Le coup du lapin

Danger Route has usually been dismissed (if not ignored) as an unexciting, confused and run-of-the mill spy thriller, not to say another unsuccessful attempt from the second half of the 1960s to cash in on the success of the James Bond series. Yet, while it is imperfect in several ways, Danger Route deserves credit for its original and intelligent plot, dark realism and fine performances. Despite its misleading promotional poster, the film does not actually try to entice the viewer with Bond-style suspense and action sequences, but rather with its complex intrigue and character study of a disillusioned secret agent operating in a world where no-one may be quite what they seem to be. Indeed, the film's style is closer to the genre more successfully represented by the likes of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and the Harry Palmer films starring Michael Caine. Perhaps the plot lingers a little bit at the beginning and appears unnecessarily convoluted, but if one is willing to struggle through some confusion, it is quite interesting to follow and remains consistently unpredictable. It is somewhat difficult to get emotionally engaged into the story, partly because the main character, played by Richard Johnson, is rather enigmatic and distant - he is after all a cold-blooded assassin (albeit one working on "our side"). But this is arguably part of the film's originality. While there had already been a few similarly dark and cynical espionage dramas by 1967 (notably those aforementioned), it was not yet common to have such a morally ambiguous and cynical hero. This would, however, become much more the norm for this film genre in the 1970s. Richard Johnson does a fine job of conveying the detachment and weariness of this character, even subtly managing to attract some sympathy for his predicament. Johnson is surrounded by a strong cast that includes Carol Lynley, Barbara Bouchet, Gordon Jackson, Sylvia Syms, Harry Andrews, and Diana Dors, who all give very good performances. Where the film slightly fails in my view is in its uneven direction (it is known that director Seth Holm became ill during the shooting of the film) and average production values, which sometimes make it seem like a B-feature, although it is not. Ultimately, I don't consider Danger Route to quite be a good film, but it is certainly better than your routine spy romp, and has some interesting elements going for it.

Some years back, I had recorded this (on VHS) off the MGM cable channel but the reception had been so poor I did not make it through the film; eventually, I upgraded to a decent copy – albeit also sourced from MGM and, thus, panned-and-scanned! Anyway, I decided to check this out now (and the two remaining unwatched films from this promising but short-lived director) as a follow-up to star Richard Johnson's recently-viewed appearances – in the same mould – as Bulldog Drummond but also in anticipation of two upcoming Holt revisits in my ongoing tribute to the late Hammer scribe Jimmy Sangster. Still, unlike those two lightweight spy films, this is anything but campy or glossy; in fact, typical of most Cold War espionage yarns of its era (equating realism with glumness), the plot is fairly obscure, so that the result proves oddly unmemorable despite careful work all around!

It is therefore up to an impressive cast (in uniformly fine form) to deliver the goods and keep one watching: Johnson, Carol Lynley (as his two-timing girlfriend who tries to poison him at the end – but her fish get it instead! – and whom he fells with a karate chop!), Barbara Bouchet (as an initially suspicious addition to the spy ring but who ultimately emerges a heroic trooper and even loses her life to the 'cause'), Harry Andrews (as Johnson's suave superior), Gordon Jackson (as the hero's seemingly laid-back skipper-partner but who turns out to be opportunistic, duplicitous and sadistic), Sylvia Syms (as Andrews' nagging wife who gets abducted on a train by Johnson), Diana Dors (as a housekeeper to a defecting scientist seduced by Johnson in the guise of a salesman), Sam Wanamaker (as the C.I.A.'s top man dubbed "Lucinda" and Bouchet's boss) and Maurice Denham (as Johnson's elderly team-mate whose murder starts the ball rolling).

