I haven't seen HOUSE OF CARDS in years, but thanks to the many times I saw it on TBS and local channels in my youth, I remember it like I saw it yesterday! During the 1960s, Universal Pictures made a mini-genre out of the Lighthearted International Technicolor Romantic Suspense Thriller with such rollicking adventures as CHARADE, ARABESQUE, and A MAN COULD GET KILLED. HOUSE OF CARDS was the loopiest of the lot from its opening sequence: tracking shots of Paris from a corpse's-eye-view (there it is, floating in the River Seine practically unnoticed by the populace...)! George Peppard plays a sort of hip '60s Hemingway type who drifts from one country to another writing his novel or boxing (indeed, when we first meet him he's getting the hell beaten out of him in a Paris boxing ring). One night, he's shot at--and discovers the triggerman is a frightened child (haunted-eyed Barnaby Shaw is memorable here). Peppard drags the little sharpshooter home to his surprised mom, played by the luminous Inger Stevens with a vulnerable sophistication reminiscent of Eva Marie Saint in NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Turns out the glamorous but troubled Stevens is the American widow of a French general; she and her son are virtual prisoners of her sinister in-laws and their cohorts, including secretive psychiatrist Keith Michell. Stevens takes a shine to Peppard (guess his iconoclastic loner routine is a welcome change of pace from the Daphne DuMaurier types slinking around the family chateau) and hires him as Shaw's tutor/companion. Soon we're catapulted from DuMaurier Land to Robert Ludlum-ville as the chateau's occupants turn out to be part of a Fascist group led by Orson Welles. Seems that Papa wanted his little man to be brought up as a Hitler youth. Before you can say "Hitchcock," the kid's kidnapped, Peppard's framed for murder, and he and Stevens are chasing and being chased all over Paris and Rome trying to save Shaw and the world from these dastardly so-and-so's. While some of the plot twists stretch credibility to the breaking point (especially Michell's true identity) and some of the more attention-grabbing stuff is never explained, HOUSE OF CARDS still manages to be entertaining (despite Francis Lai's wussy score), thanks mostly to the appealing leads. Peppard, in his prime, was well-cast as a cynical rogue with his all-American good looks, hard-boiled flippancy, and breezy charm. (He cracked me up whenever he improvised outlandish excuses to authority figures, like in the Fountain of Trevi scene.) Platinum-blonde Stevens was an excellent match for Peppard both physically and personality-wise, with screen presence aplenty. It's not just her striking, slightly unconventional beauty and her honeyed alto voice; Stevens also had a warmth that belied her Nordic Ice Maiden looks, and a knack for being at once worldly and wholesome (this quality is reflected in her fab Edith Head costumes, too). This wildly complex thriller probably shouldn't be watched by anyone with a migraine or a short attention span -- but if you're in the mood for a well-cast conspiracy yarn that doesn't take itself too seriously, keep an eye out for HOUSE OF CARDS in your TV movie listings!
22 Reviews
HOUSE OF CARDS (John Guillermin, 1968) **1/2
Bunuel197611 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Mildly interesting (if typically muddled) 1960s European-set political thriller – while not as glum as many of its ilk, it’s still hampered by an essentially far-fetched premise and the occasional silly passage (more on this later). The plot involves a proposed coup d’etat in France organized by the exiled ‘Algerian’ elite: apparently, this web of intrigue already holds most of the country’s high places in its grip and has even started to spread across to the United States!; the head of these aristocratic dissidents is played by Orson Welles. Enter rugged (if washed-up) boxer George Peppard who, surprisingly, finds himself recruited as tutor to a boy who’s the future hope of said organization; the latter’s mother (the ill-fated Inger Stevens, who’s quite radiant here) is obviously frustrated by this arrangement – seeking comfort in alcohol and, eventually, Peppard’s affections. The widow of a famed General, she had suffered a nervous breakdown; her doctor, played by Keith Michell, doesn’t take kindly to Peppard’s presence in the house – for a reason we only learn of towards the end.
Anyway, both hero and heroine soon become a danger to the safety of the operation – so, when Stevens’ son is kidnapped by Welles and company (while framing Peppard for the murder of his own best friend), the couple decide to escape together in an effort to outwit the villains and rescue the boy. Their journey takes them to several other ‘bases’ being used by the gang: a château (where they’ve already begun assembling the army for the eventual take-over), a little house by the river in Italy (to which the fugitive duo travel by train) and, later, an abandoned monastery(!) in Rome. After a brief tete-a'-tete in a sauna, Peppard and Welles decide to meet for an exchange (the hero has come into possession of a list with the names of the secret society’s associates in America) at the Coliseum; when he gets there, Peppard is met by the boy – who’s been brainwashed into killing the former – but, predictably, he turns on Welles instead…who, trying to evade his aim, lamely falls to his death! The latter is one of the silly passages I mentioned at the beginning; another is a scene aboard the train in which Stevens has to distract a burly official by parading around the compartment in her underwear; not to mention the one in which, having no money when the car they ‘borrowed’ runs out of gas, Peppard and Stevens decide to pinch the coins famously thrown for luck by tourists in the Trevi fountain!
