48 reviews
If you can get through the first 15 minutes or so of this film, you're in for a real treat. Once the film gets going, its quite enjoyable, with scenes shot in Washington DC, Times Square, and most notably, the Empire State Building back when it was the tallest skyscraper in the world. The scenes on the 88th floor are beautifully shot, an then we get to travel higher to the 102nd floor and beyond. Anyone who loves New York will love this stuff. As a film, the gimmick of no dialogue works fairly well, though there are some scenes where it just doesn't seem natural that nobody would say anything (Milland's encounter with Gam at the flophouse screams for dialogue). But Milland carries it off for the most part and makes "The Thief" well worth a look.
- zsenorsock
- Feb 22, 2005
- Permalink
Tense dark drama made in 1952 at the height of the Cold War about the shadowy world of espionage without a word of dialog makes "The Thief" a one-of-a-kind film.
Dr. Allan Fields, Ray Milland, has been spying for the Soviets by passing top secret documents from his position as a scientist at the Atomic Energy Commission, the AEC, to them. One afternoon in New York City one of Field's contacts is struck by a car and killed while he had in his possession a tin canister of microfilmed documents that Fields had given him. When the FBI finds out that the documents came from the AEC in Washington D.C they start to check out all those that are employed there and Fields seeing that the noose was closing in on him becomes a man on the run.
Good acting and great photography of Washington D.C and New York City with a dramatic and heart thumping action chase scene on top of the Empire State Building and the 86th floor observation deck that rivals the final moments of the movie "King Kong". The film also has something that was lacking in most spy movies at that time; a believable ending that wasn't overly contrived. Ray Milland showed in "The Thief" that he was as good a silent actor as a speaking one.
Dr. Allan Fields, Ray Milland, has been spying for the Soviets by passing top secret documents from his position as a scientist at the Atomic Energy Commission, the AEC, to them. One afternoon in New York City one of Field's contacts is struck by a car and killed while he had in his possession a tin canister of microfilmed documents that Fields had given him. When the FBI finds out that the documents came from the AEC in Washington D.C they start to check out all those that are employed there and Fields seeing that the noose was closing in on him becomes a man on the run.
Good acting and great photography of Washington D.C and New York City with a dramatic and heart thumping action chase scene on top of the Empire State Building and the 86th floor observation deck that rivals the final moments of the movie "King Kong". The film also has something that was lacking in most spy movies at that time; a believable ending that wasn't overly contrived. Ray Milland showed in "The Thief" that he was as good a silent actor as a speaking one.
One of the fun things about noir is few of its defining characteristics are prerequisites. There are perfectly good noirs without a femme fatale, or without chiaroscuro lighting, or outside of an urban setting. And not all noirs have the trademark snappy dialogue... the crisp lines, distinctive lingo, backbiting remarks. So why not a noir with NO dialogue? Not a word is uttered in this look at a nuclear physicist selling secrets to an unknown enemy. We see him (Ray Millard, in a bravura performance) smuggling out photos, we see the convoluted machinations of the spy ring, the procedures of the authorities trying to catch him, and we see him wrestle with fear, doubt, conscience. When dealing with a gimmick film, several questions come up. Is the gimmick pulled off well? For the most part, yes. There is one "cheat" where we see a teletype of police communication, but other than that it stays true to the conceit without seeming forced. There isn't a moment where you think "This scene really needs some dialogue." Is the gimmick distracting? Yes and no. I was always aware of it in the back of the mind, but it wasn't annoying me or anything. Would the film be better without the gimmick? I don't think so. Again, there wasn't a scene where I felt dialogue was essential. We're spared the gung-ho narration of a docudrama like House on 92nd Street, and there's a refreshing ambiguity in that we have no idea (nor do we really care) who this enemy is, or how Milland got involved with them. These unanswered questions are rare in noir, or in any movie of the period. And putting aside the lack of dialogue, it's a nice, tight thriller with a mighty fine chase scene, psychological tension, great location work, and a very good score (which becomes especially important in this case).
