MovieChat Forums > The Silencers (1966) Discussion > One of the worst films ever?

One of the worst films ever?


Snail's pacing and direction - pedestrian at best, stand-still everywhere else.
Wafer-thin, see-thru plot.
Terrible acting.
Lousy script.

How did Dean Martin agree to go along with this rubbish? I get that it's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but lots of gadgets and bad jokes do not a good film make.

It seems every time a new girl walks into the scene, Matt Helm sticks his tongue down her throat with embarrassing regularity.

How attitudes have changed! Would the scene where they're driving along drinking a bottle of scotch be even allowed today?

Was the director appealing to the audiences of the day? Is this what they wanted?

It would be interesting to read some original reviews from critics of the time.




reply

Don't be such a pansy; it was an entertaining movie and of its era.

reply

I loved this movie--of course it was pure 1960's kitsch, but that was one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much (the outrageous fashion, the drinking in the car, the round rotating bed)-- and of course the fact that I am a huge Dean Martin and Stella Stevens fan made it all the more likable in my book.

reply

Rickeybobby And what book might that be misscsquared? Just kidding . I totally agree, but it's definately not for the uptight tight asses. We just found that out.

reply

Just saw on TCM & needed an escape fron the present! 1st part is promising w/cool bachelor pad but then flick goes downhill, very diappointing & slow!
I luv 60's flicks but, this one NO chemistry between Dean/Stella! He's old & boring & she's ugh-lee in stiff red wig-wam. Role is an insult to her acting...falling face-down in mud, whining & crying ect.. Worst part is Mom- station wagon thru the whole film, where's the hot sports car?!

reply


Rickeybobby ---- I can certainly see your point, even though I liked the flic in a nostalgic, screwy 60s kind of way. I would also agree as to Stella Stevens script. Though I think her acting for what she had [a quasi comedic role] was pretty good. They coud have done a lot better job on script and scenes. But, pretty good observations.

reply

The Matt Helm movies (as opposed to the books) were a parody of James Bond movies. If James Bond drives an Aston Martin, Matt Helm is going to drive a station wagon.

reply

Yes, the movie was atrocious. However, I loved Dean because he was playing Dean. Loved what little there was of Cyd, who looked great in that leotard, but Stella Stevens cannot act worth a flip. No wonder she didn't really become a big star.

reply

[deleted]

Stella Stevens was a HUGE star, are u an imbecile? Maybe more of a supporting actress, but a huge celebrity and performer in many motion pictures.

She also did a lot of tv appearances on dramas, talk shows and game shows. They don't get much bigger than her other than "superstar" leading ladies.

reply

Well actually for the low standards required for this type of movie, it filled the bill just fine. It did have some atrocious editing and/or direction though. A lot of the conversations and even other scenes were cut so crudely and abruptly, the actors might as well have been in different states.

And did Dino have a contract rider about not going having to leave town or something? I've never seen a movie with so many rear projection shots instead of locations. Even for regular conversations by the side of the road, they did it in studio. Really jarring and fake looking.

Still an okay romp for what it was though.

reply

Rickeybobby -- I agree about the projection shots. I also agree about the lousy directing. The shooting of Nancy Kovack, where it shows her cute little but. When she was shot I now believe it was more a snafu rather than intended. Think about it. It was 1966. Pretty well censored then. I know I'm 58. Also the squib wires were showing in the same scene. You can't see it in the DVD version but you can in the VHS version. But you know what? For a quasi comedy spy spoof with the pretty girls, celebrities, action, etc. it worked, and is a cult classic today. Like anything else. If you can't put it in it's historical perspective don't expect it to work for you.

reply

The shooting of Nancy Kovack, where it shows her cute little but. When she was shot I now believe it was more a snafu rather than intended. Think about it. It was 1966. Pretty well censored then.


Nancy was wearing pantyhose, so her bottom wasn't really exposed.

No blah, blah, blah!

reply

I was 11 years old when I saw this in the local theater for about 25 cents. The kids were into the Bond movies and this was a spoof on them.

In music terms it would be the Beatles and the Monkees, you dig daddy-o?

reply

Oh thank God! Somebody said it.

I was afraid there might be one movie on the IMDb message boards where somebody didn't post a "worst movie ever" thread.

reply

I don't know if this movie qualifies as one of the worst movies ever made, but it certainly is bad. It was fascinating to watch, only to see how much American culture has changed as reflected in American movies. And, also to see how the Matt Helm character reflects the desires of males of that time, and perhaps even this time. Having attractive women respond sexually with little prompting from a not-so-attractive male I'm sure fulfills many fantasies.

reply

"How did Dean Martin agree to go along with this rubbish?"

A better question would be who allowed him to impersonate a leading man in a motion picture. All he ever does is mug for the camera.

As for the film itself, it's obviously godawful and utterly stupid, but there were some amusing bits here and there, too... for instance mistaking a duck hunt for enemy fire or Martin objecting to Sinatra singing on the radio.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Martin COULD act, if given the right material. There was a 1960s western, whose name escapes me right now, in which he was quite good.

As for one of the OP's questions: The reviews at the time were probably not too flattering, but this movie's target audience (as described in one of the replies above) would be unlikely to care about what the reviewers didn't like.

reply

OMG, yes. So bad. So, so bad. I thought the Flint movies were dated and odd.

Dean is insufferable, as an actor and as Matt the character such that I wanted to see the bad guys win.


Here's the original 1966 review from the NYT, and they sound unimpressed at best.

Dean Martin and (Shapely) Company Arrive in 'The Silencers'

Published: March 17, 1966
As another inevitable parody of James Bond, spies, sex and popular tunes, "The Silencers," which crashed into the Sutton and Victoria Theaters yesterday, never lives up to its title, but it is loud, fast, obvious and occasionally funny. As the latest atomic antic, it sets records for pseudoscientific gimmicks and undraped pulchritude that should raise the temperatures of every redblooded male. For the captious who expect originality, "The Silencers" is about as unusual as Dean Martin singing a song.

Technically, these tongue-in-cheek capers have to do with the efforts of Matt Helm, agent, on behalf of ICE (Intelligence Counter Espionage, U. S. A.) to thwart a plan of Big O (whatever that is) to divert one of our atomic missiles into our Western desert and take over the world. Since Dean Martin plays Helm, it is obvious that babes will figure more importantly than bombs in his superheated life. And these near-nudes are there, seemingly by the dozen and in most attractive shapes, which they toss at him with grateful abandon.

Tung-Tze and the other Big O dastards are constantly getting in the way of spirited romance with blazing guns, knives, laser beams and every new electronic gadget in the Hollywood armory. But our boy is well-equipped, too, with a circular king-sized bed that tilts to drop him into an indoor pool. He also has an automatic that shoots backward, buttons that are really grenades (he uses them to destroy the Big O's underground electronic nerve center) as well as a camera that shoots knives.

There is a furious auto chase, designed to harass our hero, but it is not ungallant to divulge that it is the girls that are the big problem. There is his clinging secretary, called Lovey Kravezit; there is Cyd Charisse, a dancing agent, who could excite a hermit; there is the blonde Nancy Kovack; there is the brunette Daliah Lavi, who is also an agent (or is it a double agent?); there is the auburn-haired Stella Stevens, who does much to entice our boy and runs off with acting honors, and there are several unbilled strippers.

Why go on? Dean Martin is about as charmingly lackadaisical and flip about the favors they throw at him as he is about stopping the atomic threat to the United States. He can't be blamed. "The Silencers" is proof, in vivid, living colors, that you can get too much of a good thing.

reply