Commendably, the film maintains a good pace throughout – with much of the heavy-going aspects of the plot relegated to the first half; besides, it delivers in most areas where this type of gene effort usually excels: attractive Widescreen photography, a notable score (and theme song) by Francis Lai and, of course, lovely girls (apart from Stevens, we get sexy Perrette Pradier – with whom I was unfamiliar – and, in one scene, Rosemary Dexter from Jess Franco’s MARQUIS DE SADE’S JUSTINE [1968] and the Malta-filmed VENDETTA FOR THE SAINT [1969]). Also in the cast are Ralph Michael (the would-be murderer in “The Haunted Mirror”, a celebrated episode from the classic horror compendium DEAD OF NIGHT [1945], as Stevens’ apparently genial brother-in-law) and beefy “Euro-Cult” regular Renzo Palmer as one of the organization’s choice thugs (at one point, passing himself off as a monk – complete with trademark shaven head!). Incidentally, HOUSE OF CARDS (adapted from Stanley Ellin’s novel by the husband-and-wife team of Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr. – albeit under the pseudonym James P. Bonner, and where the significance of the titular Tarot cards has been all but eliminated!) was the last of three consecutive films director Guillermin made with George Peppard in the lead – the others being the WWI epic THE BLUE MAX (1966) and the detective thriller P.J. (1968).
Anyway, both hero and heroine soon become a danger to the safety of the operation – so, when Stevens’ son is kidnapped by Welles and company (while framing Peppard for the murder of his own best friend), the couple decide to escape together in an effort to outwit the villains and rescue the boy. Their journey takes them to several other ‘bases’ being used by the gang: a château (where they’ve already begun assembling the army for the eventual take-over), a little house by the river in Italy (to which the fugitive duo travel by train) and, later, an abandoned monastery(!) in Rome. After a brief tete-a'-tete in a sauna, Peppard and Welles decide to meet for an exchange (the hero has come into possession of a list with the names of the secret society’s associates in America) at the Coliseum; when he gets there, Peppard is met by the boy – who’s been brainwashed into killing the former – but, predictably, he turns on Welles instead…who, trying to evade his aim, lamely falls to his death! The latter is one of the silly passages I mentioned at the beginning; another is a scene aboard the train in which Stevens has to distract a burly official by parading around the compartment in her underwear; not to mention the one in which, having no money when the car they ‘borrowed’ runs out of gas, Peppard and Stevens decide to pinch the coins famously thrown for luck by tourists in the Trevi fountain!
Commendably, the film maintains a good pace throughout – with much of the heavy-going aspects of the plot relegated to the first half; besides, it delivers in most areas where this type of gene effort usually excels: attractive Widescreen photography, a notable score (and theme song) by Francis Lai and, of course, lovely girls (apart from Stevens, we get sexy Perrette Pradier – with whom I was unfamiliar – and, in one scene, Rosemary Dexter from Jess Franco’s MARQUIS DE SADE’S JUSTINE [1968] and the Malta-filmed VENDETTA FOR THE SAINT [1969]). Also in the cast are Ralph Michael (the would-be murderer in “The Haunted Mirror”, a celebrated episode from the classic horror compendium DEAD OF NIGHT [1945], as Stevens’ apparently genial brother-in-law) and beefy “Euro-Cult” regular Renzo Palmer as one of the organization’s choice thugs (at one point, passing himself off as a monk – complete with trademark shaven head!). Incidentally, HOUSE OF CARDS (adapted from Stanley Ellin’s novel by the husband-and-wife team of Irving Ravetch and Harriet Frank Jr. – albeit under the pseudonym James P. Bonner, and where the significance of the titular Tarot cards has been all but eliminated!) was the last of three consecutive films director Guillermin made with George Peppard in the lead – the others being the WWI epic THE BLUE MAX (1966) and the detective thriller P.J. (1968).
One man's hunt and war on too many too powerful crooks
clanciai13 November 2019
I understand those who don't like George Peppard in this film. His performance as something of a superman among a regular bunch of crooks is almost unbearable and adds to the film's character of general superficial abominability. Orson Welles' performance is interesting, and Inger Stevens is all right, but the script is very stereotype. Nevertheless it deals with some serious problems, the constant universal problem of a superior race wanting to take charge of the world and turn it into a superstate, the idea of a world government has always been a present issue in history, and was never more actual than today. Still, the issue gets lost in atrocities and too many murders, constantly excelling each other in inhuman cruelty, and there is the objection: An important issue gets drowned in effects, an all too common problem in modern films.
What makes film worth watching in spite of all this is the wonderful photography and cinematography - the filming of Paris makes this film enjoyable in spite of the inhuman domination.
Shuffle them!
dbdumonteil1 October 2008
Inspired by the events linked to the Algeria war.The fascist organization recalls Ordre Nouveau (which was not fiction) and the O.A.S. whose purpose was to give Algeria back to the FRench ,particularly to the Pieds-Noirs who had to leave the country after the Evian agreement (June 1962).
