The Last Voyage

I don't like ships. I don't like boats. I'm not a big fan of big, wide-open water so yeah....the ocean, bigger lakes, they freak me out. Yeah, psychiatric session instead of a movie review! I digress though as an introduction only. Movies about ships sinking creep me out in a big way. I saw Titanic in theaters twice, but yowza, that scared me. How about an earlier, far less known film about a ship sinking? Enter 1960's The Last Voyage.

The S.S. Claridon is making its way across the Pacific Ocean, sailing from California to Japan. An ocean liner that's been sailing for 38 years, the Claridon is well past its prime and long overdue for a major overhaul. Its captain, Robert Adams (George Sanders), is aware of all of this but isn't concerned when a fire breaks out below deck. His crew is able to stop the fire, but it is only the start, a problem born from a faulty boiler....a boiler that explodes soon after. The crew desperately tries to stop the fire as water flows into a breach in the hull. Can the aging Claridon be saved or is it a doomed ship destined to sink? Among the passengers is the Henderson family, husband Cliff (Robert Stack) trying to save his wife, Laurie (Dorothy Malone), who is pinned under an immense piece of metal wreckage in their berth. Time is slipping away at an alarming rate, the water levels rising ever quicker.

I've seen bits and pieces of this 1960 disaster flick several times, but it was only on my last viewing where I was able to watch the entire film. From director and screenplay writer Andrew L. Stone, 'Voyage' is an excellent early example of a disaster film, a genre that would rise to new heights in the late 1960s, especially in the 1970s. It has a lot of touches that would become all too familiar in the coming years, but none of it feels overdone...thankfully. This is a well-told, well-acted and well-executed disaster film that focuses on a desperate fight for survival, an aging ship groaning as it sinks. The only question becomes how quick will it sink? I liked that 'Voyage' is content to just be an exciting, sometimes uncomfortable story. The 1970s disaster flicks were big, bigger and biggest, one topping the other with a ridiculous premise and an all-star cast. This flick, just a really good movie.

So what makes it that good, that enjoyable? Well, I liked Titanic a lot for all its excesses and spectacle, but at 220 minutes, it is a lllllong movie. That is not a concern here, 'Voyage' clocking in at just 91 minutes. There's no wasted time, no fluff here. As viewers, we're thrust into the fire on Claridon as the credits roll. We don't see how it started, who anyone is, just that there's a fire on-board and it needs to be dealt with NOW. The same for once the boiler goes. This is the situation. Let's deal with it. Even when we meet the characters -- Capt. Adams, the Hendersons, the crew -- they are as we meet them. We get a brief explanation of why the Hendersons are on-board the Claridon, but that's all. This is a movie in the moment about a ship sinking where backstories and motivations and who these people are....it's all extra and unnecessary. A survival disaster movie at its most simple and straightforward.

Who will live? Who will die?!? The true star power isn't there, but we get a handful or so of familiar faces. The Hendersons are more interesting once the ship gets into trouble, Stack, Malone and their daughter, Jill (Tammy Marihugh), the picture of the American family up until that point, all lovey-dovey. But a ship sinking? Let the drama begin! Sanders gets to be the stubborn ship captain, trying to bring the ship into port without any loss of life, in the process putting his passengers, his crew and his ship in danger. I thought the best parts go to Woody Strode and Edmond O'Brien though, Strode as Hank Lawson, a crewman, and O'Brien as Walsh, the second engineer, both men trying to save the ship while the passengers scramble to safety. It was a hell of a year for Strode who turned in scene-stealing memorable parts here, in Spartacus and Sergeant Rutledge. He's an imposing physical presence here, shirtless with a bandana around his neck, sprinting around the ship to help Stack's Cliff. O'Brien too stands out from the sinking ship chaos, balancing saving his crew with those passengers in danger. Also look for Jack Kruschen as the chief engineer.

There's nothing too fancy here from acting to story to effects. 'Voyage' was filmed in very 1960s stylish sets, sets that add a nice throwback feel to the film now as we watch it 50-plus years later. Titanic obviously set the bar ridiculously high, but what's accomplished here without any computer-generated effects is impressive in itself. Stone and his crew used the famous French liner, the SS Ile de France, for the actual scenes showing the water washing over the fast-sinking Claridon, giving a nice sense of what the hellish experience would certainly be like. All of the sinking scenes feel real, that lack of CGI effects actually aiding the cause. None of it feels forced, and it is interesting throughout. An easy movie to recommend, especially for all you diehard Titanic fans out there.

