VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,1/10
828
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaWitnessing an assassination, a boy claims the assassins are hunting him. With his older sister, the pair escape numerous attacks and are aided by their grandfather and a resourceful young by... Leggi tuttoWitnessing an assassination, a boy claims the assassins are hunting him. With his older sister, the pair escape numerous attacks and are aided by their grandfather and a resourceful young bystander even under the spectre of martial law.Witnessing an assassination, a boy claims the assassins are hunting him. With his older sister, the pair escape numerous attacks and are aided by their grandfather and a resourceful young bystander even under the spectre of martial law.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Joseph Fürst
- Local Police Sgt
- (as Joseph Furst)
Jonathan Burn
- Waiter
- (as Johnathan Burn/Jonathan Burn)
Tommy Eytle
- Visiting President
- (as Tom Eytle)
Recensioni in evidenza
I very rarely write reviews that are not positive, but once in a while when I see a movie that is particularly painful and I personally find way overrated, well, I feel I should at least leave a brief comment about it, even though it may be against the tide or opinion.
Maybe, it's just that the film itself is a product of its time (1970) but for me, having to wade through the first almost 30 minutes and all the 'Cutesy' little scenes and the scenes that set up the parade that too FOREVER, and then when I got to when Mark Lester is trying to tell them about the shooting, and then having to endure the ever so painful Susan George's HUGE overacting, well... seriously, we are already a 1/3 the way through the movie and, at least for me, has been quite a trial.
I SUPPOSE that if you can put up with all the what I feel are very Cheeeeeeezy directorial flourishes and almost every scene screaming 'Look at me how showy I'm being!', and can just get through the story, maybe you possibly might be able to get something out of it.
It's not that I am a snob by any means and I do love a variety of films, some can be rather silly or over the top, some more clever, some deeply scary and atmospheric, that's fine. But, when the combination of what I feel is very amateurish direction (where I would personally lay the most fault) and grossly overacting and paper thin characters at best, I'm sorry, for me I honestly just find it truly painful to watch.
I hope that this may help those who may feel similar to the way I do, as opposed to the many rather positive reviews that are here. I gave it a fairly rare '4'...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MY PARTICULAR WAY OF RATING:
5 - Flawed, but with some entertainment value.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
Maybe, it's just that the film itself is a product of its time (1970) but for me, having to wade through the first almost 30 minutes and all the 'Cutesy' little scenes and the scenes that set up the parade that too FOREVER, and then when I got to when Mark Lester is trying to tell them about the shooting, and then having to endure the ever so painful Susan George's HUGE overacting, well... seriously, we are already a 1/3 the way through the movie and, at least for me, has been quite a trial.
I SUPPOSE that if you can put up with all the what I feel are very Cheeeeeeezy directorial flourishes and almost every scene screaming 'Look at me how showy I'm being!', and can just get through the story, maybe you possibly might be able to get something out of it.
It's not that I am a snob by any means and I do love a variety of films, some can be rather silly or over the top, some more clever, some deeply scary and atmospheric, that's fine. But, when the combination of what I feel is very amateurish direction (where I would personally lay the most fault) and grossly overacting and paper thin characters at best, I'm sorry, for me I honestly just find it truly painful to watch.
I hope that this may help those who may feel similar to the way I do, as opposed to the many rather positive reviews that are here. I gave it a fairly rare '4'...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ MY PARTICULAR WAY OF RATING:
5 - Flawed, but with some entertainment value.
6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.
7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.
And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )
This had all the trademark features to turn out be a first rate thriller in the frame of Hitchcock, but something just comes off short. Maybe because we already know how the story will play out, but director John Hough's confident, stylistic verve in his set-pieces shows how talent can transcend basic material into something better then it should. Well lets not forget the other aspects that seem to draw you in too. A beautifully picturesque Mediterranean backdrop is easy on the eyes. David Holmes' fancily off-kilter camera-work maintains a smooth flow, despite its constant imaginative changes (reflections, tilts) in positioning to invoke intrigue and tension. The music engraved in the feature by composers' Fairfield Parlour and David Whitaker has a real cheeky twinge, and very edgy awe that peppers the on screen action. It was only Hough's second feature, but definitely one of his sleepers. Some of the exciting acts (of destruction), could go on to cement themselves in his bang-bang, gust buster film "Dirt Mary Crazy Larry (1974)", which also starred Susan George. She co-stars here, but the ravishing starlet seems underdone. However Lionel Jeffries is appealingly amusing whenever in shot and Mark Lester ably does the job. There are good turns by Peter Vaughan, Tony Boner and Jeremy Kemp. The plot is straight-forward, but held together by its "The boy cried wolf" theme interwoven into a cat and mouse thriller with cracking suspense and startling jolts. Some plot devices are too convenient, but it throws up some little gloomy and lethal surprises along the way. An acceptable thriller done with enough panache.
