En una compleja obra de espionaje, el servicio secreto ruso intenta secuestrar a un alto cargo de la CIA y sustituirlo por un doble suyo.En una compleja obra de espionaje, el servicio secreto ruso intenta secuestrar a un alto cargo de la CIA y sustituirlo por un doble suyo.En una compleja obra de espionaje, el servicio secreto ruso intenta secuestrar a un alto cargo de la CIA y sustituirlo por un doble suyo.
- Man at Party
- (sin acreditar)
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesAccording to director Franklin J. Schaffner, there was a break in filming lasting about a month, so that a detailed rewrite of the screenplay could be effected.
- PifiasAt 1:20:37 an escaping Slater, whose hands have been closely cuffed, is for the moment free of the handcuffs, which are back on a moment later.
- Citas
Frank Wheatly: Dan, the reason I - stopped - I want you to try and understand - I just wanted to live like a human being again. A normal, ordinary life.
Dan Slater: Normal? Eight hours in the schoolroom? Noodles for dinner?
Frank Wheatly: Yes. And trust instead of blackmail. Building instead of corrupting. But, lying is a way of life. Or, suspecting everyone until you start questioning your own thoughts. It's a sickness. Professional paranoia that makes the whole world and everyone in it ugly.
There are some enjoyable aspects to the film however. I admired Yul Brynner for delivering a lead character that was so uncompromising, cold and ruthless while he was hardly an admirable hero he was believable and convincing and therefore more interesting as a character. I'm sure if this film were made today the character would've had some more 'likable' elements inserted into him during the film.
The weakest aspect is Ernie Freeman's dreadful score cornball and overdone, regularly undermining the potential suspense in key scenes.
For mine, while the film itself isn't particularly noteworthy, in a broader context it has a curious interest. Despite being made by a major studio, having a major star and a director who delivered many top-notch films in this period (especially a certain ape film made the same year), it didn't make much impact at the time and is totally forgotten today, even for a film made four decades ago. Why is this? I actually think it would be much more remembered if it had been filmed as a flashy, goofy spy film that is now considered to be representative of late 1960s film style and culture the likes of which were spoofed in the Austin Powers films. For example, while imo 'In Like Flint' is a dreadful film, clearly inferior to TDM, because of its glossy and spoofy style I can see how its much more remembered and referenced today.
Of course, TDM could've still been remembered on the basis of sheer quality but apart from Brynner's performance, it just doesn't have enough of it.
- Marco_Trevisiol
- 7 mar 2007
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
- How long is The Double Man?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Duración1 hora 45 minutos
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1