the audience applauded

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

I have read all of the Modesty books a long time ago, and liked them better than the Ian Flemming James Bond books. This movie is of course better than the one made in the 60s' - which I saw at that time (I read the books later on).I did read some of the reviews here, before viewing this fairly recent movie adaption - and I was prepared for a less than stellar movie treatment of Modesty Blaise. However I was pleasantly surprised at how viewable this movie is. I was not expecting a full action movie treatment - for such an action packed character - but when the action sequence did come, it did not disappoint me much.I thought Alexandra Staden did a reasonable effort at portraying Modesty Blaise - and overall I felt this was a reasonable effort at recreating the Modesty Blaise mystique via the cinema. I do hope that Modesty Blaise will get the full movie series treatment it deserves. I'm sure it can outdo James Bond any day when no expense is spared on it - this smaller scale movie will do in the meantime to show it does have the potential to be much much more. I just hope that a suitable actor will fill Modesty Blaise shoes who is prepared to play the same role time and time again...

In case you don't know, I'd like to make it clear that this is a true story.The first flashback actually happened. When the creator of Modesty Blaise, Peter O'Donnell, was a serving soldier he gave food to a feral child who carried a stick with a nail through it as a weapon.He hoped (as do I) that she grew up to some kind of happy life. It seems unlikely, though.The remaining flashback sequences are a fleshing-out of O'Donnell's own back-story for the character, and ring true to the original.My argument with the rest of the film, the sequences with Modesty Blaise in the casino, is that they're not up to the standard of plotting of the books and cartoon strips. To give one instance, Modesty Blaise has a gun held to her head and dragged behind a curtain. As anyone who knows the stories is aware, a villain who holds a gun within arm's reach of either Modesty Blaise or Willie Garvin is in for a serious kicking.This film is an encouraging step in the right direction, but I still worry that the next film in the series, if there is one, will be poorly plotted.

There's a great deal of material from the Modesty Blaise comics and novels that would be great in a movie. Unfortunately, several attempts have been made and they've fallen short of the great potential in the character. So, no, this isn't the Modesty you know from the comic strip (currently reprinted in nice editions from Titan Books). This is Modesty some 5 or 6 years prior to the first strip, and from what you can piece together from her back-story, it's accurate.Miramax had the movie rights to the character, with Quentin Tarantino acting as advocate and technical adviser. Early drafts of the Miramax project attempted to adapt one of the best novels, but always managed to leave out some crucial element. Tarantino wasn't happy with any of them, and offered to remove his name from the project so they could proceed. To the studio's credit, they wanted to keep him in the process, since they knew he "got" the character and her world. With the movie rights close to expiration, they decided to try a very different approach. The result was "My Name is Modesty," a small direct-to-video movie that introduces the character.The movie does not introduce Willie Garvin or Sir Gerald. These characters are important to Blaise's adventures throughout most of the published stories. What this movie accomplishes is showing the strength of the character by herself. She never loses her composure, and you never doubt that she's in charge even unarmed in a room full of gangsters with guns. Most of the movie takes place within a casino, which undoubtedly saved money on the production. It doesn't matter. The film does not come across as cheap. Instead, it gives a fairly comprehensive (and believable) back-story for the character and demonstrates just how far she thinks ahead. Should Miramax adapt any of the comic stories or novels now, they've laid out the character's background nicely and won't have to spend much time on her "origin." I realize the words "Direct-to-Video" don't inspire confidence, but this film is well worth a look.

My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.