- MartinTeller
- Jun 6, 2011
- Permalink
This is a pretty ambitious noir film that dared to tell its story without a single line of dialogue. It's plot is a bit hokey: a nuclear scientist who had agreed to pass on information to a fiendish band of communists (are there any other kind?) has second thoughts and must allude himself from their grasp. The film combines a wonderful mix of claustrophobic scenes of tension where our (anti)hero holes himself up in a small room while the phone rings menacingly (conjuring memories of Milland's brush with fear and paranoia in THE LOST WEEKEND), and terrific cat-and-mouse chase scenes that are truly Hitchcockian, including a climax on the top of the Empire State Building (how come Hitch never came up with that one?). Ray Milland does a terrific job as usual: one can almost hear his thoughts. And the cinematography is some of the most innovative you'll ever see outside an Orson Welles film. Don't get caught up in the idea that this is a 'gimmick' film. This is an innovative film, much in the same vein as some of the most inventive shows in THE TWILIGHT ZONE series. Try to open your mind to a fresh perspective and you won't be disappointed.
The noir cycle generated many curios but none odder than this. Russell Rouse (who had just done D.O.A.) decided to direct an espionage drama that falls just short of 90 minutes without containing a single word of dialogue. It's not silent, however: footsteps echo on the cobblestones of Georgetown and the floors of the Library of Congress, cameras click over hush-hush documents at the Atomic Energy Commission, telephones ring (but are never answered). There's also a good score. The espionage concerns thermonuclear secrets, so this film would fall into the sub-category of the Anti-Commie propaganda film, except for the fact that the lack of words allows for no preaching; the skullduggery is all but abstract. And the silence can be seen as expressing the deep, deep underground of the cold-war spy. Questions remain: Ray Milland always does well with this sort of recessive, basically self-loathing character, but why engage an actor with such a distinctive voice to keep his trap shut? And Rita Gam, in her screen debut, has little to do but strike any number of provocative poses and suck sultrily on her cigarette (the "temptation" she poses to Milland is never resolved). The Thief has enough going for it to keep one's attention, but it's an experiment that would have been more welcome had 15 or 20 minutes been shorn off its running time.
Ray Milland is a nuclear physicist who's been selling top secret material to the Russians. His story is told here without dialogue in this very ambitious and rewarding little film. His performance and the film score work well together and keep the viewer's interest. It's amazing how so much can be told without the mechanics of speaking. And, for as many films as I've seen, the chase sequence is one of the most intense I've ever seen, primarily by its use of silence and Ray's intensity. If you've never seen this very unusual film, then you are missing one of the best examples of film noir, buoyed by its distinction of no dialogue, but well makes up for it with its grade-A treatment of the story and its ability to use its surroundings as part of the story. Another Ray Milland winner!
- JLRMovieReviews
- May 13, 2012
- Permalink
This rather curious and open ended film was something that no major studio back then would have taken a chance on. It fell to Ray Milland and independent producer Harry Popkin to get this project finished and released by United Artists.
Without dialog other elements in the film have to carry the story along and two of them are there. The facial expressions of Ray Milland who is on screen for about 90% of the film are marvelous. The second is the Oscar nominated score from Herschel Burke Gilbert. But the third for silent films are those all important titles inserted where needed so you followed the story where the writer and director wanted to go.
Those titles might have explained Milland's motivations for what he was doing as a scientist who is doubling as a spy. Whatever they were the anguish on Milland's face told you this was not something he was doing willingly. As The Thief was made in 1952 at the height of the Cold War there were certain parameters in how the story had to end and they were followed.
Some things need no dialog however. Rita Gam made her film debut as a slinky and sexy woman in the next apartment. Those looks she gives to Milland and that sexy body language need no words.
The Thief is an interesting and somewhat entertaining film from Milland which while it doesn't succeed totally is still something to be checked out.
Without dialog other elements in the film have to carry the story along and two of them are there. The facial expressions of Ray Milland who is on screen for about 90% of the film are marvelous. The second is the Oscar nominated score from Herschel Burke Gilbert. But the third for silent films are those all important titles inserted where needed so you followed the story where the writer and director wanted to go.
