Faux témoin

From the perspective of 2003, the saddest thing about this very downbeat picture is that it could never get made as a commercial production these days - certainly not with a middle-aged and far from beautiful character player in the lead. Although its structure relies on two large implausibilities, the story, characters and motivations are unashamedly adult and human: Zigzag takes life seriously, and when was the last mainstream picture you saw that did that?

The versatile and sympathetic heavy George Kennedy (if I'm ever on a passenger plane that's in trouble, I'd want him at the controls) gives an honest, understated performance as a flawed family man who takes a desperate road to a strange kind of redemption. The way he does that would have made a terrific lower-depths 1940s noir for a second-division star like Dana Andrews or Edmond O'Brien, but Zigzag loses nothing from its setting in the less obviously cinematic milieu of respectable lower-middle-class life in an up-and-up America that was just beginning to turn Dayglo.

I don't say it's a neglected classic - there's not the slightest touch of humour, the supporting cast aren't trying very hard, and the look of the film is reminiscent of an old episode of Kojak (so are most of the actors). Zigzag is just a solid piece of grown-up dramatic entertainment whose modest ambitions are positively Shakesperean compared to almost anything you could get insulted by at your local multiplex this weekend.

George Kennedy is an unusual actor for me. He is largely forgotten, yet has an Oscar to his name. He's in many of the films everyone remembers well, such as The Dirty Dozen, Airport and The Naked Gun, and yet he rarely catches the limelight as the leading man. He's also supremely talented, without ever appearing to be trying hard.

In this superior thriller, he plays a man who discovers that he has a brain tumour. He arranges his own death, so that his wife can claim the insurance money. However, just as his plan is about to kick into action, he learns that he has been mis-diagnosed and that, in fact, he is not dying at all.

This film stays one step ahead of the audience at all points. It is ingenious and interesting throughout, and has the added benefit of being a touch different to the majority of hard-boiled thrillers from this period. Perhaps it gets over-complex, and the downbeat ending is typical of the time. Nevertheless, this is a good film, and like some of the other user's who have reviewed it I am very baffled as to why it is unavailable on video.

Implausible, unsuspenseful, and just plain boring. If not for George Kennedy's near-nude scenes, This could have been a below average TV movie. Apparently, the producers felt that showing his bare rear end would be incentive to pay to see this in theaters. It really didn't do a thing for me.

This is currently on TCM and I tried hard but could only make it 30 minutes in. The directing and photography are the WORST I've ever seen. Do you enjoy extreme close ups of every single thing imaginable? Then maybe this movie is for you. Yes as several have mentioned You see Kennedy's ass and its totally unneeded. I do enjoy George Kennedy but he's best as a 2nd or 3rd character. He just can't carry a movie as a leading man.

The premise is familiar -- guy learns he's going to die, tries to find a way to leave his family provided for -- but it's presented in an interesting manner here, with Kennedy an appealing if unlikely lead. All goes well until the ending, which is so outrageously wrong for the movie that it completely sinks the film. A surprise ending is generally something many thrillers try for, but it has to be a surprise ending that satisfies the audience on some level, not one that throws the whole story back in their faces.