Award-winning director (won the 1970 Golden Globe for "Anne of the Thousand Days") Charles Jarrott no doubt profited by his many mistakes on this Walt Disney attempt to make a juvenile James Bond imitation, which failed dismally, thanks not only to Jarrott's heavy-handedly inept direction, but to its witless script and much frantically unfunny acting. Michael Crawford, would you believe it, tries out a most uncharming American accent throughout, and the heroine (!) seems to have a permanent five o'clock shadow, thanks to Jarrott's relentlessly TV style direction of using close-up after close-ups after close-ups The special effects are tatty too!

'Condorman' isn't in the same league as other of my childhood favourites, and while nostalgia is one thing when revisiting a film, sometimes you realised that the charm would have worn off if you re-watched in your teenage years. Simply put, 'Condorman' is an okay film that is essentially for children and it's a lot better than revisiting 'Howard the Duck'. There was some decent car-chase sequences involving a one-eyed henchman in a bike helmet inside fast Porsches, and some fun comedic where Michael Crawford got to showcase his timing, and I really liked the performance by James Hampton as Woody's sidekick. Oliver Reed was okay as the villain and Barbara Carrera was good as the love interest. The bad was that awful score from one of the greats, and some of the exposition scenes at the beginning felt obvious and seemed to know little about comic-book history, and of course, Condorman in costume having to flap his wings isn't quite the superhero we are used to in films.Filmed in 1981, 'Condorman' is definitely dated, and maybe only suitable for people who actually remember this as a child. It gets a pass from my older self! **½ out of *****!

Let me preface by stating I was one of the 12 people who actually saw this in theatre in its original run. I was about ten years old and thought it was the best movie EVER. If you have a ten year old, please get this movie and let them enjoy it. Don't let the following carping get in the way.THAT said: My god, whose brain was out to lunch on this one? I am really trying to figure out what Disney was trying to do (this was in the desperate last years of the Ron Miller era) in producing this film. They go all over Europe for real location shots (as opposed to re-dressing the "Medfield" set once again), and yet still resort to cheap optical shots (they must have been the last studio to use them at this point). Then they go and get real actors; like Oliver Reed as the villain (instead of Keenan Wynn) and don't bother giving them a decent script. Now, I am all about suspending disbelief, especially in a family comedy, but...1) Are we supposed to believe that Woody jumps off of the Eiffel Tower in a birdsuit and no one notices? 2) Are we supposed to believe that Woody is a competent artist, yet still chooses to wear The Ugliest Sweaters Ever Seen in a Film? 3) Why is it that Natalia is a trained KGB agent yet is completely helpless in a fight and never has an idea? 4) How is it possible that the CIA is able to create the following things overnight with one line "Get these to Fabrication.": A gypsy truck that turns into a car that has multiple guns and shoots fire, and converts into a ramp and then a hovercraft. A speedboat that shoots blue lasers. A pair of wings light enough to carry as a secret backpack but sturdy enough to carry two people aloft.5) Why are all the children in Switzerland non-accented English speakers and as multi-ethnic as a Pepsi ad? And oh my...the first scene with Woody and his friend...probably the clumsiest exposition ever put on film.If you are over the age of 12, worth a view if you want to MST3K it.

This was in the days before seat-back screens in airliners, "the" film was unavoidable. This one began with a bunch of people in an office talking, then, I think, some of them were somewhere else, talking. No laughs, no action, no clue as to why anyone should care about what comes next, and the production standards of an end-of-the-line "Murder She Wrote" after they moved it to New York. It did not help that I have never appreciated Crawford's acting, he gives me the creeps. If this was a kids' film why did it start off so slow and boring? Maybe the rest of it was better. I don't intend finding out. I'm glad so many people loved it, but there should be an "unsuitable for adults" classification for stuff like this.