The Last Voyage (1960): ***/****

Cairo

From director John Huston, 1950's The Asphalt Jungle is one of the all-time great film noirs, a heist flick with a great cast and story. It was inevitable, wasn't it? Yes......a remake, even if it is a little known remake. Some 13 years later with the location transplanted to Egypt, we get 1963's Cairo.

Released from a German prison after a long sentence, a man known only as the Major (George Sanders) arrives in Cairo with a new plan. He's been working on all the intricate details to pull off a dangerous if very lucrative job at the Cairo Museum, stealing the King Tut diamonds. The Major needs some help though and has to get some funding and backing from a respected if somewhat shady businessman/lawyer, Kuchuk (Walter Rilla), who has plans of his own with the diamonds. Putting his plan into action, the Major assembles a small team of specialists and crooks, including enforcer Ali (Richard Johnson). Everything is seemingly worked out to the last second, but no matter how much planning has been done, there's always something surprising waiting.

I'm going to sound like quite the movie hypocrite here because usually I'm completely against remakes. Did Huston's Asphalt Jungle really need to be remade? Nope, not in the least. It's basically perfect as is. Just the same, 13 years later here comes this almost scene-for-scene remake based off of W.R. Burnett's source novel. It simply isn't necessary so if you've seen Huston's version, you've seen this movie. Director Wolf Rilla (son of star Walter Rilla) does a solid if unspectacular job with his version, and it's entertaining throughout. It's a tad shorter than 'Asphalt,' clocking in at 91 minutes as opposed to 112 minutes, and it does feel a little rushed at times. Kenneth Jones' score is good without being intrusive. And maybe it was just the aged quality of a 1963 movie, but the shadowy, dark look of the movie is a nice touch.

The only difference between the two movies is the setting, and that's probably the biggest selling point for Cairo. Credit to director Rilla for shooting on-location in Cairo rather than a Hollywood-like Cairo set. The story moves along and develops on the Egyptian streets, Sanders, Johnson and the cast walking around with the population and not in front of a green screen. It's a simple thing, but it goes a long way toward giving a familiar story something memorable when you've seen everything else. The location include the more obvious ones like the Cairo Museum and the Pyramids, but it's cool just to see these places, even if it is in the background. Then there's the less familiar locations, the back alleys and streets, not to mention the desert roads and oasis' in the Egyptian countryside.

Beyond the first two or three stars listed in the cast, 'Cairo' features a predominantly Egyptian cast so for the most part, there is far less star power here than in 'Asphalt.' I liked Sanders a lot as the Major, a mysterious thief with no real explained background. He's an English gentleman, prim, proper and mannered who has a knack for pulling off difficult jobs. His character is more prominent than his 'Asphalt' counterpart. Besides the odd choice of casting the very English Johnson as a very Egyptian character, Johnson does a fine job as Ali, the enforcer who wants nothing more than return to his childhood farm but gambling problems have derailed those plans. He has an on-again, off-again relationship with Amina (Faten Hamama), a singer/dancer working in cheap clubs, helping humanize the tough character. As the biggest name stars, Sanders and Johnson get the majority of development and screentime, and they don't disappoint. It's a solid, natural chemistry among two very different men drawn together for a job.

The rest of the Major's crew includes Willy (John Meillon), a WWII vet who specializes in explosives and safecracking, Kerim (Ahmed Mazhar), the coffee house owner doubling as the getaway driver, and Nicodemos (Eric Pohlmann), the Major's link to everything in the criminal underworld and black market. Rilla too is solid as Kuchuk, the shady financier of the Major's plan with his own intentions. Salah Nazmi plays the police commandant hunting the thieves.

Here we are again, the actual heist. Pulling off the job is a good extended sequence, if not quite as complicated as it would seem according to the plan. Like so many heist films, the best is saved for last; the fall-out following the heist. As is so often the case, it's not the job that's the most difficult part. It is getting away with it and dealing with the inevitable double-crosses and betrayals. The post-heist fallout sticks close to 'Asphalt,' but it is full of tension and develops nicely. This 1963 remake is unnecessary, not adding anything new to the formula other than the Cairo setting, but it is entertaining throughout. Sometimes that's all that counts. Watch a slightly edited, shorter version HERE at Youtube.

