The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I am often dismayed when a movie starts with a title sequence showing a drab black background and then those white lettering that seems to last for hours. This one kicks off with a glorious establishing shot of its leading lady, instantly telling everybody that they are watching (arguably, but quite likely) the most beautiful girl in the world (at that time, at least) by showing us her lightly- clad body lying prone as she is busying herself... hammering that thing into the ground? Why??? Do I care??? Those long, long legs... barefoot... nice slinky hands, cute feet... the face that must have meant EVERYTHING to men's dreams back then...As RavenGlamDVDCollector, I have obtained several of her movies, most notable is HANNIE CAULDER, which isn't a good movie, not by a long shot really, but there are some highly memorable scenes in which she is just perfect, and MYRA BRECKENRIDGE, which is very unusual, with a shaky premise, and is mostly claptrap. But it featured the trailer* of this one, with that self-same leggy scene as its opening shot as well, and I took one look and quickly couldn't really care less about MYRA BRECKENRIDGE, had to, had to have FATHOM.I could of course quickly judge that FATHOM is equally far, far away from being a good movie. But Raquel's built-for- bikini figure makes up for any other on-screen shortcomings. Would I watch a 1967 movie with an unlikely plot had some serious actress of that time been featured? No of course not. But Raquel's got the kind of curves that are in considerable danger of becoming extinct. Nowadays girls with this kind of figure are invariably only surgically- "enhanced" and that is oh-so-creepy with the scars and everything to prove it. Raquel back then is representative of not only the phenomenon that she was, but of a whole bygone era, a time when purity still meant something, when there was more pride taken in one's person, instead of the sacrileges nowadays committed so flippantly without thought.*trailer has the very best glam shots in it, makes a fine little capsule, I had my doubts whether the movie could surpass it (of course that leggy scene at the beginning is far extended in the opening titles of the flick)So, I don't even pretend to care about this movie's story-line, hell, it's a mess that gets worse every second it meanders in its lopsided way, hoo boy... but all-natural Raquel is a feast for the eyes. And there is a lot of her on show, plenty of times... Guys, I don't have to say anymore, do I?

I have been fortunate enough to have been in my prime,when RAQUEL WELCH was in hers.This was worth the bathing suit romps and strengthens the fact that more is less in movies.She has had quite a tongue in cheek career.I do take issue with any director who would have this wonderful,perfect woman on the same screen as that ugly missing link Jim Brown.I am a Black man and have always felt that the brother had zero class man...A Sean Connery he is not...you know what I'm saying..Sidney Poitier maybe,Tony Franciosa yes.Tony was kind enough to occasionally hire me to do errands for him and I even sat in a projection room with seven other people who screened? the film and added the music.Even then,I felt that all that constant background noise took away..what the Spanish atmosphere and scenery gave to the film.I miss Mr.Tony a lot..even now.He was always too kind to me.

Back in 1967, Raquel Welch's appearance (rather than performance) in "Fathom" helped jump-start the puberties of around 40 million baby-boomer boys. I never got the chance to see this picture back in '67, unfortunately, and had to have MY puberty jump-started the old-fashioned way: by watching James Bond in the movies and Honey West and Emma Peel on TV (not to mention Laurie R. in junior high!). But 40 years after the fact, I finally caught up with "Fathom" last night. And you know what? The picture really isn't half bad. It's got a good, twisty, intelligent script, tongue in cheek though it may be; beautiful Spanish location shooting; and some colorful characters. The picture also moves quickly and features some good action sequences (such as Racky dodging a maddened bull in a bullring and swimming away from a harpooner in a speedboat). Half the fun in the movie comes from trying to figure out who is lying and what the characters' various motivations are (nobody seems to be telling the truth about anything in this film, and poor Fathom is understandably confused throughout). I quite enjoyed the film, and must say that Raquel's acting is much better than she is given credit for, and that she does indeed look sensational in every scene. Now I can finally understand all those raised hormonal levels 40 years ago!

Probably the only place most of you have seen this film is in the discount DVD rack at Target, where it sells, depending on your timing, for anywhere from $9.44 to $14.99. Whether or not it's worth even those paltry sums is another story.Fathom was spawned during the spy craze in the mid-60s, when making films and TV shows with inappropriate casting for spies was okay (Bill Cosby as a spy? Barbara Bain, who won the Emmy over Diana Rigg???). So Fathom was likely born of twin desires; first, to cash in on the spy genre wave, and secondly, to build a showcase for Raquel Welch. I'm not arguing that either was a particularly bad idea, though it sort of turned out that way. The problem with building a showcase around a pretty woman (or devastatingly beautiful, in Welch's case) is that few people ever put any thought into the framework. They get caught up in staring at the girl, and everything else pretty much goes to hell.Fathom doesn't try to take itself seriously, which is good, because it couldn't if it wanted to. Welch gives it a decent try to play a hapless adventurer who gets pushed in over her head, but it's obvious she's there to model the outfits as opposed to really act. Tony Franciosa plays Merriwether, her chief rival/love interest, and frankly, he's awful. Most of the rest of the cast is forgettable too, with the exception of a very eccentric performance by Clive Revill as the oddball Russian ex-pat Serapkin.But mostly as expected the movie centers on Welch – which again isn't a bad idea, and it's certainly giving viewers what they want. In a scene where she parades down a street in France in a green bikini, the film almost literally stops while everyone catches their breath. Raquel, as they would say in modern parlance, really had it goin' on (though I was more than a little disturbed by a vague resemblance here to Carmen Electra, and hoping like hell no one in Hollywood thought that, because this is NOT a movie that needs to be updated. Even with Ben Stiller playing the Franciosa part).Fathom is a stupid but harmless movie. Welch always seemed to me to be her generation's Sharon Stone; someone more famous for being famous than for any discernible talent (other than the patently obvious). But Welch did make at least a few good films (the Musketeer movies, in which she was very good) and a few ‘interesting' ones (the ill-fated Myra Breckenridge). She's not particularly good here, but then, she's not asked to be. Fathom never tries to pass itself off as anything more than a cheeky B film, and it's certainly more watchable than comparable drek like Our Man Flynt (which I turned off after about seven minutes). Fathom's obvious falseness – shots of Welch skydiving are ludricrously naïve – is partially a product of its time, but I suspect it would actually appeal to people who enjoy that sort of camp (you know, Batman fans and the like). And, frankly, it's worth sitting through to have the rather obvious talents of Welch displayed, even though her hair is picture-perfect a second after removing her skydiving helmet (and she wears makeup in bed, too. Always prepared, that girl). I can't really recommend this film for anyone other than Welch fans, or extremely obsessive fans of 60s spy films, but I would bet that to a generation of men only a few years older than I am, this is a film they remember extremely fondly. And I guess there's nothing wrong with that.