Those titles might have explained Milland's motivations for what he was doing as a scientist who is doubling as a spy. Whatever they were the anguish on Milland's face told you this was not something he was doing willingly. As The Thief was made in 1952 at the height of the Cold War there were certain parameters in how the story had to end and they were followed.
Some things need no dialog however. Rita Gam made her film debut as a slinky and sexy woman in the next apartment. Those looks she gives to Milland and that sexy body language need no words.
The Thief is an interesting and somewhat entertaining film from Milland which while it doesn't succeed totally is still something to be checked out.
- bkoganbing
- Jul 28, 2012
- Permalink
The Thief stands as the first American Film since Charlie Chaplin's City Lights without any spoken dialogue.
Directed by Russell Rouse this 1952 noir is a propaganda film without any of the leaden anti-Communist dialogue that other films of this type contain. In fact the film has no dialogue! It's funny how first impressions stay with you. When I first saw The Thief it was at a Film Noir series at the Film Forum Theater in New York.
The Thief stands out for its special way of objectifying the isolation of the central character with film elements such as mood-inducing lighting, scripting, and especially music.
The lack of dialogue and Ray Milland's marvelous performance visually communicating the angst and secretive nature of the lead character is something to see to appreciate.
What stands out in this film is the lack of dialogue. At the outset this motivates us to watch more closely than if we were given dialogue to help drive the action along.
With its blast of a raining phone in the very first frame of the film as the camera moves over to show us the anxious Allen Fields lying fully dressed on his bed waiting, we understand that sound and sight over spoken language is what will be the currency of this film.
Hats off to Ray Milland and the wonderful score because just as in the early films of the silent period all the plot points of the film are understood trough purely visual means, pushing the film to the level of pure cinema.
The musical score for the film that Herschel Burke Gilbert composed says volumes about the character Allen Fields, and his emotional state.
Gilbert received an Academy Award nomination for his music score for the film and one watching will tell you why. Gilbert creates swells and moods to support the facial expressions and other physical language that Milland utilizes to show us what is happening with Fields and his eroding state of mind.
The dialogue-less film is definitely a stylistic approach to this subject matter. It is very unusual but primarily because we are used to a dialogue-driven plotted film style.
The technique does begin to seem forced into the second half of the film especially in exterior scenes where one would normally hear people talking as ambient sound.
The scenes with the FBI would have some sort of dialogue, especially in those where agents are being prepped on who to investigate.
Once the viewer gets with the approach that the filmmaker is taking though, the lack of dialogue can be understood as part of the overall theme of he voice-less nature of the Spy character in films.
Some things are left unexplained though and this could have been added to create more depth in the story line. We never learn why Fields is stealing secrets for the enemy. Is he being paid? Is there a wife being held captive? These pieces of the puzzle may help. Without them the story feels poetic without substance.
Ray Milland gets extra credit for creating such a memorable performance. His Allen Fields seems cut from the same cloth as his character from The Lost Weekend, angst-driven without solution.
No one can drink whiskey or smoke a cigarette quite like Ray Milland, with his sense of exclusive attitude while simultaneously embroiled in some deep emotional turbulence.
For anyone interested in Film Noir styling taken to exceptionally expressive levels this film will show you things you may not have seen before.
The night exteriors are textbook noir examples of lighting and camera. In this case the ambient sounds of the Washington D. C. locations are contrasted well with those of the New York City locations, especially the wide shot of Milland's Allen Fields arriving in the beautiful Pennsylvania Train Station before it was demolished.
Although the interiors are stage sets there is attention paid to creating surroundings that support the 'silence' of spy Allen Fields especially the cage-like apartment where Fields waits for his final phone call.
Directed by Russell Rouse this 1952 noir is a propaganda film without any of the leaden anti-Communist dialogue that other films of this type contain. In fact the film has no dialogue! It's funny how first impressions stay with you. When I first saw The Thief it was at a Film Noir series at the Film Forum Theater in New York.
The Thief stands out for its special way of objectifying the isolation of the central character with film elements such as mood-inducing lighting, scripting, and especially music.
