Scorpio

In the 1960s, disenchantment among the Western populations led to the hippie movement and a new questioning of authority. Combining this with the Watergate scandal and you set the context for movies like SCORPIO and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR. Both films view our own government with great suspicion--particularly the CIA. Such films probably would NOT have been accepted by the public just a decade earlier, but in the 70s paranoia of this type was fashionable. So was the moral relativism that implied that the US and Soviet governments were pretty much the same.

In some ways, the plot to SCORPIO is pretty interesting--a CIA agent (Burt Lancaster) is perceived to be a double agent and is ordered to be killed. Oddly, Alain Delon, a Frenchman, is given this task but Lancaster seems too slippery and skilled to be easily taken. Unfortunately, after a while the film both becomes rather dull and is rather hard to believe. As one reviewer pointed out, the way that Lancaster and Scofield knew each other didn't really make sense, as an American serving with the Spanish Republicans would have been seen as an extreme leftist--not exactly a person you'd expect to later be in the CIA. Of course, this DID help the moral relativism being pushed in the film.

Aside from watching the acrobatic Lancaster do his own stunts and Scofield overact (in a fun way), this is a very low energy film--and you'd not expect this would be the case for an espionage thriller. It just seemed very detached and uninvolving. Overall, it's a passable film, but not one you should go out of your way to see.

"Scorpio" is a pretty good spy drama, though it's not for everyone. Before I explain that qualifying remark, a brief mention of the movie's positive attributes. Unlike a lot of other movies involving spies, the plot for "Scorpio" is pretty easy to follow. The movie also portrays the world of spies in a more realistic fashion; spying for the most part isn't action- packed, but instead involves a lot of humdrum stuff. The movie also has a very un-Hollywood-like ending that I thought was pretty refreshing. Those last two positive attributes, however, are two that will turn many people (mainly young viewers) off this movie. The lack of action will probably bore them, and the ending will probably infuriate them. But if you are a fan of older movies and their particular kind of storytelling, the movie is a good way to spend 114 minutes of your time.

A compelling title on one of the most compelling astrological signs and the movie is a 'tall order' to live up to, but brings it. The scenes go from scene to scene in a rapid pace to upkeep interest, maybe on a slight directorial ability to bring more out of the script which is good on the dialogue just could have a bit more action scenes , only because there is one main sequence for this about chasing down the main hero through a dilapidated/construction site. There are numerous assassinations though which are satisfying to checkout.. As for the dialogue it is nifty because of lots of spy talk , like mentioning 'get his posting' like getting his assassination gig job, or putting the 'net' on someone, boxing someone in, getting 'out' (exiting the assassin business), alluding cats not letting to go out because they could not survive since they are bred for debauchery like wh***s (?), wetowrk (?), wanting 'inside' (?), this does make a person know about spy stuff more, as they exchange these words in numerous offices, apartments, or even a bird sanctuary (!), and also rooms that look positively of a decor of yore (!) years, pretty elegant curtains, wooden surfaces. A discussion about Greek Gods clarifies the title, and one of the two main characters names who is a compelling person and I appreciate this bringing in mythology to this gritty raw spy thriller. One sequence went on too long involving two spies getting drunk in a living room, one being a Soviet and reminiscing of them being part of the 'old guard', which is cliche talk, other than that, there is some good sinister type music at parts, but not the construction/alley stuff which seems just *ok* but other music parts, piano type sounds. The two main characters Cross and Scorpio played by Lancaster and Delon are good. This is my first Delon movie, compelling intense guy. Lancaster is dope which I've noted from westerns.

The movie hasn't aged well, but it still lives with great performances by it's lead actors. The editing and pace feel a bit odd (or off) and it's not only, because it's a slow moving movie, but because some choices seem "wrong".

If you can overlook those "flaws", you can surely enjoy the movie. The story is pretty complicated though and you might feel a bit confused at the ending. But this confusion can be a good thing, too. And the more I think about the ending, the more I like it. While it could have a better set-up, it still delivers and gives the movie one final punch, that will leave you surely with some sort of taste in your mouth (as the saying goes). If you like spy movies, this is essential, otherwise be aware of it's flaws and downfalls.

This is a convoluted espionage thriller with shades of John Le Carre. Unfortunately Michael Winner directs it like an early 1970s Europudding with most of the main actors sound like they have been dubbed.

Burt Lancaster is veteran CIA spook Cross who wants to retire and live in peace with his wife. He has accumulated a nice nest egg.

However Cross is now branded by his employers as a double agent. It helps them to know that Cross has leftist sympathies during the Spanish civil war. His protege codenamed Scorpio (Alain Delon) has been tasked to wipe Cross out, a task he has been forced to do.

Both play a cat and mouse game across various cities. Scorpio is not sure if Cross is a double agent or has merely been framed.

Winner has adopted a cynical look at spies. Both Cross and his Soviet counterpart Zharkov (Paul Scofield) are disillusioned old men, both of live and their countries.

There is plenty of good action but it is a muddled story and with a disappointing ending.