Reviews

Good for a reunion show that deserves special allowances for auld lang syne that otherwise would not fly for a regular show, a time to reminisce on the impossibility of twenty years flying by! and even worse another twenty since that yet again to 2006! Will someone quit turning the calendar instead of the second hand! Though McNee was truly good as Sir John, the sorrowful part was the loss fourteen years before, in '72, of inestimable and quite irreplaceable stellar veteran Leo G. Carroll/Mr. Waverly they were kind enough to acknowledge. What wasn't mentioned in other descriptions of the film was how Sir John's entrance into the fray was due to the death of Mr. Waverly whom he was replacing (I believe he was supposedly killed in a THRUSH attack, which while stretching the bonds of credibility that they only just now managed to kill him after so many years is still a well-deserved tribute to dear old Leo G.). As sharp as Carroll was, he deserved a larger role had the oversexed dolts of that age not been such abysmal failures at appreciating the treasure in their midst, though perhaps Vaughn & McCallum may have.

A fascinating connection most don't realize, including me, until today, thanks to the IMDb, is that in the '50s show Topper in which Carroll starred as Cosmo Topper, Robert Sterling played George Kerby, the debonair husband of the ghost couple that could be so frustrating for Cosmo, wife Anne Jeffreys playing Mrs. (Marion) Kerby, but Sterling also later played Captain Lee Craine in the Irwin Allen's movie, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, the part later taken by David Hedison in the TV version as Richard Baseheart took Walter Pigeon's place! Interesting connection: Man from UNCLE and Voyage to the Bottowm of the Sea by way of Topper! What Topper!

As with most of those here commenting on this, I am blown away with the power and grace Bruce Marchiano brings to this masterpiece. The depth of power of his heart and eyes is so overwhelming as to be almost too great to bear; I think my heart will burst under the load save that He carries me with my light yoke (6:34 & 11:30). That it is utterly unknown but to Christians is of course the same story as with Jesus Himself, He Whom the pagans would co-opt to their own agendas and uses, a tactic that only backfires in the end as they prove from their folly that they know nothing of Him.

One point I must make against those who use the profound depth of this as a platform from which to condemn Mel Gibson's equally (though differently) anointed masterpiece, The Passion of the Christ, with priceless Jim Caviezel (though I'll always regret dear Mel didn't play the title role himself which would have been beyond awesome): they're quite wrongheaded on the score, for the testimony of Bruce and his company and Jim and his company are one in describing the divine (and therefore the counterattacking demonic) manifestations so present in the making of these jewels in our Lord's crown. What great grace the Lord has brought us in these precious brothers so to condescend to grace our lives with such inspiration according to His Perfect Word.

Why Rosalind Russell's greatness has been so little appreciated is beyond me. The marvelous grand dame Russell is the epitome of brilliance, vigor and poise, always larger than life, as her courageous return to the stage conquering arthritis well shows. In fact the only small problem with this fantastic lady playing Mrs. Pollifax, is that her elegance and power are a bit at odds with the sweet, bumbling nature of the novel's character.

I love the Mrs. Pollifax mysteries nearly as much as I do beloved Rosalind, having read them many times, and so can see the slight difficulty, but as wonderful as Mrs. Pollifax's character is, and as absolutely phenomenal as dear Rosalind always is, the difficulty of fit is easy to overlook for the sheer joy of seeing two of my very favorite ladies merged as one for the occasion. The fact that Rosalind wrote the thing as well as starring in it (the movie, not the book) proves her excellence as if it needed any proof.

One of the superior characteristics of this "Mrs. Pollifax - Spy," versus what I've heard of Angela Lansbury's "Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax" is that I seem to recall that this one more nearly follows the "The Unexpected Mrs. Pollifax" book, whereas the latter, despite having the same title, is a mixture of at least one more of the novels (one being "A Palm for Mrs. Pollifax" if the Swiss clinic is any clue), which helps to confuse the plot even more, as if Mrs. Pollifax weren't always inviting confusion just by being there! I'd probably love the latter too, so I don't mean too much criticism, but I much prefer having just one book's plot versus the confusion and dilution of piecing more than one book together, but most of all, as wonderful as dear, elegant Angela Lansbury is, there will never be another Rosalind Russell.