John Guillermin 's thriller remains very vague politically.Some characters appear or disappear without any real purpose .Some appear completely nude (Perrette Pradier) probably to please the viewer.The screenplay looks like a parboiled cross between "the jackal" (Zinnemann,1972)and "the man who knew too much" (essentially the color version 1956).
That said ,if you are not too demanding ,it's passable entertainment.George Peppard is a convincing hero with a Bondesque sense of humor (sixties Bond of course)and Inger Stevens who prematurely died two years after is attractive.Orson Wells has a very very small part and as the film is unworthy of his talent,he seems eager to collect his money and run away from this muddled story.
There's a song in French during the cast and credits which is heard again at the end.This bland song has nothing to do with the story ,not Francis Lai's best.
Guillermin's most salutary quality is his sense of space he would display again in "towering inferno" and in "death on the Nile".Here he uses the banks of the Seine to good effect .Ditto for the banks of the lake and the fountain in Rome ,or the arena.
John Guillermin 's thriller remains very vague politically.Some characters appear or disappear without any real purpose .Some appear completely nude (Perrette Pradier) probably to please the viewer.The screenplay looks like a parboiled cross between "the jackal" (Zinnemann,1972)and "the man who knew too much" (essentially the color version 1956).
That said ,if you are not too demanding ,it's passable entertainment.George Peppard is a convincing hero with a Bondesque sense of humor (sixties Bond of course)and Inger Stevens who prematurely died two years after is attractive.Orson Wells has a very very small part and as the film is unworthy of his talent,he seems eager to collect his money and run away from this muddled story.
There's a song in French during the cast and credits which is heard again at the end.This bland song has nothing to do with the story ,not Francis Lai's best.
Guillermin's most salutary quality is his sense of space he would display again in "towering inferno" and in "death on the Nile".Here he uses the banks of the Seine to good effect .Ditto for the banks of the lake and the fountain in Rome ,or the arena.
Not Bad
fubared124 December 2012
This is one of those films I have fond memories of from my childhood. I remember I used to tune it in every time it appeared on TV. Yes, now being an old fart and having finally seen it again after it's long absence, I was somewhat disappointed, but not entirely. There are still some wonderful things about it. Primarily the score by Frances Lai, the beautiful photography and scenery (it made me want to go to Paris for a long time), Orson Welles as the villain, but mostly the wonderful Inger Stevens as the female protagonist. What hasn't survived the test of time are the silly plot and George Peppard. I used to like him in his TV show (Banacek, NOT the A-Team), but then I heard an interview with Pat Neal which told about what a bastard he was in real life, and I can't find myself liking any of his performances now, even though I may like the movie. Anyway, I do still enjoy the movie, and am glad I was finally able to find it again.
House of Cards
jonathanruano3 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
"House of Cards" has a preposterous plot which is total cornball. IMDb's summary says it all: "In 1960s Paris, an American boxer stumbles upon an international fascist conspiracy that aims to create a new world order." Needless to say, the French conspirators are too small in number to take over France, let alone recolonize Algeria and build the new world order. In fact, these villains are such amateurs that the extent of their talents are to accumulate an impressive arsenal of muskets in the basement, drink champagne and talk nostalgically about keeping out "black and yellow hordes," and kidnap a poor little aristocratic boy and his depressed mother Anne de Villemont (Inger Stevens). Little wonder that it only took a troublemaker Reno Davis (George Peppard), who spent his formative years pulling fire alarms at school, to defeat the whole lot of them.
Yet on the level of seeing trouble-making George Peppard poke fun at the members of the French aristocracy and outsmart them, this film does actually work. Peppard is like that unruly school boy who irritates his teachers, pulls fire alarms to avoid taking exams he has not studied for, gets into fights during recess time, and can talk himself out of any problem. When Peppard is unleashed against a bunch of amateurish Fascists at a dinner party, then a fortress, and finally a farm, "House of Cards" is very entertaining. Peppard's character also has a heart of gold, which is barely concealed beneath his alpha-male persona. He seems to be even more repelled by violence than James Bond and only kills one villain in the entire movie. He is charming to at least three women, but ultimately has eyes for only the aristocrat Anne de Villemont. This is an American James Bond who one could imagine settling down and starting a family. Unfortunately, toward the end, the cornball plot starts to take over and we are treated to a climax with the key villain Leschenhaut (Orson Welles) which does not really work.
On balance, though, I recommend this movie largely because it's actually a lot of fun watching Peppard mingle with the French aristocracy, flout their conventions, and out-think them as well as go from rags to riches through his sheer personality.
Yet on the level of seeing trouble-making George Peppard poke fun at the members of the French aristocracy and outsmart them, this film does actually work. Peppard is like that unruly school boy who irritates his teachers, pulls fire alarms to avoid taking exams he has not studied for, gets into fights during recess time, and can talk himself out of any problem. When Peppard is unleashed against a bunch of amateurish Fascists at a dinner party, then a fortress, and finally a farm, "House of Cards" is very entertaining. Peppard's character also has a heart of gold, which is barely concealed beneath his alpha-male persona. He seems to be even more repelled by violence than James Bond and only kills one villain in the entire movie. He is charming to at least three women, but ultimately has eyes for only the aristocrat Anne de Villemont. This is an American James Bond who one could imagine settling down and starting a family. Unfortunately, toward the end, the cornball plot starts to take over and we are treated to a climax with the key villain Leschenhaut (Orson Welles) which does not really work.