The lack of dialogue and Ray Milland's marvelous performance visually communicating the angst and secretive nature of the lead character is something to see to appreciate.
What stands out in this film is the lack of dialogue. At the outset this motivates us to watch more closely than if we were given dialogue to help drive the action along.
With its blast of a raining phone in the very first frame of the film as the camera moves over to show us the anxious Allen Fields lying fully dressed on his bed waiting, we understand that sound and sight over spoken language is what will be the currency of this film.
Hats off to Ray Milland and the wonderful score because just as in the early films of the silent period all the plot points of the film are understood trough purely visual means, pushing the film to the level of pure cinema.
The musical score for the film that Herschel Burke Gilbert composed says volumes about the character Allen Fields, and his emotional state.
Gilbert received an Academy Award nomination for his music score for the film and one watching will tell you why. Gilbert creates swells and moods to support the facial expressions and other physical language that Milland utilizes to show us what is happening with Fields and his eroding state of mind.
The dialogue-less film is definitely a stylistic approach to this subject matter. It is very unusual but primarily because we are used to a dialogue-driven plotted film style.
The technique does begin to seem forced into the second half of the film especially in exterior scenes where one would normally hear people talking as ambient sound.
The scenes with the FBI would have some sort of dialogue, especially in those where agents are being prepped on who to investigate.
Once the viewer gets with the approach that the filmmaker is taking though, the lack of dialogue can be understood as part of the overall theme of he voice-less nature of the Spy character in films.
Some things are left unexplained though and this could have been added to create more depth in the story line. We never learn why Fields is stealing secrets for the enemy. Is he being paid? Is there a wife being held captive? These pieces of the puzzle may help. Without them the story feels poetic without substance.
Ray Milland gets extra credit for creating such a memorable performance. His Allen Fields seems cut from the same cloth as his character from The Lost Weekend, angst-driven without solution.
No one can drink whiskey or smoke a cigarette quite like Ray Milland, with his sense of exclusive attitude while simultaneously embroiled in some deep emotional turbulence.
For anyone interested in Film Noir styling taken to exceptionally expressive levels this film will show you things you may not have seen before.
The night exteriors are textbook noir examples of lighting and camera. In this case the ambient sounds of the Washington D. C. locations are contrasted well with those of the New York City locations, especially the wide shot of Milland's Allen Fields arriving in the beautiful Pennsylvania Train Station before it was demolished.
Although the interiors are stage sets there is attention paid to creating surroundings that support the 'silence' of spy Allen Fields especially the cage-like apartment where Fields waits for his final phone call.
- rmax304823
- Jul 6, 2013
- Permalink
- robinakaaly
- Apr 8, 2011
- Permalink
- F Gwynplaine MacIntyre
- May 27, 2004
- Permalink
Having watched Ray Milland in Alfred Hitchcock's 'Dial M For Murder', I wanted to learn more about his track record by watching this film. Don't waste your time on this poorly made effort. The reason why it fails to entertain is because it robs both Ray Milland and Martin Gabel of their voices. It is Ray Milland's dialogue and delivery that you remember from 'Dial M For Murder' in addition to his acting. Take away his voice then you're going to need a very good score to carry the story. This film fails to provide a good score. Jerry Goldsmith did a great job of 'The Invaders' in the second season of 'The Twilight Zone' series where there was no dialogue until the end. That was visual perfection, but this offering doesn't even come close to that quality. This is not a movie, it is an experiment that fails.
- marthawilcox1831
- Jun 26, 2014
- Permalink
Why haven't I heard of this movie before? Not a single word spoken, yet every detail of the mental torture that Ray Milland endures as a seemingly unwilling Soviet spy is conveyed by his features and demeanor. Film review books call it tame, pretentious, uninspired. I suspect those reviewers (this means you, Lenny Maltin) have never actually watched "The Thief."
- jlundstrom
- Aug 30, 2001
- Permalink
Unlike most silent films (even the recent revival "The Artist", this silent film has no dialogue boxes! How can a film run for well over an hour without any spoken dialogue or dialogue boxes? It would seem like an impossible task, but Russell Rouse accomplished it, as well as the courageous Ray Milland, who deserves kudos for taking this challenging role. I first saw this film as a child, and I thought it was a bit boring because I did not understand things like spies, science and a guilty conscience. We already know the film code will make Milland pay for his actions, but we do not know exactly how this will be accomplished; and that is the fun of this film. Don't miss it.