Cairo (1963): ** 1/2 /****

Trunk to Cairo

Instead of using the exact same lead as I did previously in reviewing 1966 spaghetti western The Texican, I'm going to tweak it a little bit.  The year marked a decided change for Hollywood B-movie star Audie Murphy who after 30-plus movies in the United States turned to Europe for more roles.  It was a short-lived period because after 'Texican' and another 1966 flick, Trunk to Cairo, Murphy only made two more movies before his tragic death in 1971 in a plane crash.

The movie is a mess on so many levels.  It is an Israeli-West German co-production if you're looking for any sign of the quality of the movie on the whole.  'Trunk' aired somewhat recently on Turner Classic Movies, and as a fan of Murphy, I recorded it, especially because I had never heard of the movie in any way.  The reason was pretty clear.  Like so many movies from the 1960s that featured transplanted American stars, it is awful.  We're not talking guilty pleasure either, just a bad movie with few if any redeeming qualities.  Seeing stars at their absolute worst is never a quality calling card, and that's about all this one has going for it.

Traveling to Cairo, German scientist Ludwig Bauer (Murphy) meets Helga (Marianne Koch), a young German woman going to meet her father, Professor Schlieben (George Sanders). Several of Schlieben's co-workers -- all highly intelligent scientists -- have all been brutally murdered in bombing attacks, Bauer sent as a replacement for the good professor's most recent job.  Bauer is stunned at what he finds out.  Schlieben is working on and close to completing his latest contract, building an atomic weapon that could knock out a major city, handing the weapon over to the Egyptian government for use at their discretion.  Bauer has a secret though, he's a CIA agent working with the Israelis hoping to knock out this program run by Schlieben and his neo-Nazi cohorts.

This review has the potential to go poorly very quickly. About 20 minutes into this bomb, I realized I was watching just that...a bomb.  Bad but not bad enough to be a guilty pleasure, I ended up fast-forwarding through long stretches of the movie, the 103-minute running time still managing to go by at a seemingly endless pacing.  The powerhouse directing duo of Menahem Golan and Raphael Nussbaum -- yes, somehow these two giants of film were able to work together -- look to try and capitalize off the huge worldwide successes of the James Bond movies, but well....yeah, they fail.  Good effort, I guess.  Nah, who am I kidding? I could give some credit if the movie shot for the stars and crashed and burned. This one never gets off the launch pad.

In a recent wave of Audie Murphy reviews, I probably said the same thing over and over again. Good/Average actor at times who could be an above average actor with the right part, getting by on his on-screen persona and likability, audiences going along for the ride with his characters.  'Trunk' would not be a good movie to introduce someone to the real-life WWII hero who knew nothing about him.  Sleepwalking would be a kind way to describe his performance here as undercover secret agent, Mike Merrick. His Texas drawl is there, but he mumbles his way through his lines, and at times it looks like he's reading off cue-cards held just off camera.  He looks bored with the proceedings, clearly not his best effort.

This is not an effort to pile on Murphy, an underrated star/actor who I've always been a fan of.  The blame should get placed evenly and all over the place.  No one is safe here! Everyone comes under fire.  What did George Sanders do to deserve this fate later in his career? I suppose you could call his Dr. Schlieben the villain, but he's so clueless and harmless I can't quite call him a bad guy. Koch -- who I only knew from A Fistful of Dollars -- is the love interest of sorts who falls for Murphy's Merrick, getting caught up in the middle of this mess.  Hans von Borsody gets to play the ideal German, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Neo-Nazi who tangles with Merrick before meeting a nasty demise while Yossi Yadin plays Capt. Gabar, Schlieben's Egyptian liaison. Gila Almagor is a bright spot as Yasmine, an undercover contact working with Merrick.

Let's get a bright spot out of the way before I trash the movie on the whole. The locations in Cairo and later Rome look great so the movie's got that going for it...and that's about it. By the end of the movie, the previously serious spy thriller has degenerated to a slapstick chase the Keystone Cops would have been jealous of.  Composer Dov Seltzer turns in a laughably bad soundtrack that blares over the embarrassment, Murphy outrunning/outriding (on horseback) two Egyptian police on motorcycles chasing him because he rides up a gentle slope. The ending itself is a topper, but I only want to spoil so much of the badness.  I've got to leave some mystery for this steaming pile, don't I? It's forgotten for a reason. Steer clear.