On balance, though, I recommend this movie largely because it's actually a lot of fun watching Peppard mingle with the French aristocracy, flout their conventions, and out-think them as well as go from rags to riches through his sheer personality.
a slice of colorful, escapist action/adventure
myriamlenys21 April 2023
Warning: Spoilers
While travelling around Europe, an American drifter and dreamer gets hired as a male tutor for a young boy. In the course of his duties, he discovers a network of far-right extremists who dream of bringing back the birch, the gallows, the colonial plantation and other charms of the good old days. His quest to safeguard the boy leads him through a succession of mansions, châteaux and lairs...
I don't know about you, but when watching fiction I tend to appreciate baddies who aren't complete nitwits. In "House of cards" the Fascist extremists make one mistake after another : they allow the protagonist (our American drifter) to approach them without prior vetting, they pique his curiosity through clumsy overtures, they give him leave to wander all over their lairs and stamping grounds, they imprison him without chaining, handcuffing or blindfolding him, they fail to dope him until he thinks he's Friar Tuck, and so on. Moreover, several of their assassination attempts go awry - and how difficult can it be, for instance, to shoot an unsuspecting man who's out angling with friends ? By way of cherry on the cake, they expect the protagonist to hand over an incriminating list of names he stole from them. Supposedly their troubles will be over if he returns the paper document - but what if he photographed or copied it first ? So no, the bad guys in "House of cards" don't make for fearsomely efficient adversaries, on the contrary. After a while one starts hoping that their various minders were prescient enough to sew name and address labels into their little coats.
Those viewers willing to overlook the problem can enjoy "House of cards" as a colorful adventure yarn. The action moves from one jaw-dropping European location to another and there are fistfights, duels, pursuits and escapes galore. Lead actor George Peppard does very well. So, in his own way, does Orson Welles, although the latter makes but brief appearances. The music is agreeable, though possibly a bit too sweetly romantic.
Needless to say, this is not the movie to watch if you're interested in a profound analysis of far-right extremism or Fascist resurgence in post-War Europe.
I don't know about you, but when watching fiction I tend to appreciate baddies who aren't complete nitwits. In "House of cards" the Fascist extremists make one mistake after another : they allow the protagonist (our American drifter) to approach them without prior vetting, they pique his curiosity through clumsy overtures, they give him leave to wander all over their lairs and stamping grounds, they imprison him without chaining, handcuffing or blindfolding him, they fail to dope him until he thinks he's Friar Tuck, and so on. Moreover, several of their assassination attempts go awry - and how difficult can it be, for instance, to shoot an unsuspecting man who's out angling with friends ? By way of cherry on the cake, they expect the protagonist to hand over an incriminating list of names he stole from them. Supposedly their troubles will be over if he returns the paper document - but what if he photographed or copied it first ? So no, the bad guys in "House of cards" don't make for fearsomely efficient adversaries, on the contrary. After a while one starts hoping that their various minders were prescient enough to sew name and address labels into their little coats.
Those viewers willing to overlook the problem can enjoy "House of cards" as a colorful adventure yarn. The action moves from one jaw-dropping European location to another and there are fistfights, duels, pursuits and escapes galore. Lead actor George Peppard does very well. So, in his own way, does Orson Welles, although the latter makes but brief appearances. The music is agreeable, though possibly a bit too sweetly romantic.
Needless to say, this is not the movie to watch if you're interested in a profound analysis of far-right extremism or Fascist resurgence in post-War Europe.
"I will take his gold cufflinks and his tie pins and his signet rings, and have them melted down for a candlestick for the church."
gettodamoofies23 December 2023
FILM: 6.5/10.
Diving into the 1968 film House of Cards, based on Stanley Ellin's book, I found myself in a world where film noir meets a Bond-esque action flair. It's a cocktail that stirs up an intriguing cinematic experience.
George Peppard steps into the shoes of American boxer Davis, facing off against the enigmatic villain portrayed by none other than Orson Welles. The clash between these two titans anchors the film, and their performances add a layer of intensity that keeps you hooked.
The plot unfolds with shadowy figures and clandestine organizations weaving a conspiracy aimed at world domination. While the theme isn't groundbreaking, the execution maintains a certain level of suspense and keeps the narrative engaging.
What truly steals the spotlight, though, is Francis Kai's score. It's nothing short of fantastic, at times overshadowing the action on screen. The music not only complements the film's tone but elevates it, creating an immersive experience that resonates. Kai's score, coupled with some breathtaking cinematography capturing the allure of Paris, stands out as a highlight.
House of Cards offers a nostalgic nod to film noir while embracing the action vibes of its era. The film's pacing might feel a bit uneven, with occasional lulls, but it manages to keep you invested in the overarching mystery. For fans of classic cinema and those with a penchant for espionage-laden narratives, House of Cards delivers a solid watch with enough charm to make it a worthwhile journey into the past.
FORMAT: Blu-ray
VIDEO: 6.5/10.
