Le pacte Holcroft

Michael Caine as a German-American? Gimme a break! This whole project is so desperately flawed that even Lilli Palmer cannot save it, though her performance as Caine's mother is the best in the film. You know something is wrong when you see the opening credits: there are just too many screenwriters, and even Edward Anhalt is in there. How many rewrites can a succession of people do to save a doomed script? Clearly not enough. This is an excellent yarn, taken from a Robert Ludlum book which must have been a gripping story. But what a mess they have made of it. John Frankenheimer was an excellent director who was what one could call 'uneven'. In other words, he did not always deliver an acceptable result, and here he fails. He tries and tries, but it is no use. Anthony Andrews gives a better than expected performance, manages to avoid being arch, and with his blonde appearance convinces us that he is a German with an Iron Cross for a heart. Victoria Tennant, such an under-valued actress, does a fine job. Michael Lonsdale is wholly convincing as a quietly dominant Swiss banker who never needs to raise his voice because money speaks for him. It all could have been so good, but when you decide to cast a London cockney as an American architect whose father was a Nazi general, well please ... Michael Caine has never been anything other than Michael Caine. You could call that being true to himself or you could call it lack of talent. Certainly when he is called upon in this film to cry, you know it is glycerine drops, and the idea of a barrow boy crying, come on. The trouble was that in the 1970s Michael Caine was the only 'bankable' British star, which certainly gave too much power to his agent, Dennis Sellinger. And I guess this carried over into the eighties. But by then he was a shadow of the chirpy cricket of the East End that rode the wave of the revolution in class consciousness right to the top. Talk about perfect timing, Caine became the icon of a social movement. But somebody forgot to tell him how to act. Later in life, Caine finally picked up the skills along the way, and dozens of movies were his RADA, so he ended up a good actor in the end. But this was 1985, when he was still hopeless at being anyone but the same Michael Caine we saw last time, and the time before, and the time before. And that is a bore. Yes, tis a pity.

After reading nothing more than bad reps, I can see why. I find director John Frankenheimer to be a very capable action director, but here he's lost in a sea of murky conspiracies (involving a fourth Reich) and idle performances (Victoria Tennant and Anthony Andrews are unconvincing) in this very lukewarm, but drearily complicated political thriller. The problem mainly was contributed to the confounded screenplay (a Robert Ludlum adaptation), which lacked probability; efficient enough thrills and consisted of one-note characters. For most part it's about globe trotting (some striking international scenery), Michael Caine looking like a fish out of water, meeting up with important figures, those involved reminding each other how much danger they are in and shady scheming being set in motion for this 4.5 billion dollar Nazi fund. Too bad it's not as exciting and gripping, as it might sound. It lumbers along in quite an repetitive manner, even though a committed Frankenheimer tries his best to inject some stylishly, go-for-broke action suspense; when he does (and this few and far between) it shows his great eye for details and precision with the camera (he loved the tilting camera). Nonetheless he can only work what he has and what the source material allows (one or two stirring moments occur). No one really stands out from the cast; but Bernard Hepton has some amusing dialogue exchanges with Caine and Lilly Palmer has a small role. A frustratingly, unsatisfying mystery thriller.

All of the elements for a great thriller are there. An outstanding director, John Frankenheimer, An excellent source author, Robert Ludlum and a great leading man for thrillers, Michael Caine. What went wrong? The biggest problem I had with this film was the cinematography. The film was grainy and the sub-titles were very hard to read when the actors were speaking German. There were plenty of the usual Ludlum plot twists and misdirections, but somehow the feel of this film was not up to the usual standards of Frankenheimer or Caine. A lot of it is just too kinky for most people, but an accurate portrayal of Berlin during the cold war years. It would have faired better had it been released ten years earlier rather than later. It does deserve an E for effort.

I have not read the novel(though I'd like to, as well as other books by Ludlum), so I cannot draw comparisons, but I do understand that this adaptation does not stick that closely to the source material. And this continues my running tradition of me getting the lesser of the films that Frankenheimer directed. Seriously, Ronin, Reindeer Games, and now this... on the plus side, Ambush was awesome, and Path to War was excellent. This one is fine, not great. Editing and cinematography are reasonable, and this does have a couple of sophisticated moments. The plot is interesting enough. This is well-paced, and there are exciting and tense scenes. The music helps to ensure that the mood is established, and it arguably tries too hard at times, revealing itself to be manipulative. Caine is impeccable, as usual, and the acting in general is quite good. The dialog holds numerous well-delivered lines that are marvelous, memorable and worth quoting. There is moderate to strong language in this, a little disturbing content and some mild violence. I recommend this to the biggest fans of John and Michael. 6/10

The Holcroft Covenant takes its cue from a bestseller by the prolific Robert Ludlum. I've read the book and it's pretty good, with lots of globe trotting adventures and some startling twists and turns. It also takes upwards of 600 pages to tell its complex tale. The film version misses out most of the events from the book, yet tries in vain to remain faithful to the key plot points.... however, any film which tries to tell a 600 page story in less than two hours is doomed before it even begins. There's no surprise that this film is a muddled, intractable, poorly developed misfire. The story involves an inheritance in Nazi money which falls into the hands of several German descendants in the 1980s. The money is supposed to be a sort of compensation payment for the suffering and misery caused by WWII, but some of the inheritors are evil people and intend to use the money for nefarious purposes. Michael Caine plays one of the inheritors, Noel Holcroft (hence the title), and he sets out to ensure that it is used for good causes, but he finds that various others will kill to keep him from getting his hands on his rightful share.

The film is a terrible mess, and it's only too apparent that those involved were in it for the money. Every single performance is lazy. Frankenheimer once made great movies like The Manchurian Cnadidate and The French Connection 2, but here he is guilty of directing a listless hodge-podge that bears no trace of originality or flair. Caine has made too many bad movies, but this ranks amongst the very worst. No questions about it: this is a surefire low point for just about everyone involved.