What a waste of my time!!!

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

If this was a childhood favourite then so be it you can't be helped. But coming to this as an adult with a fondness for Disney I have to say the usual Disney magic is completely missing here. I knew we were in trouble straight away when Michael Crawford's Hello Dolly American accent reared it's ugly head again. The first mission was quite amusing and cleverly choreographed and instantly falling in love was ridiculous but forgivable and there's one or two other passable mildly funny bits but it was very hard going sloppily written and directed. I admit I did drop off at one point. Maybe with a better actor it might have worked. It's a shame as it looked like they spent a lot of money on the special effects and locations. A low point for Disney (3/10)

I loved this film in the eighties. I used to own it on Betamax, but since VHS and DVDs took over the world, I lost my copy of Condorman somewhere along the way. Michael Crawford (better known for his hapless TV character Frank Spencer), plays a comicbook writer who gets recruited by the CIA.As improbably as that sounds, you're best just glossing over it, as thinking too deeply about anything you see will spoil the film further.It's just stupid, cheesy fun. I loved it as a kid, but I have to admit being a little disappointed at what was really in front of me all the time. I could still appreciate some of it. The gadgets were fun, but Frank Spencer... sorry, Woody Wilkins, can just be a bit annoying. His jokes aren't that funny and he isn't tough enough to carry off being an action hero. I know this is a parody of spy movies in general, but if you want a cheesier spy movie, just watch some of the later Roger Moore James Bond films.Yes, I loved it as a kid and others who have such nostalgic memories of it will probably get something out of it, too. However, it's unlikely to find a new audience nowadays. If you have an eight-year-old boy, he might like it, but anyone over the age of eight will feel pretty bored by it all.I'm giving it 6/10 because of how much I used to love it. By today's standards, it's probably no more than a 5/10.http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

The reason I gave Condorman a 10 isn't because it's the best movie I've ever seen, but more because it's one of my fav childhood memories. I remember none of the video stores had it, but the library did. I used to rent it almost on a weekly basis for more than a year and it's funny...All I can remember of it is the title track and a boat chase vaguely, but what I remember most is how much I loved sitting down in front of our old brute of a T.V. that was probably 10 years older than me with the crappiest color you've ever seen and watching that movie over and over and over. So I guess what I'm saying is that although I don't remember much of the movie itself, I'll never forget how much I loved watching it. I haven't seen it in more than fifteen years and I don't think I ever want to see it again. It seems to me that when you're a four year old kid, movies seem a lot more amusing. I think if I watched it again now, I'd be more disappointed than anything else. HAIL CONDORMAN!!!! -Chris P.

This is a kid's movie that I wonder how it could have even appealed to me as a kid back when it first had a little more, uh, technical relevance I suppose? Actually, no, I wouldn't guess so, if at all ever? Was it a tax write-off? Or maybe the filmmakers took too many drugs and drinks while watching James Bond and Pink Panther movies? Or maybe they knew what they were getting into and thought they could still pull off a legitimately entertaining movie for the whole family. I really have no idea how I would've reacted to this is I were a kid, but as a twenty-something, me and the friends I watched it with became practically the Mystery Science Theater guys, heckling and making up lines as it went along. And, in truth, I might've done it even if I was watching it alone. It's camp without knowing it, or if it does know it maybe it's all the smarter for it. But it does try to pass itself off as something for the kiddies when really it's just too ridiculous and inane for anyone.Maybe the title gives it away, but there you have it- he's a man, but he's also a condor, get it? Well, to put it plainly if I can, Woody Wilkins (Michael Crawford) is ambivalent for about a second to take his 'Condorman' idea to the next step- to team up with the CIA! His mission is to stop a Russian terrorist, played by Oliver Reed, while also with the seductive Ruskie 'Bear' (Barbara Carrera). That's really all you need to know, oh wait, there's more: there's a lead henchman with an eye-patch, or is that a marble eye, or both? How about big gargantuan title cards to introduce every single locale (though sometimes, like with the alps scenes, becoming a little confusing again)? Or massive explosions? I think that might sum it up. But really, if you seek out the movie, you should know what to expect not just from the title but from just the LOOK on the cover of the DVD or VHS. It might be one thing if British director Charles Jarrott went for such silly subject matter with more gusto, but it's almost as if he KNOWS how goofy this is, and has car chases that just spring out of nowhere, plus a climactic speed-boat challenge where even more big explosions happen (and the ratio of the henchmen who jump off the boats before explosion and those who stay on during it is maybe 1/2 and 1/2).In other words, it was perfect as a kind of film to rag on, to put it mildly. It might be one thing if it was so good it's bad, but it turns it it's so mediocre it's just, well, bad. It's got heroes and villains that put out dialog that sometimes is a little incoherent, the bumbling sidekick who is SUPPOSED to be a CIA agent, and that darn one-eyed henchmen, come together in a film where said Condorman only takes flight for less than four minutes! If anything kind can be said about it, it's at least not a boring bad movie, where its so relentless with cheesiness that it becomes wearisome. It's almost too whacked out to get dull at any one point. It is consistent in trying to be entertaining when it really isn't, however it thus becomes on the flip-side entertaining again as fodder for the sort of slings and fun that would make Statler & Waldorf of the Muppets die to dig in on. It's simply one of the most unintentionally funny movies of the 80s, at least from Disney.