People sometimes ask me, “Berthold, why do you do it? Why do you insist on reading obscure books, watching movies no one has ever heard of, etc.?”

On the face of it, it does seem a bit weird, I admit. And quite often, it turns out that something is unheard of because it wasn’t worth telling anyone about it.  To quote from Noah Goats’ wonderful Unpublishables (a book every indie author should read at least once) “one of the worst things about this planet is that the naysayers are almost always right.”

You know, the reviews of mine that do the best numbers are the ones about recent, big-name Hollywood movies. I’m still getting daily page views on the Napoleon review. This one will probably only get the die-hards who read every one of my posts. You people are built different, and I love you for it.

But, I digress! The question, why do I do it? Why am I reviewing things like… well, like some random movie from 1969 that is loosely based on a novel unfinished by Jack London in the 1910s and then completed by another author in the early ’60s?

The answer is that lesser-known media is blissfully free from all the corporate hype and criticism and commentary and meta-commentary and critical consensus and (shudder) discourse around something new and popular, and you are left with only art in its pure state, as something to be understood on its own terms. It’s like being in the gallery after hours, when the lights are out and the noisy tourists have all gone home and now it’s just you and the pieces on display. No docent will tell you what to think, or what the history was. It’s all up to you.

And sometimes, the most amazing thing happens: a story starts being told, and it pulls you right into it, and before you know what hit you, you’re meeting new characters, and getting interested in seeing what happens to them.

Well, I suppose I’ve wasted enough time on preamble; time to get on with the review proper! Only, there’s one thing you need to know first: while this movie is generally released under the title above, the full title in the UK is the much funnier The Assassination Bureau, Limited. (or Ltd.)

The story begins with a freelance journalist, Miss Sonya Winter, who is investigating a string of assassinations in fin de siècle Europe. She has discovered that there is a disciplined organization behind these murders, and she is hired by newspaper owner Lord Bostwick to investigate the bureau.

She does this in a rather bold way: by engaging the bureau’s services to assassinate its own chairman, Ivan Dragomiloff. Dragomiloff is rather excited at the challenge posed by Miss Winter’s request. He feels it will test the bureau’s abilities, and provide them with a much-needed exercise of their wits. Therefore, he cheerfully accepts the contract on his own life.

However, there is more here than meets the eye. Other members of the bureau’s board of directors have their eyes on using Dragomiloff’s death to gain full control, in order to use the bureau to foment a great war in Europe. And so begins a game of cat-and-mouse, with Dragomiloff racing across Europe and falling into the clutches of various members of the bureau; with Miss Winter following him all the way in pursuit of what promises to be the story of the century.

The film is fast-paced, quick-witted, and funny. It has this wonderful Edwardian aesthetic that, combined with the many  intricate and lethal gadgets the assassins employ, gives it a quasi-steampunk feel. It’s not a revolutionary story by any means, but it’s told so well that it doesn’t matter; it’s a fun ride from the first stop to the last.

It’s kind of like if they made a James Bond film set right before World War I. Except it’s better than almost every James Bond film I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t take itself too seriously, while also not turning into a farcical self-parody. It knows that its situations are at some level completely absurd, while at the same time taking the trouble to make the characters realistic enough that we care about them.

Now, of course, the film was made in the ’60s, so there are some things that haven’t aged well, and the special effects in the climactic scene are rather weak, even by the standards of the time. I’m not saying it’s a perfect movie, but it still makes for a fun way to kill 90 minutes, and it even manages to work in some philosophical thoughts on the morality of violence. Each of three main characters embodies a specific view on the subject, from Miss Winter’s pacifism to Dragomiloff’s chivalric code of killing to Lord Bostwick’s, shall we say, more pragmatic approach.

Anyhow, it’s a good movie and I recommend it to fans of thrillers and comedies alike. Don’t let it get too popular, though, or next thing you know, they’ll remake and reboot and franchise it until all the joy gets sucked out of the whole enterprise. The great thing about movies no one has heard of is that the studios haven’t thought to ruin them yet.