Trunk to Cairo <---trailer (1966): */****

One Step to Hell

Thanks to a change in monthly pricing, I've had to adjust my Netflix subscription recently. Instead of paying about $10 per month for one DVD at a time and unlimited streaming content through their website, the rate for each individual feature got bumped up to $8...each. I don't watch enough movies at the website to justify subscribing both so starting in mid August (about when this review will be posted, give or take a few days) I lose Instant Watch capabilities.  In other words? I've got about 3 weeks to watch all the Instant Watch movies I wanted before I lose the chance.

That brings us to 1968's One Step to Hell, also known and released as King of Africa. Listed as a western through Netflix's website, this flick stars Ty Hardin and sounded like a pretty typical if hopefully enjoyable western oater. Well, part of that description was right, but it's hard to explain this one. It is a western -- sort of -- but it is set in Africa as opposed to the American west, it looks to have Italian backing and has the feel of spaghetti western, and worst of all, the version I saw was 90 minutes long even though a 100-minute version is supposedly available somewhere out there.  Odd, off the wall, eccentric, all three apply in this genuinely different western.

A British colonial policeman in South Africa around the turn of the 20th Century, Lt. King Ray (Hardin) faces a difficult decision. Three prisoners he helped bring in, including bandit ringleader Anders (George Rigaud), have escaped while being transported to a nearby town and a likely death sentence.  He can't convince his superiors (George Sanders in an odd cameo) to allow him to pursue the bandits though, forcing him to make a tough decision. He goes on "furlough," using his coming break to hit the trail and hopefully bring these bandits to justice. Anders and Co. up the ante quickly though when their goals become known. They've kidnapped the wife (Pier Angeli) of a gold mine owner and are using her to guide them to the hidden, lucrative mine. Can King catch up in time across the desolate plains of Africa?

Years of watching spaghetti westerns -- some really good, others really bad, but for the most part entertaining -- has trained me to appreciate these movies made on a smaller budget. There is a charm to the lower quality, no frills, action-packed stories where there were never really "good guys," just some guys who weren't as bad as the others. This is a movie that certainly qualifies in the vein of a spaghetti western. The African setting is a great change of pace (and a real beauty to look at with some stunning shots), and the story feels like so many westerns set in America, a bounty hunter/sheriff on the trail of a gang of outlaws. Nothing particularly remarkable about any of it, but going in it certainly sounded interesting.

This is a movie that has basically been completely forgotten over the last 40-plus years. Where to start for the reasons that might account for its complete lack of notoriety. The credits provide some clues, starting with director Nino Scolaro directing his one and only feature. For a movie and screenplay where the story never seems on a direct path to anywhere, there are five different names listed as helping in some way with the script. The biggest issue though -- because all the above problems can be dealt with -- is that I watched the 90-minute version, not the supposedly longer 100-minute cut that was released in Spain. Scenes end in a ragged fashion, leaving things unsettled and moving on before anything can be resolved. Is that because of the cuts or the jagged story to begin with? None of this is helped by composer Gianni Marchetti's score which ranges from spaghetti-themed and appropriate to jazzy and out of place at other times.

From an American perspective, some of these European productions from the 1960s and 1970s throw me for a loop. With a long cast listing, only 10 actual names have a character listed to them. That makes describing characters a tad bit difficult once you get past the main stars. On the backside of his career, Ty Hardin is a solid enough lead as Lt. King, a police officer trying to right a wrong. He's in beefcake mode here for the female members of the audience, always seeming to run around with little in the way of clothes on. Angeli is all right as Mrs. Benton, but I swear the script gets her character and Helga Line's Deborah confused late in the movie, Hardin's King even calling Mrs. Benton 'Deborah.' One relative bright spot is Rigaud as Anders, a somewhat charismatic aging outlaw looking for one last strike. His gang (some of the few people actually listed in the credits) include Luciano Pigozzi, Miguel Del Castillo, and Antonio Mayans among several other nameless actors. Rossano Brazzi has a small but solid part as Dr. Hamilton, a physician also trying to convert his African patients to Christianity.

'Step' certainly has all the makings of a solid if not so unique western, but something never clicks into place. Even at just 90 minutes, it ends up being surprisingly dull.  Long stretches of a slow-moving story are interrupted by quick bursts of graphic action, but the ending is never really in doubt, or at least it shouldn't be if you've got two or three brain cells working.  It ultimately gets some points for being unique in terms of setting and characters, but that's not enough to carry it overall.  A deeply flawed and even at times bad western that still manages to be entertaining.