1080p presentation, Detail level: Good, Colour reproduction: Moderate, Level accuracy: Good, Encode: Good, Master condition: Moderate
AUDIO: 8/10.
LPCM 2.0 audio, Dialogue reproduction: Good, Soundtrack & effects clarity: Good, Dynamics: Good, Surround sound presentation: N/A, LFE content: Moderate
MOOFIEMETER: 7/10.
Diving into the 1968 film House of Cards, based on Stanley Ellin's book, I found myself in a world where film noir meets a Bond-esque action flair. It's a cocktail that stirs up an intriguing cinematic experience.
George Peppard steps into the shoes of American boxer Davis, facing off against the enigmatic villain portrayed by none other than Orson Welles. The clash between these two titans anchors the film, and their performances add a layer of intensity that keeps you hooked.
The plot unfolds with shadowy figures and clandestine organizations weaving a conspiracy aimed at world domination. While the theme isn't groundbreaking, the execution maintains a certain level of suspense and keeps the narrative engaging.
What truly steals the spotlight, though, is Francis Kai's score. It's nothing short of fantastic, at times overshadowing the action on screen. The music not only complements the film's tone but elevates it, creating an immersive experience that resonates. Kai's score, coupled with some breathtaking cinematography capturing the allure of Paris, stands out as a highlight.
House of Cards offers a nostalgic nod to film noir while embracing the action vibes of its era. The film's pacing might feel a bit uneven, with occasional lulls, but it manages to keep you invested in the overarching mystery. For fans of classic cinema and those with a penchant for espionage-laden narratives, House of Cards delivers a solid watch with enough charm to make it a worthwhile journey into the past.
FORMAT: Blu-ray
VIDEO: 6.5/10.
1080p presentation, Detail level: Good, Colour reproduction: Moderate, Level accuracy: Good, Encode: Good, Master condition: Moderate
AUDIO: 8/10.
LPCM 2.0 audio, Dialogue reproduction: Good, Soundtrack & effects clarity: Good, Dynamics: Good, Surround sound presentation: N/A, LFE content: Moderate
MOOFIEMETER: 7/10.
An American Adventurer Stumbling Upon a Deadly Conspiracy
Uriah433 July 2022
This film begins in Paris with the body of a man floating in the river Seine with the rather obvious conclusion being that he was murdered. The scene then shifts to an American adventurer named "Reno Davis" (George Peppard) riding in his car with his good friend "Louis Le Buc" (Raoul Delfosse) when suddenly gunshots ring out and both of them are almost killed. Quickly abandoning the vehicle, Reno locates where the gunshots were coming from and catches up to the fleeing person only to realize that the shooter is only a young boy. He then discovers that the boy lives in a huge mansion nearby and after taking him there meets a beautiful woman named "Anne de Villemont" (Inger Stevens) who just happens to be the boy's mother. One thing leads to another and soon Anne offers Reno a job as the boy's tutor. Naturally, being quite short of money, Reno immediately accepts. But what he doesn't know is that Anne's family is not only extremely wealthy but that his presence in the house presents a danger to several of the family members who are harboring a deadly secret that they cannot allow to become public. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this film had all of the necessary ingredients for a good film with a fine leading man in George Peppard and an exquisite actress like Inger Stevens to keep things interesting. Unfortunately, the overall plot turned out to be too unrealistic and far-fetched to be taken seriously. That being said, while definitely not a bad movie by any means, there were some scenes that were simply too over-the-top for me and I have rated it accordingly. Average.
A House of Boring Cards
BachlorinParadise25 August 2006
What a flop. This show is a mega stinker. It starts off interesting enough with a murder victim floating in the river, and George Peppard getting knocked-out in a boxing match. Then, however, the film goes from interesting to stupid, dull, and boring. The plot isn't much and neither is the acting. The script tries to be witty, but there is nothing funny about it. The action scenes are without spark, and there aren't many sparks between Handsome George and his love interest Ingar Stevens.
There are a few minor bright spots; George Peppard looks great and it's hard not to like his performance. Miss Stevens looks beautiful and sexy, and there are some nice views of Paris and Italy. Aside from that, the House of Cards is nothing more then a House of Dull.
There are a few minor bright spots; George Peppard looks great and it's hard not to like his performance. Miss Stevens looks beautiful and sexy, and there are some nice views of Paris and Italy. Aside from that, the House of Cards is nothing more then a House of Dull.
Nifty, and they NEVER show it on TV
ducdebrabant6 November 2006
I went to see this at age 15 because I enjoyed the Stanley Ellin book it's based on. The movie is imitation Hitchcock of a very high order. (The climax in the Colosseum is pure Hitchcock.) Peppard is supposed to be a washed up boxer, and he has just the beat-up, world-weary sexiness the part needs. Inger Stevens is very glamorous as the lady of the house with her problems and secrets. The Paris setting is very well used, and that's important because the movie has a unique premise. The villains are pied noir terrorists left over from the Algerian revolution, displaced from their colonial home, reactionary, and deeply opposed to the French government of that appeaser DeGaulle. It gives a certain reality to the mysterious goings on. I thought the film did full justice to the novel, except that they unavoidably dispensed with the novel's use of Tarot cards to organize the chapters thematically. The music is great too. There's a title song in French that I'd love to have a recording of. It's sad to see Stevens looking so lovely and giving such a good performance so close to her tragic real-life suicide. She was special, and there's great chemistry between her and Peppard.
