Dallas H
It feels like James Bond and Shawshank Redemption were thrown into a blender, and this movie is what was poured out into a glass.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
01/23/24
Full Review
Steve D
The story didn't work at all for me.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
08/04/23
Full Review
Crema G
after watching this, I feel as if the real story is off the screen -- you're left with the feeling this was all done to fulfill gambling debts, or contractual responsibilities, or for money laundering. Because the remarkable director, composer, and lead actor, notwithstanding, there is very little here to recommend to contemporary viewers, except those curious about what aimless and stultifying directing, musical composition, and acting look like on the screen. There are some interesting establishing shots of Central London in the early 1970s that might be of interest to visual historians, but that's about it.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
05/13/23
Full Review
roger j
Fair... signs of a cheap production. Obscure plot that did not hold together very well.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Russ G
Watched this 'cuz a movie fan's instinct is to not pass up film starring Ol' Blue Eyes and directed by John Huston. Unfortunately, Newman is miscast, the script - or, rather, lack of a complete one ready for the shooting schedule, based on several reports - is a muddle and the ending is laughable as it resolves a whole lot of Nuffin. Plot holes and discontinuities abound; our protagonist goes for a swim in a jacket and tie, yet an hour later he's bone dry. Couldn't the person in charge of continuity at least told Huston: "Have Paul ditch the tie and jacket; that'll at least look halfways plausible"....? As other reviewers state, the only thing that saves this is the chase and escape scenes and the cinematography. Huston didn't totally cock up those. Still, this isn't Huston's worst film; "Reflections in a Golden Eye" still owns that dubious distinction, with "Beat the Devil" a close second.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
11/19/22
Full Review
Audience Member
John Huston ("The African Queen" "The Maltese Falcon" "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre") directs this spy thriller scripted by Walter Hill ("The Driver" "48 Hrs." "Undisputed") which stars a top tier cast that includes Paul Newman, Dominique Sanda, James Mason, and a host of British actors who you're sure to recognize. There's also photography by Oscar winning cinematographer Oswald Morris and music by multiple Oscar winning composer Maurice Jarre. Sadly, what ends up on screen is dullsville. Newman plays a British secret agent who pretends to be an Australian criminal who later pretends to be Canadian, in order to infiltrate a secret spy organization run by villainous James Mason. The dullness of the film may be explained by some behind-the-scenes politics. Walter Hill was in the process of suing Warner Bros. but came to an agreement to adapt this book, which he halfheartedly did in order to complete his obligation. Hill later stated he only wrote the first half of the film and the rest was re-written by Huston and others, with the script not even completed two weeks into shooting. Cinematographer Oswald Morris also reported that Huston was rather disinterested in the film, showing up late to set and that Morris and crew were the ones who had to set up the shots for the day and catch up the unprepared Huston when he did finally show up. Newman was also reportedly disappointed at Huston's lack of enthusiasm for the project. Given all that, it's understandable that this spy thriller is rather lifeless. Still, Mason and Newman are compulsively watchable and even a disinterested Huston is still a better than most, so although lackluster, "The MacKintosh Man" is still watchable. Also, I think this is probably the first and only time you'll ever see Paul Newman coldcock a dog and drown it.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
01/31/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