- arthur_tafero
- Dec 11, 2021
- Permalink
I knew the gimmick in "The Thief" because the actress "introduced" in the film, the gorgeous Rita Gam, was a friend of mine.
This is an interesting film because it's silent all the way through. Milland plays Dr. Allan Fields, a scientist with the Atomic Energy Commission, who has been selling secrets to the Russians. We see Milland photographing documents and slipping the film to someone who slips it to someone else, etc.
Fields doesn't seem particularly happy to be doing this, so one wonders why he is - and a poster came up with a brilliant thought which I'll get into later. Anyway, Fields' phone rings constantly but he never answers it. Is it a coded message or doesn't he want to talk to these people? We don't know.
One day, one of the messengers with the film is hit by a car. The police retrieve the film, and soon, the FBI is investigating everyone from the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington.
Fields goes to a safe house of sorts, where he receives a passport and clothes, but he must wait for a signal and instructions. In the meantime, he meets one of his neighbors, a leggy brunette (Gam) who, even in silence, makes it very clear that she'd like a good time.
The theory one reviewer had is that the Russians are blackmailing the Milland character because he's gay. The proof for the reviewer is that he doesn't seem to want Gam. No way of knowing - he could have been wary of any involvement as well.
This was a feature film that ran 86 minutes, so I suppose they really couldn't cut it. But it does get a little tiring, with Fields going in and out of his apartment, passing film around, etc.
Martin Gabel plays one of the messengers. Rita Gam is positively stunning, very similar to Ava Gardner - I believe she was hired by MGM as a threat to Gardner. Hollywood really wasn't for her. She eventually returned to her theater roots, and later became a producer and an author of several books.
Certainly worth checking out. A very good performance by Milland, who seems as beaten down as he did in The Lost Weekend, and walking the same New York streets. The locations for those of us from New York City are fun to see.
This is an interesting film because it's silent all the way through. Milland plays Dr. Allan Fields, a scientist with the Atomic Energy Commission, who has been selling secrets to the Russians. We see Milland photographing documents and slipping the film to someone who slips it to someone else, etc.
Fields doesn't seem particularly happy to be doing this, so one wonders why he is - and a poster came up with a brilliant thought which I'll get into later. Anyway, Fields' phone rings constantly but he never answers it. Is it a coded message or doesn't he want to talk to these people? We don't know.
One day, one of the messengers with the film is hit by a car. The police retrieve the film, and soon, the FBI is investigating everyone from the Atomic Energy Commission in Washington.
Fields goes to a safe house of sorts, where he receives a passport and clothes, but he must wait for a signal and instructions. In the meantime, he meets one of his neighbors, a leggy brunette (Gam) who, even in silence, makes it very clear that she'd like a good time.
The theory one reviewer had is that the Russians are blackmailing the Milland character because he's gay. The proof for the reviewer is that he doesn't seem to want Gam. No way of knowing - he could have been wary of any involvement as well.
This was a feature film that ran 86 minutes, so I suppose they really couldn't cut it. But it does get a little tiring, with Fields going in and out of his apartment, passing film around, etc.
Martin Gabel plays one of the messengers. Rita Gam is positively stunning, very similar to Ava Gardner - I believe she was hired by MGM as a threat to Gardner. Hollywood really wasn't for her. She eventually returned to her theater roots, and later became a producer and an author of several books.
Certainly worth checking out. A very good performance by Milland, who seems as beaten down as he did in The Lost Weekend, and walking the same New York streets. The locations for those of us from New York City are fun to see.
- espumoso55-1
- Jul 28, 2011
- Permalink
Mostly Noted for its Experimental Exercise with No-Dialog the Selling-Point.
But, Actually there was No-Need, because Ray Milland's Bravura Performance, the Closing-In, Claustrophobic Sets, and the Stunning City-Scapes of New York and Washington (day and night), give this Noir Everything a Film-Noir Demands, but Removes Any and All Speaking.
