auteur who was very insistent, and he kept coming back to me, asking more politely. Eventually, I agreed to watch his little opus, a very low-budget docudrama that explored the life and times of a former celebrity. (I’m specifically avoiding spoiling anything because I know this fellow occasionally still checks out SciFiHistory.Net, and I’m really not looking for another throwdown.)
Ahem.
As you might guess, the picture was a disaster; and that’s really putting it mildly. On top of a poorly written story, he had cast talents who couldn’t quite carry the scenes with any emotional impact. While I’ve no problem with substandard production work (I really show up for characters and story to most dramatic pictures anyway), the entire feature was hobbled by poor lighting, even poorer sound work, and a score that sounded tinny in much the same way ancient player pianos ‘ping’ out notes a bit too shrilly. The saving grace was that it only clocked in at little over an hour’s running time, so it wasn’t as if I felt I had invested a good amount of time with the exception of penning a review … which I did and then prepared to post.
Because I like to think of myself fundamentally as a nice guy, I reached out to this producer and warned him that it wasn’t as grand an experience as he had promised. I told him that if he wanted me to post my thoughts – the good, the bad, and the ugly – that I was willing to do so, but I cautioned him that I didn’t want to appear unkind in any way, that his project just wasn’t to my liking, and I had a professional duty to say so. Ever the optimist, he wanted me to go ahead and post my remarks mostly as he felt having the ‘input’ from one of Amazon.com’s reviewers would help his exposure.
Well, it wasn’t but a few days later he reached back out to me demanding that I remove my review. When I asked him why, he insisted that – based on what I wrote – his film clearly wasn’t intended for me as an audience; and he only wanted reviewers involved in his efforts who both understood and appreciated the “unique subculture” he sought to develop with his “brand” of “storytelling.” Over and over again, he stated that it wasn’t because it was a negative review but rather it was that I didn’t grasp what he was trying to accomplish as a viewer, so he felt it best that I take my thoughts down.
I didn’t, and here we are today … with yours truly talking about another really, really, really bad movie. Its name: The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967), a production I’ve long been told is a “cult fascination” that deserves to be rediscovered because it “demonstrated peak camp” at a time when watchers just didn’t understand “peak camp.” Directed by Lindsay Shonteff, this Action/Adventure stars Shirley Eaton, George Nader, Frankie Avalon, Klaus Kinski, and Wilfrid Hyde-White in key roles in a story about an egomaniacal woman named Sumuru is hell bent on global domination by the fairer sex.
Buckle up, kids. This might get controversial.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Sumuru, a megalomaniacal femme fatale, makes a bid for world domination by eliminating male leaders and replacing them with her sexy female agents.”
Make no mistake: The Million Eyes Of Sumuru is a bad movie.
Despite what you might think, I take no pleasure in pronouncing Sumuru as a bad movie. Longtime readers of SciFiHistory.Net know that I go to great lengths – if not great pains – to find something positive or constructive to focus on in my attempt to have something substantive to say about any film. This isn’t always easy, but because it’s always been part of my core philosophy – that even the worst production out there has something good, noble, and kind to say about the art form – I stick to it. I go with it. I aim for the true north.
But Sumuru? You made this one tough, milady.
As a caper set against the backdrop of international intrigue, the story has about everything audiences had come to expect: marquee names, exotic settings, colorful imagery, unusual costumes, secret weapons, hidden agendas, double-crosses, and derring-do. The chief skullduggery focuses on Sumuru (played Shirley Eaton) plotting to seize control of global politics by putting a devious woman behind or in place of every elected male, thus ensuring that her power remains unmatched around the world. Naturally, the wider intelligence community – MI6 and the CIA, at least – uncover this secret campaign of subjugation and put wheels in motion to see Sumuru’s quest squashed before it can take root.
Director Shonteff deserves a great deal of the credit for – minimally – staging this thing so that it effectively looks like the Spy/Thrillers it was intended to mock. The sets and locations used might not have a great deal of character – they certainly don’t hold a candle to what the more popular Bond pictures were doing back then – but the minimalism works pleasantly here and there. In fact, Sumuru’s operational headquarters – this Eastern compound that feels like it was borrowing liberally from Japanese, Chinese, and other influences is respectable grand. Its dungeon(esque) quarters certainly look the part, albeit I swear I saw a wall or two move when the stones should’ve been solid. And the somewhat glitzy costumes make for reasonable diversions, especially when they’re worn by so many fetching specimens of the female form. (No, I’m not being sexist, haters, because this is a spy organization whose agents, scientists, and leaders are all female … and good-looking ones, at that.)
It's when you get beyond those elements that Sumuru just doesn’t work for me.
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Sumuru, a megalomaniacal femme fatale, makes a bid for world domination by eliminating male leaders and replacing them with her sexy female agents.”
Make no mistake: The Million Eyes Of Sumuru is a bad movie.
Despite what you might think, I take no pleasure in pronouncing Sumuru as a bad movie. Longtime readers of SciFiHistory.Net know that I go to great lengths – if not great pains – to find something positive or constructive to focus on in my attempt to have something substantive to say about any film. This isn’t always easy, but because it’s always been part of my core philosophy – that even the worst production out there has something good, noble, and kind to say about the art form – I stick to it. I go with it. I aim for the true north.
But Sumuru? You made this one tough, milady.
