Un cri dans l'ombre

I understand those who don't like George Peppard in this film. His performance as something of a superman among a regular bunch of crooks is almost unbearable and adds to the film's character of general superficial abominability. Orson Welles' performance is interesting, and Inger Stevens is all right, but the script is very stereotype. Nevertheless it deals with some serious problems, the constant universal problem of a superior race wanting to take charge of the world and turn it into a superstate, the idea of a world government has always been a present issue in history, and was never more actual than today. Still, the issue gets lost in atrocities and too many murders, constantly excelling each other in inhuman cruelty, and there is the objection: An important issue gets drowned in effects, an all too common problem in modern films. What makes film worth watching in spite of all this is the wonderful photography and cinematography - the filming of Paris makes this film enjoyable in spite of the inhuman domination.

In the sixties, spy stories were galore on screens, more or less 007 like oriented, with cool heroes, or more disenchanted ones. There are also some Hitchcock movies elements in this movie. It begins very slowly then becomes more interesting, but not the John Guillermin's best. With the same Georpe Peppard, I preferd PJ, also from Universal Studios, or still with Peppard, of course the awesome BLUE MAX, for me the Guillermin's ever best, with TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE. The director was not that inspired on this movie, that's my opinion. It's only entertainment and on this point, he succeeded. Mostly set in France, it evokes the war in Algeria, OAS clandestine organization - more or less involved with fascists oriented groups...And Orson Welles is impressive, smashing walnuts with his fingers - fists.....

This is one of those films I have fond memories of from my childhood. I remember I used to tune it in every time it appeared on TV. Yes, now being an old fart and having finally seen it again after it's long absence, I was somewhat disappointed, but not entirely. There are still some wonderful things about it. Primarily the score by Frances Lai, the beautiful photography and scenery (it made me want to go to Paris for a long time), Orson Welles as the villain, but mostly the wonderful Inger Stevens as the female protagonist. What hasn't survived the test of time are the silly plot and George Peppard. I used to like him in his TV show (Banacek, NOT the A-Team), but then I heard an interview with Pat Neal which told about what a bastard he was in real life, and I can't find myself liking any of his performances now, even though I may like the movie. Anyway, I do still enjoy the movie, and am glad I was finally able to find it again.

I went to see this at age 15 because I enjoyed the Stanley Ellin book it's based on. The movie is imitation Hitchcock of a very high order. (The climax in the Colosseum is pure Hitchcock.) Peppard is supposed to be a washed up boxer, and he has just the beat-up, world-weary sexiness the part needs. Inger Stevens is very glamorous as the lady of the house with her problems and secrets. The Paris setting is very well used, and that's important because the movie has a unique premise. The villains are pied noir terrorists left over from the Algerian revolution, displaced from their colonial home, reactionary, and deeply opposed to the French government of that appeaser DeGaulle. It gives a certain reality to the mysterious goings on. I thought the film did full justice to the novel, except that they unavoidably dispensed with the novel's use of Tarot cards to organize the chapters thematically. The music is great too. There's a title song in French that I'd love to have a recording of. It's sad to see Stevens looking so lovely and giving such a good performance so close to her tragic real-life suicide. She was special, and there's great chemistry between her and Peppard.

There is little wrong with this movie. But then there's something just not right . . .

Then as the film rolls on the flaw becomes clear: the movie is paced a tad too slow.

It's well acted, well written and beautifully filmed. The incidental music works, the minor characters are played well, and the storyline is quite believable. If it had been a bit more sassy in pace & energy then the film would have worked better.

George Peppard has a laid-back attitude to his character. Which would have worked excellently had the pace of the film been more upbeat: we would have sensed a man fighting his surroundings, yin against yang. That would have fit in nicely with the story. But as each - pace & protagonist - were so leisurely, this stance took the film almost to a frustratingly downbeat attitude. I believe relaxed was more Peppard's own style in life re his profession, as I gather he refuted being a star - despite the studios loving his being a 6 foot tall blonde hunk of a man. Instead he preferred to do things his own way. (So he missed his calling then: as he seems truly an actor suited to the '60s & '70s, rather than a box office screen idol of the decade he started acting, the '50s.)

The best points are when the writer surprises us ((no spoilers here!)). At these points the film really starts to take off at last . . . Only to then lose that all-important tempo. Disappointing. As the rest of the film seems to offer little in unexpected moments, or any real excitement. And as the movie is meant to be a suspense story, with all the associated moments in a thriller of unforeseen turns, such 'zip' is what is lacking.

Had it been less maudlin in feel, I could have rated it higher. Sadly, as a thriller it doesn't offer much in the way of thrills! Insipid it is, inspiring it (sadly) is not.