One Step to Hell (1968): **/****

The Quiller Memorandum

By 1966, the James Bond phenomenon had taken over the world with the huge successes of Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball.  Audiences wanted more spy movies, and studios obliged them whenever they could.  A wall of international intrigue movies hit theaters ranging from Bond knockoffs to spoofs like the Matt Helm and Derek Flint series to attempts that took a more serious approach to the spy genre, including 1966's The Quiller Memorandum.

This is the anti James Bond movie, a spy story focusing on the more subtle but still very dangerous life of a espionage agent.  There is no globe-trotting heroics, no ridiculously over the top shootouts and chases, no bedding down of countless women, just a good old-fashioned story of a spy with a dangerous mission that could easily cost him his life.  You know what though? All those things about the Bond series that viewers typically either hate or love...they were fun to watch.  That's missing here.  It's a dull transition to the screen from a novel by Trevor Dudley Smith that lacks anything in the way of excitement or thrills.  I'm all for more realistic spy movies, but at least make them enjoyable to sit through.

Two British agents in post-WWII Berlin have been murdered so a new American agent, Quiller (George Segal), is brought in to pick up the investigation where his predecessors left off. His superior, Pol (Alec Guinness), tells him something else about the mission that could put him in even more danger.  Both murdered agents were investigating the possible reemergence of an extremist Nazi group that wants to again claim power in Germany. If possible, Quiller must infiltrate this Nazi group (headed by Max von Sydow) and find their hideout before any of their plan can take effect. One of the few clues Quiller has though to get close to the group is a schoolteacher, Inge (Senta Berger), who may or may not know more than she's letting on.

There was a lot about this movie that appealed to me.  The setting of post-World War II Berlin is a really unique to tell this hard-boiled story that remains rooted in a believable plot, not a plan to take over the world.  Director Michael Anderson is a visual director, using some great on-location shoots as Segal's Quiller explores Berlin looking for clues.  I've never thought of Berlin as a particularly pretty city, but the locations here are a great scene-setter and background.  It's refreshing also to see a spy movie so heavy on dialogue -- and good, snappy dialogue at that -- instead of relying so heavily on babes and action.  Visually, a great movie to watch and listen to when it's 'on' but not always an exciting movie to watch.

That last part surprised me because with the cast involved and the basic premise, it sounded like a real winner.  A second Nazi party looking to regain power? Now that's a prime villain if there ever was one.  Maybe the movie's best scene are these Nazis including von Sydow interrogating Segal in a great, very unique scene unlike any other interrogation I've seen in a movie.  Watch it HERE. That's the whole movie though, great moments broken up by long periods of nothing.  There is no real plot to begin with, and Segal's Quiller makes some unbelievably stupid decisions for someone who is considered such a top spy.  His character drifts along and stumbles into clues rather than deducing anything for himself.  Add in an oddly out of place and overbearing John Barry score, and the plotline is cartoonish with this blaring music being played over it.   

I don't fault Segal for bad acting here because it's the writing, not his acting.  His Quiller is just not a very strong main character.  A very capable spy by reputation, he makes decision after decision that should have ended with him getting a bullet in the head yet somehow he survives time and time again.  I have always liked Segal as an actor, but this wasn't his best part.  His romance with the lovely Senta Berger never goes anywhere and has a forced feeling to it.  They've got a decent chemistry together, but the story gets bogged down in their romantic interludes.  Worst of all, a somewhat coherent twist late in the movie between the two characters is so poorly handled that it misses having any impact.  The movie just ends with no resolution, or not one I was satisfied with.

Now I can't say I was surprised by the positives in this movie, both of them..Guinness and von Sydow.  Guinness' part as Pol is nothing more than three or four scenes that probably total 10-15 minutes on-screen, and he steals every scene he is in, especially an explanation of the trials Quiller will face from both sides.  Underused, sure, but what's there is choice.  Playing a steely-eyed, blonde and blue eye Nazi villain, who is better than von Sydow? His character is pretty one-note with no surprises, but he brings such a feeling of menace and intensity to it you can't help but remember his smallish part. Also watch for George Sanders in a humorous cameo as a higher-up agent in London. 