Instantly forgettable
nickrogers196910 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I love sixties movies, especially an expensive one from one of the big studios. The money thrown on this film didn't help. It's a much too predictable and pedestrian film. Maybe Universal saved by using a bad script and mediocre actors in the lead roles. George Peppard is no Steve McQueen and it's quite understandable why he never became a big star. I wanted to like Inger Stevens. This is the first time I see her in a movie. It's too bad she read her lines so flat. Neither of the leads had any star quality.
No, the money must have gone to paying the excellent photographer, the beautiful locations, the fine score by Francis Lai and the good supporting cast (all except the one who played George's french friend). Orson Welles stole the show as he always does!
The script lacked suspense and good lines. I kept waiting for the film to end! Even Edith Head's clothes didn't help. *Spoiler!* I was going to give this film three stars until it came to the ending in the Colloseum. The fight made me go down to two stars and then when the final twist came it was down to one. I understand why this film has become completely forgotten. It's a big expensive mediocre thriller.
No, the money must have gone to paying the excellent photographer, the beautiful locations, the fine score by Francis Lai and the good supporting cast (all except the one who played George's french friend). Orson Welles stole the show as he always does!
The script lacked suspense and good lines. I kept waiting for the film to end! Even Edith Head's clothes didn't help. *Spoiler!* I was going to give this film three stars until it came to the ending in the Colloseum. The fight made me go down to two stars and then when the final twist came it was down to one. I understand why this film has become completely forgotten. It's a big expensive mediocre thriller.
Agreeable semi spy thriller
searchanddestroy-119 January 2023
In the sixties, spy stories were galore on screens, more or less 007 like oriented, with cool heroes, or more disenchanted ones. There are also some Hitchcock movies elements in this movie. It begins very slowly then becomes more interesting, but not the John Guillermin's best. With the same Georpe Peppard, I preferd PJ, also from Universal Studios, or still with Peppard, of course the awesome BLUE MAX, for me the Guillermin's ever best, with TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE. The director was not that inspired on this movie, that's my opinion. It's only entertainment and on this point, he succeeded. Mostly set in France, it evokes the war in Algeria, OAS clandestine organization - more or less involved with fascists oriented groups...And Orson Welles is impressive, smashing walnuts with his fingers - fists.....
The camera work is good, actors good - but gawd the script stinks
av_m4 September 2023
First and foremost, this is not a "thriller" - there are no "thrills" and the thing is neither enigmatic nor engaging - you'll basically just find yourself enduring it.
That said, this is a very stylish visual production - the sets, the camera work, the Paris venues and views, the actors are quite good, even the music is OK and heavily relied on for whatever narrative mojo this thing tries to gush out.
But, oh, the script - it stinks to high heaven.
I can't go into detail so as not to be a spoiler - but suffice to say, the thing is charmless despite all it's eye candy - not only is the story completely muddled but the dialogue is clumsy and stilted. The narrative pacing is atrocious, it goes along nicely and then takes a huge turn, speeds up, then slows down - it's all just insufferable.
Peppard is Peppard - beautiful, bloodless, and wise-cracking in a suave sixties hip way - and the other cast - including. Orson Welles - are all present and accounted for - but there's just nothing for them to do really, except walk thru the thing.
So, if you watch this, enjoy the Paris style of it - but that's all you're gonna get. :-)
That said, this is a very stylish visual production - the sets, the camera work, the Paris venues and views, the actors are quite good, even the music is OK and heavily relied on for whatever narrative mojo this thing tries to gush out.
But, oh, the script - it stinks to high heaven.
I can't go into detail so as not to be a spoiler - but suffice to say, the thing is charmless despite all it's eye candy - not only is the story completely muddled but the dialogue is clumsy and stilted. The narrative pacing is atrocious, it goes along nicely and then takes a huge turn, speeds up, then slows down - it's all just insufferable.
Peppard is Peppard - beautiful, bloodless, and wise-cracking in a suave sixties hip way - and the other cast - including. Orson Welles - are all present and accounted for - but there's just nothing for them to do really, except walk thru the thing.
So, if you watch this, enjoy the Paris style of it - but that's all you're gonna get. :-)
My Favourite Childhood Film
nicvis4 October 2005
While living in South Africa my dad and I watched many classic films together, and those are special memories. We managed to record "House of Cards" using our very first VCR (in 1983) and I spent many evenings re-watching it until my brother recorded something over it... I was devastated and have been hoping to find it ever since.
Twenty years later I am still a fan and I give it 10/10 because that's my childhood-based feeling for it. No other film I've seen has stayed with me as intensely.
