Lechuguilla
The wealthy host of an English country estate named Adrian Messenger (John Merivale) presents his friend, Anthony Gethryn (George C. Scott) with a list of ten people he wants investigated. Gethryn finds that the list consists of people who either have already died an accidental death or are still living and who may soon die. The assumption is that someone wants all these people dead. Gethryn and his sidekick Le Borg (Jacques Roux) plow through the clues, and eventually solve the mystery.The script gives us an array of strange characters who may, or may not, be the murderer. And B&W lighting conveys an air of mystery. But the plot is contrived and contains too much filler in the form of repetitious and lengthy foxhunts.Scott plays his role well. Dana Wynter, in her stylish 1960s clothes, is annoyingly aloof and her performance is consistent with the stuffy English atmosphere the film presents throughout. I have always liked Herbert Marshall, and his performance here is terrific in a minor role.But then comes that final ten minutes. I don't mind gimmicks if they're not too intrusive or obnoxious. However, here the scriptwriter and director have so little confidence in their film project, they insert a huge gimmick, apparently hoping to distract viewers from what is clearly an inferior script.Unlike some viewers, I do not watch films to see movie stars. I watch to see an interesting story. When you have to break the fourth wall and announce the presence of well-known Hollywood celebrities as the main point of your film, that blatant show of stardom screams distraction in a most condescendingly fraudulent way. And it ruins just about everything that went before.
elevenangrymen
Anthony Gethryn is enjoying a weekend in the country with an old flame, Lady Jocelyn, and her cousin Adrian Messenger. Then, after a fox hunt, Anthony is pulled aside by Adrian, and Adrian gives him a list of names. He tells Anthony to look into their names, but doesn't give any reason why. Adrian then leaves for America, but en route his airplane explodes, and he dies. Anthony begins to look into the names, before realizing that most of them are dead.He then meets with a man who tells him Adrian's last words. Suddenly, he begins to realize that someone wanted him dead, and everyone on his list as well. Along with Jocelyn and a man named Raoul, Anthony slowly begins to realize that a massive conspiracy is underway, but it is too late?In order to make a good thriller, one must have three components. A plot that contains an amount of mystery, a lead with whom you can cheer for, and a feeling of palpable dread. The List of Adrian Messenger has none of the above. Does that make it a bad movie? No, but it certainly doesn't make it a good thriller. It appears to be Huston just sitting back and resting. Indeed, when I read the plot summary, I thought the premise was very good indeed. It sounded exactly like the stuff good thrillers were made of.Of course, it wasn't. Huston wasn't nearly involved enough to give the film any edge whatsoever. The entire affair felt as if Huston was just going through the motions. Despite the outstanding cast, Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Kirk Douglas, Frank Sinatra, Dana Wynter, and George C. Scott, only Scott, Wynter and Douglas are on screen for any measure of time. In fact, most of the film rests on the shoulders of Scott.George C. Scott is an outstanding actor, but here, despite the initial shock of "it's George C. Scott with a mustache!" he doesn't really do much with the character. The British accent is admirable, but even it soon wears thin (along with the mustache), and in fact his character is surprisingly dull. It doesn't help that he is given some really bad lines ("This is not the work of many men, but one man who is many men!"), but a veteran actor like Scott should have been able to flush out his performance.Dana Wynter was perfectly suited to be furniture, and her performance is wooden as a board, but not because of her. It isn't fault that her character is perfectly useless. There is a connection between her and Scott's character mentioned, but it is dropped after a few lines. Jacques Roux, who plays Scott's sidekick also suffers from having nothing to do. The juiciest part of the film goes to Kirk Douglas, as the man who is many men, and he is good. The thing is, he isn't given enough time to show his evilness, and the film's lightweight tone doesn't help him either.The celebrity cameos never elevate above gimmick, and the film doesn't showcase the cameos enough for the audience members to guess who is who. The script had promise, but under Huston's monotonous direction, the plot never really excites. In fact the film's tone is so light, one could mistake it for a satire, similar in tone to Beat the Devil. The first half really makes this seem as if it was actually what Huston wanted. However, when the second half begin, it is made clear that this is not a comedy, much to the film's detriment.The makeup used to hide the celebrities is actually not half bad, but it makes the skin of the mask look very old, and plastic like. Still, it is convincing enough to hide many celebrities, and it makes for an interesting enough ending. The film's sets are really basic, and even the climax is kind of boring. The plane crash scene looks intensely amateurish, especially when compared to a similar scene in Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in 1940.The cinematography is one note, and never becomes that interesting. The fox hunting scenes are the best shot scenes of the film, but the sport itself is rather confusing to me. Which brings me to the direction by Huston. Lax doesn't describe it. Anyone could have shot this film, and none of Huston's usual trademarks can be seen. It is a very boring exercise, only because no one seemed interested in the film, except Kirk Douglas. And even Douglas wasn't allowed to do much because Huston wasn't doing much.In short, what could have been a great thriller falls short of it's target. It still manages to entertain, but not nearly as much as it could have.The List of Adrian Messenger, 1963, Starring: George C. Scott, Kirk Douglas and Dana Wynter, Directed by John Huston, 6/10 (C-)(This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review every John Huston movie. You can read this and other reviews at http://www.everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)
kmoh-1
There has been much discussion about the accents in the movie. For the record, George C. Scott's English is nearly OK but very variable - no Englishman would say 'dah-ta' for 'data'. Jacques Roux is barely comprehensible. But the worst performance is that of Tony Huston, his first and mercifully final film performance, as Derek. No English nobleman would be called Derek - even Kevin or Trevor would be more plausible names. And his attempt at English is lamentable; it makes Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins seem like Sir C. Aubrey Smith. Young Derek is possibly the most murderable child actor in the history of cinema.But strangely, the duff Englishisms add to the film's sense of an end-of-term pantomime. It is great fun, not serious, and not worth taking seriously.