As Hitchcock Admitted about "Rope" (1948), Sometimes Experiments this Encompassing are Prone to Failure.
This Early 50's Cold-War-Espionage Thriller didn't Quite Fail, thanks to the aforementioned, it Drags a Bit, and Draws Attention to Itself, because it is so Different and Odd.
It's a Clever, if Ultimately Unnecessary Ploy. Because the Movie is Riveting, Relying on Milland's Acting, and Noirish Elements such as the Walls Closing In, the Mental Anguish and Guilt of the Spy who Accidentally Murders, and the Film Keeps You in its Grip for Most of the 86 Min. Running Time.
With Highlights Within the Bowels and Atop of the Empire State Building, the Cage-Like Sets where Milland Resides, and for a Little "Sugar" On Top...Rita Gam Makes Her Presence Known as a Neighbor that Likes to Let Her Door and Other Things Open.
That's Another Burden, the Loneliness, that the Nuclear-Spy, has to Live With While Dealing in Dirt with America's Enemies.
A Whale of a Try for Something Completely Different, but it Truly has to be Labeled a "Gimmick", because in the End, that's All it is, and was Completely Unnecessary.
But, Actually there was No-Need, because Ray Milland's Bravura Performance, the Closing-In, Claustrophobic Sets, and the Stunning City-Scapes of New York and Washington (day and night), give this Noir Everything a Film-Noir Demands, but Removes Any and All Speaking.
As Hitchcock Admitted about "Rope" (1948), Sometimes Experiments this Encompassing are Prone to Failure.
This Early 50's Cold-War-Espionage Thriller didn't Quite Fail, thanks to the aforementioned, it Drags a Bit, and Draws Attention to Itself, because it is so Different and Odd.
It's a Clever, if Ultimately Unnecessary Ploy. Because the Movie is Riveting, Relying on Milland's Acting, and Noirish Elements such as the Walls Closing In, the Mental Anguish and Guilt of the Spy who Accidentally Murders, and the Film Keeps You in its Grip for Most of the 86 Min. Running Time.
With Highlights Within the Bowels and Atop of the Empire State Building, the Cage-Like Sets where Milland Resides, and for a Little "Sugar" On Top...Rita Gam Makes Her Presence Known as a Neighbor that Likes to Let Her Door and Other Things Open.
That's Another Burden, the Loneliness, that the Nuclear-Spy, has to Live With While Dealing in Dirt with America's Enemies.
A Whale of a Try for Something Completely Different, but it Truly has to be Labeled a "Gimmick", because in the End, that's All it is, and was Completely Unnecessary.
- LeonLouisRicci
- Aug 17, 2022
- Permalink
While no classic, The Thief was quite an interesting little film. Although the story is on the hokey side with a plot line that is quite familiar in a way, and I think The Thief could have been shorter to make Allan Field's character's motivation clearer perhaps, the film does have its fair share of tense and suspenseful moments and has a clever little twist as well.
What makes The Thief so interesting is that instead of dialogue, The Thief relies on its narration, sound effects, creation of ambiance and intelligence of the audience to convey its point. All of this is done in an intelligent way, with the narration well-written and clear and the sound effects well-judged with none of them feeling out of place to spoil the mood.
The Thief is very well made. Its use of camera work and editing is quite innovative in the use of angles, while the lighting and scenery/sets are quite striking. The music is outstanding and appropriately moody, conveying the titular character's state of mind wonderfully and in a somewhat unnerving way, while Russell Rouse directs very well and makes interesting use of the film's gimmick, which on the whole I think does work. The acting is very good, even without dialogue the facial expressions, gestures and eye contact of Ray Milland in the lead and the likes of Martin Gabel, Harry Bronson and Rita Gam speak volumes.
In conclusion, while not entirely succeeding at what it set out to do, The Thief is an altogether interesting little movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox
What makes The Thief so interesting is that instead of dialogue, The Thief relies on its narration, sound effects, creation of ambiance and intelligence of the audience to convey its point. All of this is done in an intelligent way, with the narration well-written and clear and the sound effects well-judged with none of them feeling out of place to spoil the mood.