"Pins you to the edge of your seat" is the tagline for this film, and while that could be aptly applied to many thrillers; it certainly doesn't suit this one! John Hough's Eyewitness has the basis for a decent story (even if it's not all that original) but it's never capitalised on properly and, for the first two thirds at least, the film is slow, largely uninteresting and lacks tension and suspense; thus not providing what you want or expect from a film that calls itself thriller (much less, one that proudly proclaims that you will be on the edge of your seat). The plot takes obvious influence from the common thriller idea of having somebody witness a crime and then having the perpetrators go after that person; here, we also have a bit of 'the boy who cried wolf' thrown in too for good measure. The eyewitness of the title is a boy named Ziggy who goes to watch a parade and ends up witnessing an assassination. It's not long before the assassins are on his tail, but naturally considering the boy's track record for lying, his family don't believe him...
The film is rather well produced; it looks nice, is well directed and mostly features good acting from the ensemble cast. Lionel Jeffries is my pick of the performers and he does well as the eccentric grandfather and head of the family. He gets good support from Tony Bonner as a young stranger who ends up with the family due to a care few and the beautiful Susan George as his granddaughter. The film also features a performance from Mark Lester and this is where the film falls down. The child actor will always be famous for his role as Oliver Twist in the 1968 film (I'm not a fan), but here he is completely irritating and doesn't do much than run around looking scared for the ninety minute duration. The first two thirds of the film are very slow and dull and that's a shame because the film really opens in the final half hour and is actually quite good; but by then I was too bored to care as much as I could have done were it not for the disappointing opening. The climax to the film is quite good and on the whole, while I wouldn't say this is a bad film; it's not a particularly good one either.
The film is rather well produced; it looks nice, is well directed and mostly features good acting from the ensemble cast. Lionel Jeffries is my pick of the performers and he does well as the eccentric grandfather and head of the family. He gets good support from Tony Bonner as a young stranger who ends up with the family due to a care few and the beautiful Susan George as his granddaughter. The film also features a performance from Mark Lester and this is where the film falls down. The child actor will always be famous for his role as Oliver Twist in the 1968 film (I'm not a fan), but here he is completely irritating and doesn't do much than run around looking scared for the ninety minute duration. The first two thirds of the film are very slow and dull and that's a shame because the film really opens in the final half hour and is actually quite good; but by then I was too bored to care as much as I could have done were it not for the disappointing opening. The climax to the film is quite good and on the whole, while I wouldn't say this is a bad film; it's not a particularly good one either.
Pros: a beautiful scenery, the plot itself is OK, a few not quite expected events, there's some suspense, a few chases and some of the actors did pretty well. Not an amazing film, but it's pretty good, all things considered.
Cons: the grandfather is way too eccentric and behaves like a retired magician, or a circus ringmaster, not at all like a retired high rank military officer. I get that he likes his grandson and is amused by his free spirited attitude, and while that is cute, there's simply no way to take the grandpop's behaviour seriously. It's just not believable and it did spoil the film for me a fair bit. With that being said, while he acts strangely throughout most of the film, he turns into some sort of action hero towards the end.
Cons: the grandfather is way too eccentric and behaves like a retired magician, or a circus ringmaster, not at all like a retired high rank military officer. I get that he likes his grandson and is amused by his free spirited attitude, and while that is cute, there's simply no way to take the grandpop's behaviour seriously. It's just not believable and it did spoil the film for me a fair bit. With that being said, while he acts strangely throughout most of the film, he turns into some sort of action hero towards the end.
In this interesting variation on THE BOY WHO CRIED WOLF and THE WINDOW, a little boy(Mark Lester), known for telling tall tales, witnesses the brutal murder of a visiting President in Malta. Naturally, when he tries to tell his family they don't believe him, but the killers do! A good suspense film, but the cast is better than the material. Lester(of OLIVER fame) is outstanding as the colorful little lad, and Susan George and Lionel Jeffries as his frustrated sister and grandfather are fine support.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizBased on the novel Eyewitness (London, 1966) by Mark Hebden (aka John Harris).
- BlooperMuch of the car chase has the action obviously speeded up which is also a pity because it really didn't need to be as the chase is dramatic anyway.
- ConnessioniEdited into Dusk to Dawn Drive-In Trash-o-Rama Show Vol. 9 (2002)
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Sudden Terror?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Il testimone da uccidere
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Malta(made entirely on location in)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 31min(91 min)
- Proporzioni
- 1.66 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti