L'exécuteur

I liked this film; because even though the film is 50 years old, the picture provides a very interesting and vivid panorama of people and society during the Cold War.

I think this film also depicts very well the intellectual clash between Western- and Soviet Intelligence during the Cold War; both sides being guilty of unscrupulous and unethical conduct, by using innocent people as pawns to further their own respective agendas. On the other hand, these negative policies by Intelligence Agencies during the Cold War probably also helped a bit to avoid another world war; conventional diplomacy having failed between the West and the Soviet Union during that time - before the Cold War ended and the Iron Curtain was finally lifted. Regrettably though, it would seem that those times are not quite over yet. Although spies and diplomats are much more gently disposed and peace loving than in the Cold War; there is still some work to do concerning International Peacebuilding and diplomacy. Hence we should do everything in our power to make sure that human rights are no longer infringed upon; and to convince British, American, Russian, French, German and Chinese Intelligence agencies - and all other Intelligence Agencies in the world - to get those rogue factions from the International Intelligence Community in line, so that human rights can fully be upheld - and that all intelligence agencies in the world finally make peace with each other, so that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) can be manifested in the International Community.

On another note, I think this film shows very well that gender issues are very much a topic in the intelligence community. In this film the British MI5 agent John Shay (George Peppard) suspects a colleague of his to be a double agent, who happens to be the husband of a girl he loves - and this causes all kinds of problems in the close-knit MI5 intelligence community; with three highly trained British agents wanting to have a romantic relationship with the kind and lovely Sarah; played by Joan Collins. As it turns out, Sarah is a bit of a Femme fatale; having a bit of fun with MI5 agents - perhaps because out of boredom, or perhaps because Sarah is not as kind and lovely as she appears to be, having some unresolved psychological issues - even though she is not a Russian spy, but just a misguided soul, lacking the mystic power to manifest joy, love and harmony in her life.

In short, this is a great film with a remarkable resemblance of today's world; highlighting human frailties in the Intelligence Community - of yesterday and today :)

I watched this film last night on YouTube and although there was a lot to like...the film also seemed choppy...especially at the beginning. As a result, the context for what was happening felt missing for some time as things were not clearly spelled out by the script.

George Peppard is VERY oddly cast as a British secret service agent. The film says he was British but was raised in America in order to explain his lack of a British accent...which he never even approximated. I don't know why they did this...perhaps they were thinking adding an American would make the film more marketable...but also confusing.

The story begins with the communists capturing a bunch of British agents. Obviously someone was a traitor but when John Shay (Peppard) wants to investigate this, his superiors are strangely antagonistic towards him. So, he decides on his own to investigate...and this ends up meaning killing the man he suspects of being the turncoat. What else? See the movie.

Peppard's character is easy to like or hate. On the negative side, he's extremely terse and you learn very little about him. But, on the positive, you might assume an agent would be exactly that way...in order to prevent them from saying the wrong thing.

So is it any good? Well, I liked the story but just felt that Peppard was a bit too flat. Not a terrible film by any stretch...but I couldn't help but think it could have been better.

Severe and merciless penalties should be given to people who dare to write a screenplay that is titled "The Executioner" and then subsequently deliver a film that is indescribably boring and almost doesn't contain any action whatsoever; let alone executions! I read in a few reviews that this is the more intelligent espionage thriller… You know, the type of film that gives realistic insights in the true world of secret agents rather than the contemporary James Bond movies that were all about stunts, flamboyance and gadgetry. Well, it may or may not be true that "The Executioner" is realistic but it's certainly NOT entertaining and certainly NOT the least bit memorable, unlike the vast majority of James Bond episodes. To make things even worse: the movie starts out extremely promising, with Peppard strolling around in the garden of a luxurious villa where just a bloody massacre took place. There are bloodied corpses left, right and at the bottom of the pool. Unfortunately, the boring 100 minutes that follow are a giant flashback clarifying the building up towards this massacre. American actor George Peppard depicts British secret agent John Shay. He explains at least a dozen times that his Yankee accent comes from the fact that he was raised in America. Shay suspects that his colleague Adam Booth is a double- agent who betrays the Queen by passing secret information to the Russians. Shay's superiors don't believe him, or perhaps they are protecting Booth, and he even gets suspended. Shay remains certain that he's right and seeks for further evidence in Greece, although it may also just be that he's jealous, because Booth is married to the beautiful Sarah with whom Shay once had an affair. "The Executioner" is a long – seemingly endless, in fact – and dreadfully tedious series of pointless dialogues and newly introduced characters of which you don't know who they are and why they are relevant to the plot. There isn't any suspense or mystery, and you don't feel the least bit connected with any of the lead characters, especially John Shay because he behaves like an arrogant and stubborn little boy. I was never a big fan of George Peppard, apart from his roles in the movies "Damnation Alley" and "Race for the Yankee Zephyr". His performance here is one of the most monotonous and indifferent I've ever seen. I can't write anything positive about "The Executioner", except that Judy Geeson is cute and that it's always a pleasure to watch Charles Gray (although his role is immensely dull as well)

Sam Wanamaker did a very good job of directing this excellent Cold War spy drama, back in the days when no one imagined the Cold War would ever end. The story is essentially British, so the excuse for using the American star George Peppard in the lead is that 'he grew up in America', hence has the accent. Peppard was always good in these parts as the good guy struggling against the forces of darkness, whether Nazis or Communists. He is romantically involved with the popular ingénue actress of the day, Judy Geeson. Sam must have thought she looked a bit too cute in real life, so he stuck some studious spectacles on her face to give her a bit of gravitas. Judy really was extremely cute, and a very sweet-natured person as well. I met her back then along with her parents and sister, and what a 'cute clan' they all were. They were great art lovers and liked to go to private views, which is how I met them all together like that. They had a particular favourite artist whom they always patronised, but I can't remember who he was. Judy's greatest asset was that lovely look around her eyes, which made her such an irresistible sight for any camera, or any fellow, for that matter. Good old Oscar Homolka is here called upon for the n-th time to play a defecting Russian spy, and does even better than usual. Joan Collins does a good job of acting, playing a difficult and amorous ex-lover (type casting?), and generally Sam could be said to get the best out of his actors because he was one himself, so he knew how to treat them and understood the pressures they were under. This is a rollicking good tale of the times, not as sophisticated and profound as le Carré of course, then then who was? There are the usual deceptions, twists, double-crosses and triple-crosses, all good stuff.

Unremarkable B British movie. I don't know if it is the director or the acting, but there is no energy in it. It is watchable (once). You can see a glimmer of the charisma Joan Collins can bring to a nighttime soap opera. The blonde girl was a bit whiny for my taste. The dresses for she and Joan Collins were outstanding. I saw a blue number I wouldn't mind wearing myself. The movie had potential, if in the right hands. It was relatively painless, but kind of flat. You didn't feel you were at the Parthenon even though they splurged on location shooting. The movie cover looks far more exciting than the movie itself. There were areas where there should have been music to set the mood, but there was silence. In the proper hands this movie could have been a classic.