La guarida

I just watched this film and having also read these reviews here I certainly agree with 2 of them...

Definitely this is an A rather than a B and is no doubt this has all the hallmarks of prototype Bond film.

I finished watching this movie thinking how much I would have enjoyed Michael Craig as the first James Bond.... I'm saying that based on putting aside Sean Connery's role and rather thinking of Craig being the first to play the role in the Bond franchise...

I personally think we would look back at the first Bond film (franchise that is) and might well consider Craig to have been the quintessential Bond as perhaps Ian Fleming might have seen him when discussing a film adaptation of his book... I know Fleming was more minded towards Christopher Lee, to some degree, especially as Lee had actually lived that role in his wartime experiences... however, I think Michael Craig would have brought a piece of every later Bond we have come to know.

I really enjoyed this film, I think some parts were rushed; probably to keep within a set time for cinema purposes but I would have preferred to see those edits kept in the film as the running time wasn't a factor as I watched... I have a habit of first forwarding on some occasions or making tea... scenes like the death/murder of a supporting character by the baddies or Craig's diversion on his way to the airport to name but a few.

Overall I really enjoyed this film and the performance of Michael Craig.... I've seen him many times before and this character and his performance stood out to me as he really added to the whole story ...

I'm not someone that cares to much about cinematography, editing, plot holes or having to suspend belief .... a film for me is good if it takes my eye off the time and allows me to just enjoy it without thinking about what's going to happen next. ( I hate spoiling it for myself by working out who did it, how they did it or who will win etc let's be frank we can all do that to some degree and I never get why reviewers always seem to want to tell us how quickly they managed it or how unbelievable a film was {Its a film... they are all unbelievable... if anyone wants believable then watch a documentary!}... sorry I'm digressing)

So I would recommend this film if you want to escape looking at that watch for 90 odd minutes and enjoying a good old adventure yarn.

WWG1WGA

Larry Ellis bares a striking resemblance to a dead criminal whose smuggling gang's activities threaten the economy of the western world so the CIA recruit him to take on the dead man's identity to infiltrate the gang

The above is the premise for HOUSE OF SECRETS . It's maybe not a groundbreaking idea but it's a solid one similar to WHITE HEAT which I had the pleasure of seeing again a few days previously . With both movies you know where the story is going and that it's only a matter of time before the undercover agent gets found out . But where as in WHITE HEAT the audience are kept on the edge of their seats by the intelligent script HOUSE OF SECRETS is rather uninvolving and seems somewhat underdeveloped , a case in point is when Larry is asked to meet " The girl " . He doesn't know which girl the gang are talking about , so instead of the gang members physically taking him to meet the girl thereby blowing his cover due to his ignorance Larry goes to meet his CIA contact to ask what girl the gang are referring to . Things like this means the script misses the opportunity to create nail biting tension and makes the movie rather uninvolving

Michael Craig would have been a terrific James Bond. I don't know if he was ever screen tested. He had the look and physical abilities. The story has more twists than a mountain road and a climax right out of a Bond film. Arnall and Bates brought eye candy and acting skills. The fight scenes were brutal and more realistic than the usual phoney slugfest.

For me, a thoroughly enjoyable, well-paced, beautifully shot and above-par acted thriller.

The locations are interesting and vibrant, the fight scenes are well choreographed, fast (for their time) and thus more realistic than most I've seen from this period and the plot twist interesting enough, even 60 years later.

It is for me, slightly reminiscent of a Hitchcock thriller with elements of an early Bond film. It also reminds me of a very good 1950s 'story for boys'.

I have given it a 9/10 simply to try and counterbalance the unfairly low rating it has so far received - in reality I would rate it a 7 or 7½.

Recommended to anyone interested in film-noir, 1950s Paris and/or appreciative of the beauty of mid-century Technicolor.

First to clear up any misunderstandings this was Ranks attempt at an A feature.As usual it lacks originality.The substituted agent must have been used many times prior to this.Michael Craig gives a lacklustre performance with a truly awful mid Atlantic accent.The colour photogrAphy and the views of Paris are the best features of a truly forgettable film