The Quiller Memorandum <---trailer (1966): **/****

The Kremlin Letter

Sometimes I get fed up with movies spoon-feeding their stories, their twists and turns with supposedly shocking revelations. They are the type of movies where you don't even have to be fully conscious to follow the story. Call it attention deficit disorder in younger viewers -- I'm 24 and resent people saying 'younger audiences' can't sit still for more than 10 minutes -- but for whatever reason movies more and more go down the road where original stories are dummied down so the average chimp can keep up.

So when I stumble across a movie that requires your attention for every second of screen time I jump at the chance. Movies with lots of information thrown your way in a short period of time can be frustrating and enjoyable at the same time. And where would this all work better because the genre framework is already established? Spy movies where betrayals, deceptions and double crosses are part of the landscape. Virtually forgotten 40 years since its release -- thanks to no DVD or VHS release -- 1970's The Kremlin Letter, directed by John Huston, is a nice little twist on the spy movie.

Released in the midst of the James Bond craze, The Kremlin Letter is basically the anti-007 in terms of action and storytelling. Huston's take is heavy on dialogue with almost no action from start to finish. Instead of action, there's tension to spare as a team of American and British agents go undercover in Moscow to accomplish a perilous mission. Countless bits of information and explanations about the setting and the characters are thrown your way without warning, forcing you to file away little bits of information in your head so a scene or a line makes sense later in the movie. With all that said, the "twist" revealed late isn't that much of a surprise -- if you're paying attention or have seen even a couple spy movie or two you'll spot it early -- but it does work because of how the twist affects the story.

In the midst of the Cold War, a single letter could tear apart the world if it falls into the wrong hands. A high-ranking American official has written a letter saying the U.S. would help the USSR in taking out China's nuclear weapons program, and the agent holding the letter turns up dead...without the letter. A new agent, Charles Rone (Patrick O'Neal), is assigned to assemble a team with the help of agents who have experience dating back to WWII. This group of American and British agents will be headed by Ward (Richard Boone) who will lead a group of specialists (Nigel Green, Dean Jagger, George Sanders, and Barbara Parkins) in hopes of getting the letter back before all-out war breaks out. Getting that letter won't be so easy though with two Russian agents, Kosnov (Max von Sydow) and Bresnavitch (Orson Welles) also involved.

Reading through that cast listing when I saw this movie on TCM's schedule, I'm not going to lie; I was a little disappointed in myself I'd never even heard of this movie...not even in passing, even a little bit. It's not a classic spy movie, but it is an above average entry. Most of that credit goes to Huston's directing and the performances he gets from this very impressive grouping of actors and actresses. With very little action, the spotlight is squarely on the cast to carry the movie. Some are in it more than others -- Jagger, Green and Sanders are criminally underused with some great eccentric characters -- but even the smaller performances leave an impression.

Never a huge star but always a reliable lead, O'Neal is the anti-007 in his portrayal of a spy. His Rone doesn't carry a gun, is a last-minute replacement for his position, and with his photographic memory and ability to remember everything told to him is a valuable member of the team. Instead of fighting his way out of a situation, Rone thinks things out before putting his life on the line, especially in a key subplot that sees him develop a relationship with von Sydow's Kosnov's wife, Erika (Bibi Andersson). As the veteran agent working with Rone, Richard Boone makes the biggest impression, and that's saying something considering the cast. His Ward is a scene-stealer, always addressing Rone as 'Nephew' with his Texan drawl, and demanding your attention every minute he's on-screen.

Their counterparts, von Sydow and Welles, have less time and development but don't waste a second. And really can you think of two better actors to play imposing, always intimidating Russian agents? Much like his role in 3 Days of the Condor, von Sydow is frightening with his steely glare, and when wasn't Welles an intimidating presence? The whole cast seems to be enjoying themselves with Green as a pimp/drug dealer, Sanders as a transvestite, and Parkins as a wet behind the ears safecracker. Raf Vallone even makes a quick appearance as an espionage teacher. They play the type of characters that could probably carry a movie on their own, but instead play supporting roles here. If I can find a copy of Noel Behn's source novel, I'll be sure to pick it up just to see if how much had to be cut for a feature film.

An interesting movie for any number of reasons, especially considering the year and time it was released in. It's hard to figure out why this little gem has been forgotten over the years (maybe it was too different from what audiences were seeing with the Bond series), but it is worth tracking down just to watch this great cast go to town with an interesting spy story. Convoluted at times but everything clears up in the end, including one last twist in the final scene.

