Sadly Over-hyped

From my favorite movies..

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

We are dealing with a few sacred monsters, starting with director John Huston (who casted himself in a small role in the film), then Orson Welles and George Sanders. Nigel Green, Richard Boone, Patrick O'Neal, are not sacred monsters, but they do their job well, are good actors. Barbara Parkins (the beauty from "Puppet on a Chain", "Bear Island" and "Valley of the Dolls") is a sexy innocence. Bibi Andersson(a favorite of Ingmar Bergman) makes a great role. Max von Sydow (another favorite of Ingmar Bergman) is brilliant too, as usual. And the great actress Lila Kedrova (Madame Hortense in "Zorba the Greek") has a role too small for her huge talent. A very special film about the sacrifices that spies have to make for their own homelands... or others homelands.

Majestically directed by Huston, stuffed with great performances including Richard Boon, John O'Shea, Nigel Green, and especially Max Von Sydow who is in compelling form. Bibi Andersson is a revelation, so full of tenderness, anger and despair.Full of engaging characters, unexpected scenes, and plenty of twists this is a neglected classic of the genre.It needs a proper DVD release with plenty of extras, before all those involved pass away (Bibi Andersson and Barbara Parkins are the only principals still with us) Despite being central to the plot Orson Wells has little more than a cameo. O'Shea is little known now but deserves a larger entry in the footnotes of the secret agent roll.

I think my first comment is to those who viewed this and give it the tag "best spy film ever" surely need to sit down and watch all of Huston's work and then re-watch it. You'll then see, this was an early misfire. I mean a misfire by a mile. For the life of me I can't see how anyone thinks this is a good film. I guess that's the novelty of being human and having freedom of expression(especially on the internet).I've read the reviews and have found a few that state exactly what I thought from the start. This thing was a mess and it was too intricate/complicated for it's own good. There are so many holes and "huh?" moments it's laughable. This had a decent cast but man did they try to put too much into 2 hours. It was just jumbled up. To me the one character that epitomizes this film is the one played by Richard Boone. Anyone with any sense that believes that a guy that has a thick southern drawl, who's a spy, is gonna prance through Russia w/o being noticed is in need of some serious "Film 101" classes. Believability factor....0

Maybe I'm using after-the-facts explanations, not intended when this movie appeared in 1970. But somehow, Kremlin Letter (KL) started to make more sense, once I saw the spy intrigue as rather an excuse for parading a set of seedy, vicious characters,drifting on a sea of self-serving cynicism. The team of the shadowy Tillinger Foundation seems to come right out of a catalog of the finest human weaknesses: the greed, boredom and perversity of The Whore, the stereotypical homosexuality of Warlock, the deadly cynicism of Ward. On the other side of the Wall, things aren't better either: the wickedness of Erika Kosnov, the ruthlessness of her KGB-husband, the scheming Bresnavitch… The Z-team of useful weaknesses is send to the USSR. They want to find a document, which in reality is nothing more than a bait for a sinister trap, designed by a revengeful agent. A bit thin, no ? For a start, the content of the letter is far-fetched, weakening the plot. A letter, written by a top CIA man without approval of the highest political circles, promising military assistance to the USSR, if China would threaten Moscow with nuclear weapons ? Come on.... Why would a high ranking CIA man put something like this on paper, and sign it without approval of the White House ? What would be the value of such a letter, without White House backing ? The KL is supposed to have been stolen by the Russians, does it mean that the Russians managed to open a safe in the CIA headquarters ? But who told about the existence of that letter to outsiders ? And how can the Z-team be sure that once they have retrieved the real letter, no copies have been made etc. But hey, it's a movie, let's allow some space for exaggeration...Even if one doesn't get much answers in the movie… Watching KL often feels like having to carve one's way through a dense forest of question marks. I haven't red the book yet. But if you are acquainted with the enormous difference between the screenplay and the book of "The Quiller Memorandum", you'll know that some prudence is indeed necessary here. Where the Quiller movie left me with a similar kind of dissatisfaction as KL, Adam Hall's book turned out to be excellent, putting everything in perspective and making more sense than the movie. So, maybe reading Noel Behn's book will have the same effect. At least the writer is supposed to have interesting background, having worked for the Army's CIC.Comparing KL with movies like "Spy who came in from the cold" therefor may be somewhat odd. OK, both movies are of course quite complex, both deal with betrayal and double crossing, but "Spy" left me much more satisfied in the end. It's based on a solid book, and the movie sticks closely to it. So, most questions one could have during the movie therefor have dissolved at the end of it. The intention of KL seems to be quite different. It seems to seek deliberately to leave a different impression at the end. It doesn't care for answering all the questions, and seems to be seeking purposely to be more intriguing. But again, I might be explaining things with hindsight, not intended in 1970. It would take more research, to see if indeed the movie was promoted that way. Did the marketing boys and media spin doctors at the time try to sell KL as a "delicious dive into perverted cynical circles", "a stroll amidst a block of skyscraping human weaknesses", competing to tower above the other weaknesses ? Or did it try to reach the spy movie audience, and therefor failed catastrophically at the box office ? However, it certainly is not a good sign however, if indeed Huston didn't comment a lot about this child of him...Anyway, if being intriguing, keeping us guessing was the real intention of the movie, it's clear it didn't succeed. Several reviewers criticizing bitterly the script missed the point it might have been the intention of the makers to weave some mystery, to wrap the intrigue in confusion. And if so, of course the main characters aren't likable as Tom Cruise or Renee Zellweger ! If the theory above is correct, that must have been exactly the point the movie wanted to make. But as said before, several reviewers missed that point. Without wanting to be insulting, this either says something about the reviewers, either about the movie. OK, KL doesn't have the clearcut and logical structure à la "Spy who came in…", nor does it have the same hip qualities as "Ipcress file". At least it has a top notch cast ! Richard Boone was outstanding as the falsely jovial, cynical team leader with his potato shaped nose. I also liked von Sydow very much as the efficient, ruthless KGB man (he is supposed to have killed off the population of a whole village, just to find a few suspects) with one damaging weakness, his love for a wicked woman. He seems to have made a career and a fortune out of playing such ruthless, efficient characters: Oktober in "Quiller Memorandum" or the hit man in "3 days of the Condor"Strangely enough, the movie may not have been released officially on video in English, but CBS FOX edited it dubbed in French (1987). Did it maybe get a better reception here in Europe ? Anyway, as the original movie is otherwise impossible to find on either video or DVD, I immediately bought it, when I came across it in a second hand store in Brussels. And even if KL has serious flaws, I'm glad I did !