The Naked Face

Was this a great movie, certainly not. However, it was a good movie and a whole lot better than the Roger Moore Bond pictures had become by that time. Moore plays a therapist whose life is about to be snuffed out--the problem is, he has NO idea WHO wants him dead. Exactly who really is behind the attempts and why it is occurring I will not reveal (it would spoil the film) but it keeps you guessing and the performances are good. This is a good attempt by Moore to do something different and I applaud his efforts.

If you like seeing Moore as someone other than 007, I also suggest you see Ffolkes This is an odd little adventure movie about a group of mercenaries who take over an oil platform. Moore's performance in this one is about as different from Bond as you could possibly find!

Moore plays a psychiatrist caught in a web of intrigue and murder, as his patients become victims of a sinister plot. Steiger and Gould play a pair of detectives assigned to the case, but their disdain for Moore affects little progress in solving the case, and he turns to wily amateur sleuth Carney, to solve the mystery before he becomes the next victim. Generally well constructed thriller, with occasional brutal, graphic and somewhat gratuitous violence that might offend. The scene in which Moore's office is ransacked is especially cold and callous in its excess.

Some neat twists are employed by actor-turned-director Forbes, with solid performances from Moore, Steiger and Gould in particular. Moore's normally nonchalant persona is replaced here with suitable concern, as he's pursued by sadistic villains with little inclination for mercy. The executions are particularly nasty and the tone is never far from dark and threatening. In some ways, "The Naked Face" is similar in vein to both "Still of the Night" and "Colour of Night" in terms of its content, and has a render reminiscent of a Brian De Palma thriller (though it lacks De Palma's signature styling).

Despite the sophisticated elements, the dialogue is only functional and at one hour and forty-five minutes, the film does overstay its welcome. Worth a look, but nothing spectacular.

This is a truly ugly little movie - from start to finish, it lacks warmth, familiarity. Indeed, it begins and ends in a cemetery. Its look gives it a low budget feel- though the high powered cast must have made it more expensive than it looks.

the movie is saved by its choice of actors. This must be one of the most unusual casts assembled: Art Carney, Roger Moore, Anne Archer, Elliott Gould, Rod Steiger, David Hedison (known particularly to Americans for the TV series, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea but I think he also served as Felix Leitner in one of the Bond movies). What a group.

The sight of Roger Moore as a pathetic, terrified, weak, indignant psychiatrist is also truly disorienting. As he runs and pushes chairs against doorknobs to stop one man chasing him, trembling in fear, it's VERY hard to not cry out "007, WAKE UP! One karate chop will do it!

I think the best of a generation of American actors were Rod Steiger, Jason Robards, Marlon Brando, and George C. Scott. Steiger's role isn't a wonderful one - but he is as usual, fascinating to watch to see the accents, looks, manners, that he will choose to portray the character.

I am very fond of Elliott Gould - though he underplays his role here. Anne Archer is lovely - as she is as the wife of Harrison Ford in all the Tom Clancy/Jack Ryan movies, and of course as the wife of Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction.

Art Carney is absolutely extraordinary - very amusing - it's as if his dialogue was written by someone other than the sleepy TV movie of the week folks who wrote the other dialogue.

This is worth watching - if you don't expect too much. E.g., if you want to see Roger Moore play another role - and I like Moore very much -it's fine. He's also charming and funny in the comedy, That Lucky Touch with Susannah York.

In this 1985 step away of the bond era Moore finally gets to make a great movie. This is probably his best movie, maybe not in acting, but the script is hard to beat. The naked face origins from a novel by Sidney Sheldon. The story is good and it differs from many other in the genre. It is not easy to predict the ending. That alone makes this film worth seeing. There are also other facts that makes this well worth seeing. Rod Steiger plays more than well, making his character disgusting from time to time. Moore acts well and so does all roles. To this one ads good music and you cannot get anything but a great film. I say not it is excellent, but it comes close enough to be more than recommended.

Contrary to some reviewers' comments, I thought that Roger Moore acted well enough here, portraying emotion such as when talking about his dead wife.

Rod Steiger and Elliot Gould were both good, though I assume that the former's hairpiece reflected what a police lieutenant, rather than a Hollywood star, could afford.

When the reason for the murders, murder attempts and general mayhem became apparent, it was something of an anticlimax as they didn't seem that necessary. The attempt to run down Dr Stevens in the passageway was particular hamfisted.

I'm tempted to see if I can buy a copy of the book on which the film is based, in the hope that it might fill in the several plot holes.

It was strange how the private detective, Morgens,chose to meet Stevens in a particularly isolated and forbidding area

As others have said, the ending was unsatisfactory and suggested there might be more trouble ahead.

Like other reviewers, I was half-hoping that Moore would switch into his Bond persona when he was being beaten up, but I guess that would have prompted me to complain that his Stevens character was not macho enough to do that.

I'm tempted to see if I can buy a copy of the book on which the film is based, in the hope that it might fill in the several plot holes.

EDIT: I bought a copy of the book, which the film generally followed, though the former did include two meetings at their homes that Dr Judd had with the sex-mad ex-actress and the lover of a gay patient at their homes. But the book did end on a clear and positive note, unlike the film - why did they have to tack on that final scene? One or two plot holes were explained, but not convincingly.