The Kremlin Letter <----TCM clips (1970): ***/****

Man Hunt

Plots and conspiracies to kill political figures and social activists among others have existed as long as history itself. The flaw (or strength depending on how you look at) with making a movie about those subjects is that much of the time the audience will already know the end of the story. JFK, Lincoln, Ghandi, Archbishop Romero, you know that in the end, they're going to die. The same goes for people who weren't killed, think Day of the Jackal. Charles de Gaulle was not assassinated so it's obvious the Jackal is going to fail.

The enjoyment out of stories based in historical truth is in how the assassin is going to fail. The survivor of many assassination attempts, Adolf Hitler finally took his own life in Berlin in 1945 as the Russian forces closed in all around his underground complex. But for every attempt history has documented, like Valkyrie, how many failed? That's the basic idea of 1941's Man Hunt, an attempt on Hitler's life and the subsequent fallout in the summer of 1939 before Germany invaded Poland.

A tense opening sequence introduces a lone man, Alan Thorndike (Walter Pidgeon) walking through some a densely-wooded forest area. Armed with a precision rifle, Thorndike sets up a shot and is ready to take it. Who's in his scope? Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Third Reich. But before he can shoot, he's stopped by a guard. Under intense interrogation, Thorndike won't admit he was trying to kill Hitler. Instead, he says he just wanted to know what it felt like to have Hitler in his sights, but of course no one believes him. Thorndike refuses to sign a confession and ends up escaping when his captors attempt to kill him, all the while trying to make it seem like an accident.

Running for his life, Thorndike somehow makes it to safety, stowing away on a Danish freighter meant for London. But he isn't as safe as he thinks and soon finds out that two German agents are on his trail, Maj. Quive-Smith (George Sanders) and Mr. Jones (John Carradine). Thorndike gets help from a lower class British woman, Jerry Stokes (Joan Bennett), who has no idea what's she stepped into. Thorndike knows he cannot be captured, but he also can't go to the English government for help. He's completely on his own and must figure out a way to survive.

The premise is very interesting, and the opening sequence is a great introduction to the story. Seeing Hitler in Thorndike's sights is a startling moment because even when he places a bullet in the chamber, it's obvious he won't pull the trigger, not successfully at least. But the movie goes downhill almost immediately after this extended sequence. Thorndike escapes when the Germans plan to make his death look like an accident in a truly ridiculous scene. He's pushed off a cliff -- a high one at that -- but somehow survives without as much as a broken bone. I had trouble believing that Hitler's security force would have waited till hours later to check that the man was dead. On a bigger level, more likely they would have put a bullet in his head and not thought twice about it before even heading up to that cliff.

But it doesn't stop there as Thorndike seeds aid from Bennett's Jerry. This plot device has been used countless times and usually in a much stronger fashion; an unknowing, sometimes unwilling individual gets involved in some dangerous situation and decides to go all in. But watching the character, all I could think of was how she acts like a pouting toddler most of the time. Thorndike does his best to look out for her and keep her out of danger, but she grimaces, scrunches up her face and demands to be taken along. At one point, she even demands he buy her a new pin for her hat because her favorite one fell off when they were being chased. Granted, this pin serves a purpose late in the movie, but that doesn't take away the unnecessarily obnoxious make-up of the character.

All those logistical flaws -- incompetent Nazis, really? -- and annoyances aside, this would be a good movie. Having the Gestapo hunting you down does have its fair share of worry and tension involved. Two chase scenes, one in a busy London subway station, and the other a race through the streets on a foggy night, highlight the movie's better aspects. But too often, Pidgeon acts like the proper English gentleman, shrugging off the situation with a 'tut, tut' and 'cheerio, old chap' but in these scenes it'd be hard to ruin the atmosphere. His confrontations with the German agents are surprisingly graphic, not in what they show but what's actually happening in terms of violence, especially considering it was released in 1941.

Could have been an excellent WWII thriller but the flaws are just too much to ignore. Good villainous turns for Sanders and Carradine as the German agents on the hunt (Carradine barely says 10 words and is terrifying as all hell). The premise alone might make you want to check this one out, and I won't say 'don't do it' but be forewarned about a very flawed and sometimes entertaining movie. The ending is a little much too, even for a movie with a propaganda motive. Sorry, couldn't find a trailer anywhere.

Man Hunt (1941): **/****