It's difficult to say exactly why I love this film because the memories are so old. My feelings include: excitement, curiosity, urgency, pleasure, amusement, fun, the motivation to see it may times and the crush I have had since on George Peppard! The images are a little mixed: I remember a boat on a lake, a car racing along a winding road and many desperate escapes. Also images of Paris and the Seine. Orson Welles is totally creepy. My visits to Italy have been influenced by scenes from the film - even visiting the Colosseum in Rome.
Hopefully my memories aren't too tainted by all the films I've seen since, if I come across this one again I'm keeping it far away from my brother.
Twenty years later I am still a fan and I give it 10/10 because that's my childhood-based feeling for it. No other film I've seen has stayed with me as intensely.
It's difficult to say exactly why I love this film because the memories are so old. My feelings include: excitement, curiosity, urgency, pleasure, amusement, fun, the motivation to see it may times and the crush I have had since on George Peppard! The images are a little mixed: I remember a boat on a lake, a car racing along a winding road and many desperate escapes. Also images of Paris and the Seine. Orson Welles is totally creepy. My visits to Italy have been influenced by scenes from the film - even visiting the Colosseum in Rome.
Hopefully my memories aren't too tainted by all the films I've seen since, if I come across this one again I'm keeping it far away from my brother.
Outstanding!
Hollywoodcanteen194524 July 2005
I saw this movie with my dad when it first came out at the now long-gone Cinema Theater on Miami Beach.
What I recall most about it was the rare beauty of Inger Stevens. What a beautiful, lovely, sexy, talented actress. It is really a sad state of affairs that her personal demons ended her life so young. I recall hearing about her death on the t.v. news and how I cried a few tears; even though I was a young child of 9.
The movie is fast-paced, exciting, well-acted, and the Paris of the 1960s is in all it's glory.
Unless this movie comes out on DVD, it will be lost to the ages. Most likely it's about forgotten, except for those lucky enough to have seen it. I even have the original movie poster of this film hanging on the wall of my apartment.
What I recall most about it was the rare beauty of Inger Stevens. What a beautiful, lovely, sexy, talented actress. It is really a sad state of affairs that her personal demons ended her life so young. I recall hearing about her death on the t.v. news and how I cried a few tears; even though I was a young child of 9.
The movie is fast-paced, exciting, well-acted, and the Paris of the 1960s is in all it's glory.
Unless this movie comes out on DVD, it will be lost to the ages. Most likely it's about forgotten, except for those lucky enough to have seen it. I even have the original movie poster of this film hanging on the wall of my apartment.
A classic from the time when talent had to act!
will_varner25 September 2002
From the first bit of footage you will know you are settling in to see a winner. Pierre Barouh's title song is enchanting and beguiling and the singer's voice sounds like an angel. George's acting in HOC rivals his performance in Breakfast at Tiffany's and The Blue Max. It's hard to believe his agent steered him to The A Team when he had proven he had real talent. Inger Stevens, who looks as fetching as you'll ever see her, was also at the top of her game in this movie.
The direction felt like Hitch was behind the camera, it's that good. One of my very favorite actors, Orson Welles, also works his magic. If you like Orson, you will certainly enjoy another of his potentially lesser know performances in Long Hot Summer.
What I will never understand is the production company, Universal Pictures, never released this on tape, laserdisc or DVD (if you have some influence with Universal, call in a favor to fix this). Talk about your missed opportunities! A loss for movie lovers the world over. Your only chance to see this is to obtain the CD-V version.
The direction felt like Hitch was behind the camera, it's that good. One of my very favorite actors, Orson Welles, also works his magic. If you like Orson, you will certainly enjoy another of his potentially lesser know performances in Long Hot Summer.
What I will never understand is the production company, Universal Pictures, never released this on tape, laserdisc or DVD (if you have some influence with Universal, call in a favor to fix this). Talk about your missed opportunities! A loss for movie lovers the world over. Your only chance to see this is to obtain the CD-V version.
Worth seeing, despite some narrative faults
JohnHowardReid8 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
John Guillermin was on the verge of making a really outstanding film for years when he finally hit pay dirt with House of Cards. He went on to direct amongst other excursions, the 1976 remake of King Kong and Death on the Nile (1978) which is probably his best film. Unfortunately, he doesn't quite make the grade in House of Cards, despite the wonderful assistance of Francis Lai's music score and Piero Portalupi's attractively moody color cinematography. Mind you, there is also a marvelous opening in Paris with a corpse's eye-view of the Ile de la Cité from the Seine, plus a splendid climax in Rome with a fight-to-the-death in the musty corridors of the Coliseum. And there are some marvelous sequences in between these two high points. But what principally drags the movie down to a less exalted level is a screenplay that is not only far too talky but that fails to generate a great deal of suspense. For one thing, the villains are presented in far too gentlemanly a guise. In itself, this would be a commendable innovation, but it should have been bolstered by atmospheric touches. These, the direction lacks. Instead, Guillermin has chosen a more straightforward approach to the narrative, presumably to endow it with a more realistic air, but this approach only succeeds when it is enhanced by effects, such as the water lapping on the shore of the Villa Frascati. Another fault lies in the casting of Inger Stevens in a key role. Unfortunately, she is unable to elicit much in the way of sympathy or interest in her characterization. The other players score much better. Incidentally, the script leaves a lot unexplained, e.g. why is an attempt made on Paul's life?
