I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Blistering performances.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Seeing this heist film made me yearn for the no-nonsense efficiency of Kubrick's classic The Killing (1956). I can't recall any other heist film that generated absolutely no tension or suspense the way this one does. Instead the screenplay is cluttered with parts that fit together about as well as a bombed-out house. Writer Girard treats connecting threads as a needless distraction, which I guess we're supposed to take as the mark of European sophistication, 1960's style. Instead, we're treated to the wolfish Coburn's irresistible way with women, something about a Soviet premier on a visit, nameless guys who sort of appear and reappear leaving few tracks, and something about getting money from a bank after it's closed. The idea is to toss them all into the air and see how they come down.Now, it might be argued that the movie is not really a heist film at all. That it's really not a genre film despite superficial appearances. Rather, the robbery and its planning are merely events leading up to some kind ironic point in the end about Eli outsmarting himself. Or some such more general point than merely a heist film. Okay. But the same general problem remains—the movie's just too slow and disjointed to hold interest regardless how it's defined.Despite all, there are several redeeming features. There's ditzy Nina Wayne (Frieda) looking and sounding like her sexy sister Carol doing one of her hilarious bits on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. Then there's the LA airport looking like a giant spider that's decide to squat on the city. And for old movie fans, it's an easy gig for Aldo Ray who gets marquee billing and about three lines of dialog. And finally, there's the neat twist ending—too bad this flash of inspiration is so slow in coming. In my book, it's one of the disappointing crime films of its time.

For quite some time, this movie has held a place on my list of quintessential 60s guilty pleasure; it's a mini-super-light heist flick variation on some of the same themes in John Boorman's masterpiece, POINT BLANK - with its consistent visual chronicling of a transient American culture made anonymous by its materialistic-quack preoccupations (and thus,easily vulnerable to chameleon criminality). James Coburn, who plays DEAD HEAT'S hero shares some of Lee Marvin's traits in POINT BLANK. Both men move, mysteriously, like the wind, "beat the system," "win out" as anti-heroes but, in the process,they negate themselves out of existence ( they are, literally, "gone with the wind" at their respective pictures' fade-outs). On this last go-round, having just recently watched it again (via TCM), I'm prepared to give it a less qualified, more hearty endorsement. Writer-director, Bernard Girard makes the best case for modern international airports to be THE stage for absurdist comedy of any film I can think of. It begins with a mock-dramatic monologue by Coburn that keys the unique tongue-in-cheek tone of the film brilliantly and is probably the best acting he ever did on film. Stu Philips' catchy theme music maintains the puckish spirit of the piece in a way that few American movie scores of the 60s ( or movie scores of any other period for that matter) have been able to do as successfully or as memorably.

Handsomely-produced, location-rich crime-drama with a light touch concerns a recently-paroled crook who gets right down to business upon his release: using a variety of aliases across the US while masterminding a complicated heist on the bank at Los Angeles International Airport. In the flashy leading role, James Coburn never resorts to mugging or other outrageous tactics; he's dry as a martini, but not above a little wily interplay with the ladies. Director Bernard Girard's own screenplay is complicated enough without the asides to the surveillance team surrounding the visiting Russian Premier, and a romantic subplot involving Camilla Sparv (which ties in to the finale) is as obtuse as the film's unwieldy title. Still--for Coburn buffs especially--there are several strong sequences building up to the tightly wrought finish, and the well-chosen supporting cast is solid. ** from ****

First, I LOVE James Coburn.That said, this is a film made (as several other people have noted) during Hollywood's mid-60's transition, so, on one hand it's got that early 60's, lush, buffed, faux-location quality (especially the early parts of the film), and a grittier, realistic real-location quality.the film features a bevy of character actors, and for me - a delightful surprise - was seeing the late(great!) Carol Wayne's almost identical younger sister, Nina (who didn't make a lot of appearances) as a housekeeper named Frieda Schmid -(doing a remarkable Carol Wayne impersonation), who Coburn wines & dines in order to gain entrance to her boss' home.The biggest problem with the picture is that it seems to be pulled in those two directions - the early 60's sex romp, and the later 60's grittiness. That plays out in several ways, chief amongst them is (as noted by another reviewer) the film code did not let the 'baddies' enjoy their purloined proceeds. After they do the caper, you sit - waiting for 'the man' to show up, and slap on the cuffs.I'm not going to give away what happens, but I will say that you really DO have to wait until the last few seconds for the big 'twist.' I'm not going to say this is the worst picture of that ilk, it's middling, and definitely enjoyable.