20 questions, yo!

[Bob]

The god-awful spoof

The 1967 spoof is excellent - great classic comedy. What's not to like about it? And it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

The reason they did a spoof was that the producers thought they had the rights to the book, but, as it turned out, they only had the rights to the title. So, they did it as a comedy instead. Great film.

Really?   They only had the rights to the TITLE?   Man, that must have been hard to explain down at the studio heads office!

[Sharktopus]

The god-awful spoof

The 1967 spoof is excellent - great classic comedy. What's not to like about it? And it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

The reason they did a spoof was that the producers thought they had the rights to the book, but, as it turned out, they only had the rights to the title. So, they did it as a comedy instead. Great film.

Says the guy who thought the original Little Shop of Horrors was funny.   

[Minnesota]

The little shop of horrors is funny, love that movie too.

[Tony Farms AKA Puma Man]

And the audience hurt with him.

At least the male audience. What with our parts being on the outside.

I lack a Y-chromosome, and therefore the parts necessary to hurt, but I still felt the sympathy pangs.

A rope to the vag would probably hurt too.

[mrbasehart]

And the audience hurt with him.

At least the male audience. What with our parts being on the outside.

I lack a Y-chromosome, and therefore the parts necessary to hurt, but I still felt the sympathy pangs.

A rope to the vag would probably hurt too.

Wow! Possibly the funniest thing I've ever read.

[AmazingThor]

What's not to like about it?  it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

I do believe you just answered your own question

[Rude]

Wow! Possibly the funniest thing I've ever read.

Does the movie contain a rudimentary lathe?

Is watching it more painful than a rope to the vag?

  LOL! 

-Rude

[Petey Wheatstraw]

What's not to like about it?  it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

I do believe you just answered your own question

The first Austin Powers film is excellent. The sequels are definitely lesser in quality, but still pretty damn funny. All in all, it's a pretty good, funny film series. The Austin Powers movies aren't supposed to make you think about the secrets of the universe, they're supposed to make you laugh. Lighten up and enjoy 'em. They're funny.

[pyro]

looks like I'll actually see this one.... job at blockbuster = free rentals.... haven't seen a rifftrax since Star Trek VI

[mrbasehart]

The 1967 spoof is excellent - great classic comedy. What's not to like about it? And it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

The main inspirations for Austin Powers were In Like Flint and the Matt Helm series, starring Dean Martin.  Both lots of fun, by the way. 

[Quicksilver]

And the audience hurt with him.

At least the male audience. What with our parts being on the outside.

I lack a Y-chromosome, and therefore the parts necessary to hurt, but I still felt the sympathy pangs.

A rope to the vag would probably hurt too.

I do believe vag is my favorite word.

[Minnesota]

totaly agree "vag" is definetly one of the coolest words

[Sharktopus]

The 1967 spoof is excellent - great classic comedy. What's not to like about it? And it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

The main inspirations for Austin Powers were In Like Flint and the Matt Helm series, starring Dean Martin.  Both lots of fun, by the way. 

Don't forget Get Smart, plus a dash of The Ipcress File, The Avengers, and countless other '60s and '70s spy shows. Austin himself also has a bit of Alfie in him. I really don't see much of Casino Royale in Austin Powers. Casino Royale was more like It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World with spys.

[Natureboy]

The god-awful spoof

The 1967 spoof is excellent - great classic comedy. What's not to like about it? And it was clearly one of the inspirations for Austin Powers.

The reason they did a spoof was that the producers thought they had the rights to the book, but, as it turned out, they only had the rights to the title. So, they did it as a comedy instead. Great film.

Casino Royale.......the Woody Allen and David Niven film was an incoherant mess.  I am not the only one who believes that either.

http://www.agonybooth.com/casino_royale/

[Sharktopus]

Humor is entirely subjective, so I'm not going to argue with anyone whether 1967's Casino Royale is funny or not. But I think it's completely accurate to call it a bloated, nonsensical mess of a film in which no one had any clue what anyone else was doing, nor cared. That's what happens when a movie has six directors working independently off a continually changing script written my innumerable writers with vastly different takes on the subject. It's Laugh-In meets Barbarella meets the end of Blazing Saddles- entertainingly, mind-scramblingly inscrutable.

That excellent Agony Booth review sums it up very well, but you really have to watch the movie to truly understand. I think it's available at Walmart for less than $10. Well worth it for more of Barbara Bouchet from Agent For HARM.