The Thief is very well made. Its use of camera work and editing is quite innovative in the use of angles, while the lighting and scenery/sets are quite striking. The music is outstanding and appropriately moody, conveying the titular character's state of mind wonderfully and in a somewhat unnerving way, while Russell Rouse directs very well and makes interesting use of the film's gimmick, which on the whole I think does work. The acting is very good, even without dialogue the facial expressions, gestures and eye contact of Ray Milland in the lead and the likes of Martin Gabel, Harry Bronson and Rita Gam speak volumes.
In conclusion, while not entirely succeeding at what it set out to do, The Thief is an altogether interesting little movie. 8/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Mar 31, 2011
- Permalink
- beatrock-97080
- Jul 7, 2022
- Permalink
Very few times a movie annoys me. I mean an old movie. I have respect for them in some sort of superior way, that is, them to me. In general watching an old movie is like having a foreign affairs: you have more chance to be lucky if you play once on all the jackpots, not just spoiling your money/talent on one machine/love/nationality/present year. It is thereby logic old movies in general have more quality than modern ones, that's like choosing between wisdom and srupidity. One of the sidetracks in the genre I like are the experimental movies from the 1960s-1970s, they always know how to refreshen the old standard and thereby how to increase upon movie values; however, this was exactly what I did not like about The Thief. Here we have an early precursor on experimental values with a special taate: the taste of avant-garde acquired by a single unsuspected viewing is simply not present, rather presents you with an overload of cynicism and cigarettes instead, best fathomable in bright yellow raincoats to avoid depression. The absence of volume works so much against the experience of this movie that it leaves you totally cold what would happen to its main character and thereby this movie is a flop.
- mrdonleone
- Jan 13, 2020
- Permalink
Actions certainly speak louder than words in this Cold War espionage drama produced by 'B' studio Eagle-Lion, directed by Russell Rouse and starring Ray Milland. Should you be counting the minutes until somebody actually speaks you will be disappointed.
Physicist Allan Fields, who works for the Atomic Energy Commission, is handing over top secret documents to enemy agents. We never discover his motives or what sort of hold they have over him but it does not take us long to realise that his heart is not in it. Through a freak accident involving one of the agents the ring is discovered by the FBI and Fields, now under constant surveillance, is obliged to flee the country. The tension becomes almost unbearable and the sequence on the Empire State Building is spellbinding.
The film is so technically proficient and its leading man so outstanding that after a while the absence of dialogue ceases to matter. Film, after all, is a visual medium. Rouse's taut direction, Sam Leavitt's cinematography, Chester Schaeffer's editing, Herschel Burke Gilbert's score and Ray Milland's performance combine to make this an intriguing and mesmerising experience. Milland is called upon to register so many emotions here and his expression when setting eyes on Rita Gam across the hallway is priceless. Who needs words? For this viewer at any rate the word that immediately springs to mind is: 'Phwoar!'
Physicist Allan Fields, who works for the Atomic Energy Commission, is handing over top secret documents to enemy agents. We never discover his motives or what sort of hold they have over him but it does not take us long to realise that his heart is not in it. Through a freak accident involving one of the agents the ring is discovered by the FBI and Fields, now under constant surveillance, is obliged to flee the country. The tension becomes almost unbearable and the sequence on the Empire State Building is spellbinding.
The film is so technically proficient and its leading man so outstanding that after a while the absence of dialogue ceases to matter. Film, after all, is a visual medium. Rouse's taut direction, Sam Leavitt's cinematography, Chester Schaeffer's editing, Herschel Burke Gilbert's score and Ray Milland's performance combine to make this an intriguing and mesmerising experience. Milland is called upon to register so many emotions here and his expression when setting eyes on Rita Gam across the hallway is priceless. Who needs words? For this viewer at any rate the word that immediately springs to mind is: 'Phwoar!'
- brogmiller
- Nov 23, 2020
- Permalink
- daviuquintultimate
- Dec 26, 2022
- Permalink