Triple Cross (C- or 1.5/4 stars)
'Triple Cross' (a 1967 spy thriller directed by Terence Young, who helmed 4 James Bond films) is a flavorless & wildly overlong biopic of a patriotic spy who changes sides during wartime and then reverses back, resulting in a ...duhn, duhn, duhnnn ... triple cross. This film tells the 'alleged' true story of small-time criminal Eddie Chapman (Christopher Plummer), who volunteers to work for German intelligence while languishing in prison for a 14 yr. sentence for safe-cracking at the onset of WWII. When the secluded resort isle of Jersey is conquered by the Germans, the off-putting, but master manipulating Chapman is able to convince his Third Reich handlers, Colonel Steinhager (Gert Frobe), The Countess (Romy Schneider) & Baron Von Grunen (Yul Brynner), he can carry out a top secret mission in England.
But when he concludes training over in occupied France & is parachuted into England, he contacts British Intelligence to be used as a double agent; there, he meets his new handler, Freddie Young (Trevor Howard). The English promise Chapman for his services a lot of $$, to erase his jail time with a pardon, and actually award him a medal. For the unethical & contemptuous Chapman, patriotism doesn't matter to him. Chapman rewards the English in the end by supplying false info on V-1 & V-2 terror weapons used in the bombing of London. To that, the Germans re-direct their missiles so that they fall without danger into the unpopulated countryside.
What a long, boring, unbelievable {in every sense of the word} movie this is. Firstly, the whole spy thriller genre is not my favorite; so any film of that distinction would have to be pretty great for me to engage with it -- and this one ain't it. I didn't even love The Spy Who Came in from the Cold or The Ipcress File, but even I can acknowledge that those were quality films. They were tightly paced & expertly plotted, even if I wasn't loving the story. In this movie, on top of the story being boring & ridiculous, there is a deadening lack of suspense, as well; how could this be the same director who helmed the fast-paced, witty Bond films?
Even the dialogue is cruddy. Characters say things to each other and, you wonder if even they believe what they're saying or if the recipient of the conversation even cares, anyway. Some of the dialogue doesn't even make sense with respect to what's going on in the moment. The narrative offers no concrete conflict or absolute danger, either. Geez, I think I like the film even less as I write on it. I would say that the only decent aspect of the movie is a few of the performances; but even they struggle due to the dialogue they have to convey to sound like legitimate human beings. Plummer comes off best as the cocky criminal with disregard for authority. But even he, surprisingly, lacks that necessary charismatic, spy savvy ingredient that makes for the best spy anti-heroes. Even though I can't say that this film is outright terrible, it's simply a big miss for me for almost every cinematic component.
But when he concludes training over in occupied France & is parachuted into England, he contacts British Intelligence to be used as a double agent; there, he meets his new handler, Freddie Young (Trevor Howard). The English promise Chapman for his services a lot of $$, to erase his jail time with a pardon, and actually award him a medal. For the unethical & contemptuous Chapman, patriotism doesn't matter to him. Chapman rewards the English in the end by supplying false info on V-1 & V-2 terror weapons used in the bombing of London. To that, the Germans re-direct their missiles so that they fall without danger into the unpopulated countryside.
What a long, boring, unbelievable {in every sense of the word} movie this is. Firstly, the whole spy thriller genre is not my favorite; so any film of that distinction would have to be pretty great for me to engage with it -- and this one ain't it. I didn't even love The Spy Who Came in from the Cold or The Ipcress File, but even I can acknowledge that those were quality films. They were tightly paced & expertly plotted, even if I wasn't loving the story. In this movie, on top of the story being boring & ridiculous, there is a deadening lack of suspense, as well; how could this be the same director who helmed the fast-paced, witty Bond films?
Even the dialogue is cruddy. Characters say things to each other and, you wonder if even they believe what they're saying or if the recipient of the conversation even cares, anyway. Some of the dialogue doesn't even make sense with respect to what's going on in the moment. The narrative offers no concrete conflict or absolute danger, either. Geez, I think I like the film even less as I write on it. I would say that the only decent aspect of the movie is a few of the performances; but even they struggle due to the dialogue they have to convey to sound like legitimate human beings. Plummer comes off best as the cocky criminal with disregard for authority. But even he, surprisingly, lacks that necessary charismatic, spy savvy ingredient that makes for the best spy anti-heroes. Even though I can't say that this film is outright terrible, it's simply a big miss for me for almost every cinematic component.