The film opens in a movie theater where one is given to understand that Johnson will himself be eliminated by his own side once he completes his next mission, but this does not happen (having discovered the mole in their organization) but is nonetheless kept on a leash by the umbrella-carrying Andrews in the freeze-frame finale (incidentally, Holt's start as an editor at Ealing Studios is much in evidence here as the film's pacing is very tight, with scenes hardly being allowed to finish off or permitted to start gradually)! Apparently, Johnson was Terence Young's first choice to play James Bond but, as I said earlier, his world-weary 'eliminator' (the title of the original source novel) here is closer to the austerity of Harry Palmer. Johnson and Bouchet were once a romantic item and, as it happens, they probably both owe their popularity in cult movie circles today to Italian film-maker Lucio Fulci via, respectively, ZOMBIE (1979) and DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING (1972)!

Interestingly enough, Holt (who worked for Hammer 3 times) is here employed by their main rivals, Amicus; for the record, he had already dabbled in the spy world by directing episodes of TV's DANGER MAN (1960-61) and ESPIONAGE (1964). The film under review – which the director apparently dismissed as "dreadful" and claimed he only made it because he "needed the bread"! – is Holt's final completed work (in the U.S. it was unceremoniously released as a double-feature, incongruously paired with Paul Wendkos' second-rate war movie ATTACK ON THE IRON COAST {1968}!), since alcoholism got the better of him…dying at the young age of 47 two-thirds of the way through shooting Hammer's superior BLOOD FROM THE MUMMY'S TOMB (1971)!; even so, Johnson later named him one of the best taskmasters he ever worked for.

. But worth noting for its star Richard Johnson and director Seth Holt. A former Royal Shakespeare Company actor, Johnson was Bond director Terence Young's original choice to play 007 and might have proved much closer to author Ian Fleming's concept of him. Indeed, Johnson was briefly groomed by the Rank Organisation in the late Sixties as their answer to Sean Connery, hoping to ride the Bond slipstream (but the two films Deadlier Than the Male and Some Girls Do were too cynically packaged to work as either imitation or spoof).

Johnson's brand of worried suavity found a better vehicle here. A minor addition to the murkier side of the genre, it remains most notable for Holt. A former editor, Holt's deft cutting room skills had made two suspense films he directed for Hammer (Taste of Fear and The Nanny) unusually seamless and subtle.

Alas, in Danger Route, even his assured touch failed to enliven an intractable plot about Cross-Channel espionage. But an exceptionally strong support cast - Harry Andrews, Diana Dors and Gordon Jackson - and a certain casual ruthlessness, lift this film above the totally routine. And Carol Lynley and Barbara Bouchet are truly gorgeous.

Trite cynicisms and a trashy title-song date Danger Route unsympathetically. But Holt's admirers will discern enough in its minor virtues to compensate.

This is another movie from the mid 1960's that sought to leap on board the Bond -wagon but for the most fell lamentably short.Richard Johnson - a talented actor deserving of better material-plays a British agent Jonas Wilde who is ordered by his superiors to kill a Czech scientist being held captive by the Americans in Dorset ,Southern england.the reasons are never wholly clear . The over complicated plot sees him getting involved with a senior British civil servant( Harry Andrews ), who vanishes mysteriously ; a double agent (Gordon Jackson)and 4 women who all -quite unaccountably fall for his charms .These are played by Diana Dors ,Sylvia Syms ,Barbara Bouchet and Carol Lynley

Wilde is ambivalent about his profession and would love to quit but his bosses will not let him The plot is twisty and too complex and while the odd scene is exciting and the acting is solid, mostly this is confusing and dull with none of the gloss and style of the Bond movies it aspires to be like

To compare this film to 007 Bond films would to be lead readers astray.

Bond films don't have tight plots - this film is far closer to the films and series based on John Le Carré's works. The film is never boring and seems to finish too soon - one would have liked more time for the denouement.

And that is a sign of a good tight plot - when the viewer feels that the film has ended too soon.

The film shows how without any gadgets and spectacular action a good plot can still hold the viewers' attention.

There is action - fights and murders - but they are not spectacular - nor are they intended to be. They are cold, quick and quiet.

It is an enjoyable secret service film from the 1960's - a predecessor for the excellent Le Carré films and series.

Enjoy it!