Le pacte Holcroft

I have not read the novel(though I'd like to, as well as other books by Ludlum), so I cannot draw comparisons, but I do understand that this adaptation does not stick that closely to the source material. And this continues my running tradition of me getting the lesser of the films that Frankenheimer directed. Seriously, Ronin, Reindeer Games, and now this... on the plus side, Ambush was awesome, and Path to War was excellent. This one is fine, not great. Editing and cinematography are reasonable, and this does have a couple of sophisticated moments. The plot is interesting enough. This is well-paced, and there are exciting and tense scenes. The music helps to ensure that the mood is established, and it arguably tries too hard at times, revealing itself to be manipulative. Caine is impeccable, as usual, and the acting in general is quite good. The dialog holds numerous well-delivered lines that are marvelous, memorable and worth quoting. There is moderate to strong language in this, a little disturbing content and some mild violence. I recommend this to the biggest fans of John and Michael. 6/10

The Holcroft Covenant have as far I know only received bad reviews... Knowing that, I nonetheless bought the film on DVD out of curiosity. I've a fondness for bad movies and I have an affection for the espionage genre.

The Holcroft Covenant is based on the novel by Robert Ludlum . I've read a couple of his novels and they can be, if one is in the right sort of mood, exciting.

The thing one has to remember is that Ludlum's novels is about conspiracies and complicated plots and not about characters. They are plot driven. And that more than often does not make for a compelling movie experience. Somehow that was not taken into account when the transition from novel to screenplay was made.

When you go to the movies you want to care about the people in it. That's basically a film's measure of success. And thus The Holcroft Covenant fails.

But John Frankenheimer is not the one to blame. Based on the material he was given, he made a fairly interesting movie which showcases his talent as an action director. At times excellent, but not overwrought like most of the action movies are today. But apart form the scenery and the action-sequences, the films weak point lies in its characters.

They are neither very believable nor interesting enough to hold your attention. Even the star of the movie Michael Caine, a seasoned heavyweight in the espionage genre, seems out of sync in this one.

If you don't expect too much , you'll be moderately entertained. But knowing that the film is made by veteran craftsmen like John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod, one tends to be a bit disappointed.

All in all I gave The Holcroft Covenant 6 out 10

Kind regards, paul

In some ways, this film is reminiscent of "North By Northwest" because it, too, is about an ordinary guy who is tossed into the middle of some sort of dangerous intrigue and he has no real idea who to trust or even what's going on during most of the film. I am NOT saying that the quality of this film even approaches the quality of the older Hitchcock film...just noting the parallel.

When the film begins, there is a black and white prologue which is shocking to watch. Three Nazis are making some sort of a pack...after which the leader of the three kills the other two and then himself!! What IS this all about anyway? It was a wonderful way to pull in the viewer.

Next, the film jumps to the 1980s. Some schmuck, Noel Holcroft (Michael Caine) is doing what any good 'ol American is doing-- working and enjoying life. However, he's soon approached by some weird folks who tell him a weird tale about Noel's Nazi father. It seems he and two other Nazis were disenchanted by the party and felt horrible about the war crimes. So, they siphoned off a few billion so that years later it could be used to pay for the damage done by the Nazis. It seems that Noel is now the executor of this agreement and the letter he's given indicates that he needs to find the sons of the other two dead men from the beginning of the movie in order to get to these funds which are locked in a Swiss bank account. But he needs to find them...and folks suddenly start dying all around them...and it seems highly unlikely Noel will live very long-- especially since he has no idea who to trust. He also has no idea if this convoluted story is even true.

Because the story is MEANT to be confusing, I cannot fault the film for leaving me baffled repeatedly. What I can fault the movie for is having Noel behave so strangely. You would think if you were told this weird tale and folks started dying all around you that you'd go to the police or FBI or the local embassy. Yet, inexplicably, Noel gets pulled deeper and deeper in and even kills someone...even though he's not 100% sure if he's killing the right person! His weird acceptance of what folks tell him is mighty strange and is a shortcoming in the plot though late in the film he FINALLY starts to think. Additionally, I was totally confused by the casting of Michael Caine. After all, he was supposedly born in Germany but came to America as a young child and yet speaks like a Brit! And finally, in 1984 we are to buy into the idea of a new Fourth Reich!! This is a bit preposterous to say the least.

So it sounds like I didn't love the film...and that certainly is the case. But did I like any of it or would I recommend you see it? Not really...but I didn't hate it either. I clearly see this as one of the great director John Frankenheimer's biggest disappointments and could say the same for Robert Ludlum since it's his story. Also while I love Michael Caine, he was wrong for this film. Watchable but nothing more...and you definitely would have expected more from this film.

All of the elements for a great thriller are there. An outstanding director, John Frankenheimer, An excellent source author, Robert Ludlum and a great leading man for thrillers, Michael Caine. What went wrong? The biggest problem I had with this film was the cinematography. The film was grainy and the sub-titles were very hard to read when the actors were speaking German. There were plenty of the usual Ludlum plot twists and misdirections, but somehow the feel of this film was not up to the usual standards of Frankenheimer or Caine. A lot of it is just too kinky for most people, but an accurate portrayal of Berlin during the cold war years. It would have faired better had it been released ten years earlier rather than later. It does deserve an E for effort.

Michael Caine as a German-American? Gimme a break! This whole project is so desperately flawed that even Lilli Palmer cannot save it, though her performance as Caine's mother is the best in the film. You know something is wrong when you see the opening credits: there are just too many screenwriters, and even Edward Anhalt is in there. How many rewrites can a succession of people do to save a doomed script? Clearly not enough. This is an excellent yarn, taken from a Robert Ludlum book which must have been a gripping story. But what a mess they have made of it. John Frankenheimer was an excellent director who was what one could call 'uneven'. In other words, he did not always deliver an acceptable result, and here he fails. He tries and tries, but it is no use. Anthony Andrews gives a better than expected performance, manages to avoid being arch, and with his blonde appearance convinces us that he is a German with an Iron Cross for a heart. Victoria Tennant, such an under-valued actress, does a fine job. Michael Lonsdale is wholly convincing as a quietly dominant Swiss banker who never needs to raise his voice because money speaks for him. It all could have been so good, but when you decide to cast a London cockney as an American architect whose father was a Nazi general, well please ... Michael Caine has never been anything other than Michael Caine. You could call that being true to himself or you could call it lack of talent. Certainly when he is called upon in this film to cry, you know it is glycerine drops, and the idea of a barrow boy crying, come on. The trouble was that in the 1970s Michael Caine was the only 'bankable' British star, which certainly gave too much power to his agent, Dennis Sellinger. And I guess this carried over into the eighties. But by then he was a shadow of the chirpy cricket of the East End that rode the wave of the revolution in class consciousness right to the top. Talk about perfect timing, Caine became the icon of a social movement. But somebody forgot to tell him how to act. Later in life, Caine finally picked up the skills along the way, and dozens of movies were his RADA, so he ended up a good actor in the end. But this was 1985, when he was still hopeless at being anyone but the same Michael Caine we saw last time, and the time before, and the time before. And that is a bore. Yes, tis a pity.