A good movie in its day.
srobidoux19 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
If a person didn't see it in the 70's it might not make a huge impression today but I will add it to my collection if I can find a copy that's not VHS. The locations were great and it's not as overdone as a Bond movie or an A-Team episode. A good cast all around. They don't get any heavier than Orson Welles and we didn't get to see that many movies with Inger Stevens before her early demise. The fascist uprising resonated with me having spent some time in Germany in that timeframe. I suspect that one reason it doesn't get much attention is that the title has been recycled a number of times. I recommend it.
Fascist plot in France and Italy
happytrigger-64-39051729 August 2021
After "House of secrets" and "Charade" set in Paris, here's "House of cards" directed by John Guillermin, set in Paris in the first part, then in Burgundy to finish in Italy. It's an entertaining fast paced chase of a determined American (excellent George Peppard) against rich organized fascists all over the world. It's a movie full of details with lot of weird characters, violent situations and a lost young boy in middle of this madness. And some apparitions of Orson Welles, wah the end. Nice discover, a blend of murder, violent plot, comedy and romance, as in a Hitchcock movie. But I find it under Charade, I think it lacks rhythm.
Just a bit too slow . . . It needed a bit of 'zip' in the pacing
SceneByScene11 September 2023
There is little wrong with this movie. But then there's something just not right . . .
Then as the film rolls on the flaw becomes clear: the movie is paced a tad too slow.
It's well acted, well written and beautifully filmed. The incidental music works, the minor characters are played well, and the storyline is quite believable. If it had been a bit more sassy in pace & energy then the film would have worked better.
George Peppard has a laid-back attitude to his character. Which would have worked excellently had the pace of the film been more upbeat: we would have sensed a man fighting his surroundings, yin against yang. That would have fit in nicely with the story. But as each - pace & protagonist - were so leisurely, this stance took the film almost to a frustratingly downbeat attitude. I believe relaxed was more Peppard's own style in life re his profession, as I gather he refuted being a star - despite the studios loving his being a 6 foot tall blonde hunk of a man. Instead he preferred to do things his own way. (So he missed his calling then: as he seems truly an actor suited to the '60s & '70s, rather than a box office screen idol of the decade he started acting, the '50s.)
The best points are when the writer surprises us ((no spoilers here!)). At these points the film really starts to take off at last . . . Only to then lose that all-important tempo. Disappointing. As the rest of the film seems to offer little in unexpected moments, or any real excitement. And as the movie is meant to be a suspense story, with all the associated moments in a thriller of unforeseen turns, such 'zip' is what is lacking.
Had it been less maudlin in feel, I could have rated it higher. Sadly, as a thriller it doesn't offer much in the way of thrills! Insipid it is, inspiring it (sadly) is not.
Then as the film rolls on the flaw becomes clear: the movie is paced a tad too slow.
It's well acted, well written and beautifully filmed. The incidental music works, the minor characters are played well, and the storyline is quite believable. If it had been a bit more sassy in pace & energy then the film would have worked better.
George Peppard has a laid-back attitude to his character. Which would have worked excellently had the pace of the film been more upbeat: we would have sensed a man fighting his surroundings, yin against yang. That would have fit in nicely with the story. But as each - pace & protagonist - were so leisurely, this stance took the film almost to a frustratingly downbeat attitude. I believe relaxed was more Peppard's own style in life re his profession, as I gather he refuted being a star - despite the studios loving his being a 6 foot tall blonde hunk of a man. Instead he preferred to do things his own way. (So he missed his calling then: as he seems truly an actor suited to the '60s & '70s, rather than a box office screen idol of the decade he started acting, the '50s.)
The best points are when the writer surprises us ((no spoilers here!)). At these points the film really starts to take off at last . . . Only to then lose that all-important tempo. Disappointing. As the rest of the film seems to offer little in unexpected moments, or any real excitement. And as the movie is meant to be a suspense story, with all the associated moments in a thriller of unforeseen turns, such 'zip' is what is lacking.
Had it been less maudlin in feel, I could have rated it higher. Sadly, as a thriller it doesn't offer much in the way of thrills! Insipid it is, inspiring it (sadly) is not.
A rare beauty
cjhadfield19 January 2024
I'm shocked that this movie only gets a low rating. I think that's probably because it's low key and under the radar. However, it's absolutely amazing. It's got that Hitchcock feel about it, but it's in the same vein as Charade or Wait Until Dark. George Peppard is great in it as is the tragically beautiful Inger Stevens. Orson Welles is even in it as the evil maestro behind a planned plot.
Set in Paris and other French beauty spots, the theme is a chase or rather pursuit. It has all the hallmarks of a thriller thoroughly set in that time with dastardly people, sexy people, duped and dishonest people. It's a must for those of us who enjoy noir, thrillers or just low key unusual gems.
Set in Paris and other French beauty spots, the theme is a chase or rather pursuit. It has all the hallmarks of a thriller thoroughly set in that time with dastardly people, sexy people, duped and dishonest people. It's a must for those of us who enjoy noir, thrillers or just low key unusual gems.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
