Robo Man

My review was written in October 1982 after a screening at Thalia theater on Manhattan's UWS.

Produced in 1974 by British Lion using German tax shelter funding, "Who?" is a very affecting though minor science fiction film. Acquired for U. S. release by the since-defunct Allied Artists (along with other pictures produced by Canadian Barry Levinson -not the U. S. director of "Diner"), picture was shelved and has had domestic exposure only through nontheatrical bookings. It's a shame, since this is a nice little picture which, despite its anticipating the sic-fi boom by a couple of years and its non-reliance on hardware, could have attracted a small following.

Adapted from Algis Budrys's novel by the late British playwright John Gould (no relation to pic's star Elliott Gould), "Who?" is an action-espionage thriller examining, from a science-fiction perspective, the nature of identity. Joe Bova gives a beautiful, underplayed performance as diminutive U. S. scientist Martino, whose face and arm are remade in metal after a car accident in Berlin. The film's mystery-suspense plot derives from iterated flashbacks showing Martino grilled and/or indoctrinated by East German intelligence officer Azarin (Trevor Howard).

Once back in the U. S., Martino is subjected to gruelling questioning and investigation by F. B. I. Operative Rogers (Elliott Gould) to check his new security clearance for continuing a top secret research project in Florida. Gould examines the reactions of Martino's old associates to his transformed, robot-like appearance.

The action sequences, including a standard Remy Julienne-piloted car chase,are not the main area of interest in "Who?", but rather the vulnerable, ultimately lovable little man Martino's saga of self-discovery. Constantly crushed by people's pitying or frightened reaction to his cyborg appearance. Marino only snaps out of his depressive state when he realizes that he has lost his identity by depending too much on the opinions of others. In terms of story development, this central theme is tied directly to his immediate (unwilling but internalized) need to impress Rogers with the proven fact of his identity as physicist Martino rather than some imposter planted by the Communists.

After the flashbacks ultimately reveal Martino's new identity, film concludes with a terrific scene where Rogers and Martino come to a mutual understanding and latter has found his self-realization at last by working anonymously on a farm where his fellow workers accept him at "face" value -he doesn't have to prove anything anymore. This elegant finale carries a simple philosophical punch unusual for the sci-fi film genre.

Crisply directed by Jack Gold, "Who?" is a technically adroit low-bugeter, with excellent makeup for Martino executed by Colin Arthur, famed for his superb makeup effects recently in "Christiane F." and "Conan the Barbarian".

Bova does wonders in the central role, creating intense viewer identification though restricted to vocal and body acting rather than his face, which is covered with the silver, metal look. Bulling his way through the picture in the tough guy lead roe familiar from many British B-pictures featuring a U. S. actor for marquee value. Gould brings humor to the assignment. Trevor Howard is seen only in the flashbacks.

Some of the negative reviews here seem to be because of not paying proper attention to the story (particularly, understanding the clever flashback structure), and/or getting hung up over the makeup/tin head effects. Its a huge shame that these might dissuade people from seeing this brilliant film.

The appearance of Lucas Martino (the tin man) is irrelevant. What matters is that all the FBI has to go on to identify him is his responses. Another reviewer (no doubt distracted by facebook rather than actually watching) mentioned 'why don't they just compare his fingerprints?' but its explained in the film that whilst the arm may belong to Martino, it doesn't guarantee that the head/mind does.

At its heart, the film explores a fascinating theme about identity, what makes a person who they are in a way that couldn't be imitated and taught to someone else. Between the lines is a chess-game style thought-battle between two sides, figuring out what to do with this guy, and trying to solve the puzzle of how to prove that someone is who they say they are. There's a desperate, tragic and lonely feeling underlying the conversations, when trying to distill the very essence of a person's humanity.

What really makes the idea work is the meticulous structure of the film - we see the present day situation of the FBI trying to figure out who he is, intercut with flashbacks of the Russians questioning him and figuring out whether to send back a spy instead. So the audience has to think and consider all the angles along with both the Russian spy commander and the FBI agent, trying to second guess events but never really knowing for sure who the man is (or more importantly - HOW to know) until the very end.

I've seen this film at least six times and still enjoy its ideas and main philosophical puzzle each time, despite knowing the outcome. Its such a great shame that people are so blind-sided by the lack of action, the dodgy makeup effects, the woeful mis-marketing and obvious low budget of the film to recognise what is actually a great story, and a very intelligently structured film.

There are two particularly ropy moments - a car-chase/shootout at an airport, and a completely pointless/unnecessary moment where an agent chases our mystery man across a road, runs into the side of a car, then leaps over its hood and ends up dead. Next scene: mystery man says "Sorry about Finchley". FBI agents ignores it, moves into next line of questioning. Its pretty absurd. If these stupid shoe- horned attempts at 'action' were cut out completely, it would be a better film.

I would love to see a polished remake of this story by someone like Chris Nolan or Denis Villeneuve - taking the flashback structure and running with it to really explore the themes and push the emotional side into new territories. It would surely be a classic of philosophical sci-fi.

Genuinely, this is one of my favourite movies of all time.

...and "Le Vicomte De Bragelonne" and its iron mask. At the beginning of his career ,Jack Gold made movies which were anything but derivative: think of "Catholics"(also featuring T.Howard) or "the Medusa touch" .

"Who" is an overlooked spy thriller ,which takes elements from "Manchurian candidate", "seconds " and Alexandre Dumas and brings them all back home;without special effect,or almost,he creates a thoroughly disturbing atmosphere ,helped by a superlative performance by J.Bova who succeeds in making his character endearing and extremely moving ,against all odds.

Eliott Gould's investigation does not matter much,it's not essential;the subject of the movie is "is life worth living when you've become "inhuman"?" (that perfectly explains the final death of the "second " Martino).

Some scenes are extraordinary,spooky ,without the usual horror paraphernalia :Martino walking through the streets of the city is a great moment;the mask ,which could look like that of an ET ,a serial killer or a clown, is more frightening (and more human because of those eyes)than the bandages of the invisible man.

The message is not "can he resume the Neptune project?" but "how can

he find a reason to believe and to live?"If you find a way,everything's possible:it's hope for people who think they are no longer part of the human race (is there a reason to be proud of being part of them anyway?)

let this sleeper be an introduction to the other Gold movies I mention above.

In WHO?, Martino (Joseph Bova), a famous American physicist, returns from Russia after an automobile accident. Upon his arrival, we notice that his head, left arm, and upper body have been replaced with metal. Martino is taken to a secret debriefing facility for interrogation.

A fairly slow-building film, nothing really happens for the first 50+ minutes. Once Martino leaves the government building, the "action" begins. Sort of. There's an assassination attempt, a car chase, an explosion, and the big reveal.

An odd artifact from the 1970's, it gets points for originality. Modern audiences may have trouble staying awake long enough to enjoy its more nuanced approach.

Co-stars Elliott Gould as Rogers, the suspicious government agent...

It was around this time that Elliot Gould's career started to go downhill. He must have been desperate for work if he had to star in this quite low budget British thriller. Actually, while watching the movie one can see signs that a promising movie could have been made from this material; the premise is intriguing and original. Unfortunately, the filmmakers pretty much botch all of it up. It's way too talky for its own good, and much of the dialogue is dry and not very interesting. As a result, the movie becomes quite boring; Gould himself gives a very uninterested performance. There are a couple of chuckles from the sight of the cyborg since he looks like the Mexican wrestler Santo, but even he becomes boring in short notice.

One last thing: Does the FBI really have jurisdiction in Europe?