As a caper set against the backdrop of international intrigue, the story has about everything audiences had come to expect: marquee names, exotic settings, colorful imagery, unusual costumes, secret weapons, hidden agendas, double-crosses, and derring-do. The chief skullduggery focuses on Sumuru (played Shirley Eaton) plotting to seize control of global politics by putting a devious woman behind or in place of every elected male, thus ensuring that her power remains unmatched around the world. Naturally, the wider intelligence community – MI6 and the CIA, at least – uncover this secret campaign of subjugation and put wheels in motion to see Sumuru’s quest squashed before it can take root.
Director Shonteff deserves a great deal of the credit for – minimally – staging this thing so that it effectively looks like the Spy/Thrillers it was intended to mock. The sets and locations used might not have a great deal of character – they certainly don’t hold a candle to what the more popular Bond pictures were doing back then – but the minimalism works pleasantly here and there. In fact, Sumuru’s operational headquarters – this Eastern compound that feels like it was borrowing liberally from Japanese, Chinese, and other influences is respectable grand. Its dungeon(esque) quarters certainly look the part, albeit I swear I saw a wall or two move when the stones should’ve been solid. And the somewhat glitzy costumes make for reasonable diversions, especially when they’re worn by so many fetching specimens of the female form. (No, I’m not being sexist, haters, because this is a spy organization whose agents, scientists, and leaders are all female … and good-looking ones, at that.)
It's when you get beyond those elements that Sumuru just doesn’t work for me.
Oh, fine, if you put a gun to my head, then I’ll admit that I have no problem with the core story of American espionage agents being drawn into service on behalf of Great Britain because apparently the CIA owes them a couple of favors. While it arguably feels like all of this schlock was intended to lampoon the growing trend of spy films from its day, Sumuru never really embraces its lunacy. Instead, it slow walks from one sequence to the next – albeit with a bit of style – giving its supposedly charismatic two leads – Nick West (George Nader) and Tommy Carter (Frankie Avalon) – some of the worst one-liners ever conceived for a ‘Comedy’ feature. I realize that humor is a difficult concept, but is it really all that funny to center a script around an all-female terrorist organization requiring unconditional celibacy from its member when those very same operative behave like leg-humping canines in heat when the boss isn’t looking?
In fact, the only one in here who – rather unsurprisingly – gets that it’s all farce is the reliable Klaus Kinski. With a somewhat disheveled appearance, he steals his every scene he’s in as the somewhat off-his-rocker President Boong of Sinonesia, a leader of questionable ethics, insatiable appetites, and flexible sexuality. In the meantime, practically everyone else delivers their lines of dialogue as if they’re bored or ashamed … which I grew as a result.
The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967) was produced by Sumuru Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Blue Underground. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds mostly impressive: there are a few shots which may not have much benefitted from this upgrade, though I suspect fans of this cult prospect will be happy as clams. As for the special features? Well, Blue Underground has spared no expense, loading up this two-disc set with two brand-spanking-new audio commentaries, a new feature-length documentary, the RiffTrax Edition of Sumuru, and a few other interesting extras. It’s a solid collection worth a glance.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
As I said in my opening, I’ve never been a fan of just plain bad films, never quite grasped their lasting appeal with some … of which I’d have to chalk up The Million Eyes Of Sumuru as a solid prospect, at least. While I understand that none of it was intended to be swallowed whole (or without the requisite salt), I still expect my farces to be delivered with maximum panache, and this tired and disinterested cast – with the exception of Kinski – just didn’t seem to get it. The performances are largely hollow, leaving the story with a great deal of ho-hum instead of the expected hokum. Sure, I’ll appreciate the style, but ultimately, I expect greater substance especially when I’m expected to laugh. I didn’t, and I think few will.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Blue Underground provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
In fact, the only one in here who – rather unsurprisingly – gets that it’s all farce is the reliable Klaus Kinski. With a somewhat disheveled appearance, he steals his every scene he’s in as the somewhat off-his-rocker President Boong of Sinonesia, a leader of questionable ethics, insatiable appetites, and flexible sexuality. In the meantime, practically everyone else delivers their lines of dialogue as if they’re bored or ashamed … which I grew as a result.
The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967) was produced by Sumuru Films. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Blue Underground. As for the technical specifications? While I’m no trained video expert, I found the provided sights-and-sounds mostly impressive: there are a few shots which may not have much benefitted from this upgrade, though I suspect fans of this cult prospect will be happy as clams. As for the special features? Well, Blue Underground has spared no expense, loading up this two-disc set with two brand-spanking-new audio commentaries, a new feature-length documentary, the RiffTrax Edition of Sumuru, and a few other interesting extras. It’s a solid collection worth a glance.
Alas … only Mildly Recommended.
As I said in my opening, I’ve never been a fan of just plain bad films, never quite grasped their lasting appeal with some … of which I’d have to chalk up The Million Eyes Of Sumuru as a solid prospect, at least. While I understand that none of it was intended to be swallowed whole (or without the requisite salt), I still expect my farces to be delivered with maximum panache, and this tired and disinterested cast – with the exception of Kinski – just didn’t seem to get it. The performances are largely hollow, leaving the story with a great deal of ho-hum instead of the expected hokum. Sure, I’ll appreciate the style, but ultimately, I expect greater substance especially when I’m expected to laugh. I didn’t, and I think few will.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Blue Underground provided me with a complimentary 4K UltraHD Blu-ray of The Million Eyes Of Sumuru (1967) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed