Some things I liked some I did not.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Some of the negative reviews here seem to be because of not paying proper attention to the story (particularly, understanding the clever flashback structure), and/or getting hung up over the makeup/tin head effects. Its a huge shame that these might dissuade people from seeing this brilliant film. The appearance of Lucas Martino (the tin man) is irrelevant. What matters is that all the FBI has to go on to identify him is his responses. Another reviewer (no doubt distracted by facebook rather than actually watching) mentioned 'why don't they just compare his fingerprints?' but its explained in the film that whilst the arm may belong to Martino, it doesn't guarantee that the head/mind does. At its heart, the film explores a fascinating theme about identity, what makes a person who they are in a way that couldn't be imitated and taught to someone else. Between the lines is a chess-game style thought-battle between two sides, figuring out what to do with this guy, and trying to solve the puzzle of how to prove that someone is who they say they are. There's a desperate, tragic and lonely feeling underlying the conversations, when trying to distill the very essence of a person's humanity. What really makes the idea work is the meticulous structure of the film - we see the present day situation of the FBI trying to figure out who he is, intercut with flashbacks of the Russians questioning him and figuring out whether to send back a spy instead. So the audience has to think and consider all the angles along with both the Russian spy commander and the FBI agent, trying to second guess events but never really knowing for sure who the man is (or more importantly - HOW to know) until the very end. I've seen this film at least six times and still enjoy its ideas and main philosophical puzzle each time, despite knowing the outcome. Its such a great shame that people are so blind-sided by the lack of action, the dodgy makeup effects, the woeful mis-marketing and obvious low budget of the film to recognise what is actually a great story, and a very intelligently structured film. There are two particularly ropy moments - a car-chase/shootout at an airport, and a completely pointless/unnecessary moment where an agent chases our mystery man across a road, runs into the side of a car, then leaps over its hood and ends up dead. Next scene: mystery man says "Sorry about Finchley". FBI agents ignores it, moves into next line of questioning. Its pretty absurd. If these stupid shoe- horned attempts at 'action' were cut out completely, it would be a better film. I would love to see a polished remake of this story by someone like Chris Nolan or Denis Villeneuve - taking the flashback structure and running with it to really explore the themes and push the emotional side into new territories. It would surely be a classic of philosophical sci-fi. Genuinely, this is one of my favourite movies of all time.

WHO? is an interesting little Cold War thriller with an existential theme. It involves a top American scientist who is involved in a car accident in communist Germany. When he's returned home, due to horrific burns his whole head is encased in a metal mask, which makes him look like a robot. However, the powers that be question his very identity, and wonder whether he is in fact a Russian spy...It's certainly an intriguing set-up, and what I loved about this film is that it deals with questions of identity and existence in a thought-provoking way. The whole movie hinges on the acting of Joseph Bova inside the mask, and very good he is too, despite looking ridiculous. He brings a real sense of sadness to the part so that you feel for his plight.The mystery aspects of the storyline are acceptable, and there are a few action scenes to perk things up a little bit. Elliott Gould is the nominal protagonist in this one but he plays rather a dull and stuffy character, although Trevor Howard is fun in his flashback scenes. WHO? isn't an entirely successful film, which is why it's virtually forgotten these days, but it's definitely worth a look for those with a penchant for offbeat cinema.

Just when you think Cold War espionage films can't get any more absurd, along comes this positively robotic sleep-inducer, which strives to be much more clever than it actually is.To be frank, the plot itself has opportunities for a nice if silly play on identities and the shuffled chronology offers a good basic premise, but it's all ruined by weak direction, a lame narrative, lackadaisical acting (although Gould is his usual lovably crumpled self) and a terrible score.Dumas used an iron mask to much better effect...3 out of 10 ridiculous car chases

For those like myself who enjoy films that fit into no particular genre, and would enjoy a scene like a silver-headed metal man happily driving a tractor, this thing may be for you. ROBO MAN, as it is known on the video box, is a pretty strange affair. It is actually more psychological cat and mouse game than anything else, with the poor, metal-headed guy caught in the middle. The movie intercuts scenes of Gould trying to pick the metal man's brain to find out if he is who he says he is/was, with scenes of Trevor Howard appearing to brainwash the same guy at an earlier date. The intriguing notion is that Gould has such respect for the ability of his perceived enemy (Howard), that NOTHING the metal man says will prove who he is to Gould. I left the movie uncertain whether Gould's stubbornness helped or harmed humanity.Also, it may have been intentional, but Gould acts more robot-like than Mr. Metalhead. The performance of Metaldude is actually quite affecting. Kudos to Joe Bova.