With a director like John Huston and a great cast, being adapted from a very good book, this should have been much better. It's still not bad at all, I enjoyed it very much, but the overall result looks like a waste of the ingredients to begin with.
First of all, you have to be *very* familiar with the spy genre / movies / novels / jargon / that world in general, for the movie to make any sense. Unless you're acquainted with the works of John Le Carre etc, it's difficult to follow, or even guess why anyone is doing what they're doing. In my imdb reviews and during movie-related chats with friends, I often complain that most Hollywood movies think audiences are morons, and spell everything out for them, but this movie was an exception where the opposite is true: yes, there are clues as to who is doing what and why, but they are hidden so deep that you have to be a spy yourself to solve the whole thing.
I don't know if the reason is the direction of John Huston (who was at one of those periods in his life where he wasn't giving his best to his work) or the adaptation, script, whatever. But talk to 10 people who have seen this movie for the first time, and they'll each tell the plot differently. Who is the Paul Newman character after? Is it a diamond thief? Is it a Russian spy? Or a double spy? Is it a gang that breaks prisoners out? Is it the Russian spy's handler?
That aside (although admittedly, the fact that a movie is incomprehensible is very difficult to put aside) the performances and the atmosphere work. I've never seen Paul Newman give a bad performance (although I admit, I haven't seen The Silver Chalice) but the real holding force of the movie is the great supporting cast. James Mason and Ian Bannen, two great actors, are always a joy to see. Huston regulars Harry Andrews, Leo Glenn and Noel Purcell, plus a great performance from Nigel Patrick are also a treat. But the surprise of the movie, at least for me, was Dominique Sanda, making her Hollywood debut. I was quite surprised to read that some reviewers thought her performance was cold, aloof, and that "she appeared emotionless because she understood little English, not knowing what's going on". No, that's how her character is supposed to be! It's not a bad performance from an inexperienced actress, on the contrary: it's a masterful performance that few actresses would be able to pull off. I absolutely loved her in this movie.
There's intrigue, fights, escapes, chases, shootouts, the usual spy movie thrills, and a great cast. The theme music, and the general atmosphere is also very nice, Huston knows how to do it even when he's hamming it. If only the whole thing made more sense upon first viewing, it could have been a minor spy classic.
First of all, you have to be *very* familiar with the spy genre / movies / novels / jargon / that world in general, for the movie to make any sense. Unless you're acquainted with the works of John Le Carre etc, it's difficult to follow, or even guess why anyone is doing what they're doing. In my imdb reviews and during movie-related chats with friends, I often complain that most Hollywood movies think audiences are morons, and spell everything out for them, but this movie was an exception where the opposite is true: yes, there are clues as to who is doing what and why, but they are hidden so deep that you have to be a spy yourself to solve the whole thing.
I don't know if the reason is the direction of John Huston (who was at one of those periods in his life where he wasn't giving his best to his work) or the adaptation, script, whatever. But talk to 10 people who have seen this movie for the first time, and they'll each tell the plot differently. Who is the Paul Newman character after? Is it a diamond thief? Is it a Russian spy? Or a double spy? Is it a gang that breaks prisoners out? Is it the Russian spy's handler?
That aside (although admittedly, the fact that a movie is incomprehensible is very difficult to put aside) the performances and the atmosphere work. I've never seen Paul Newman give a bad performance (although I admit, I haven't seen The Silver Chalice) but the real holding force of the movie is the great supporting cast. James Mason and Ian Bannen, two great actors, are always a joy to see. Huston regulars Harry Andrews, Leo Glenn and Noel Purcell, plus a great performance from Nigel Patrick are also a treat. But the surprise of the movie, at least for me, was Dominique Sanda, making her Hollywood debut. I was quite surprised to read that some reviewers thought her performance was cold, aloof, and that "she appeared emotionless because she understood little English, not knowing what's going on". No, that's how her character is supposed to be! It's not a bad performance from an inexperienced actress, on the contrary: it's a masterful performance that few actresses would be able to pull off. I absolutely loved her in this movie.
There's intrigue, fights, escapes, chases, shootouts, the usual spy movie thrills, and a great cast. The theme music, and the general atmosphere is also very nice, Huston knows how to do it even when he's hamming it. If only the whole thing made more sense upon first viewing, it could have been a minor spy classic.