FilmCriticLalitRao American director John Huston had a long as well as illustrious career as an intelligent filmmaker.If film critics were to draft a list of his important films then nobody would doubt that 'The List of Adrian Messenger' would easily find a place on that list.Although it boasts of some important names of Hollywood,The list of Adrian Messenger is able to surprise us all with its focus on suspense.This is one reason why this film's suspense elements appear to be more enjoyable than mere presence of big stars such as Burt Lancaster,Kirk Douglas,Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra.For a film which flirts effortlessly between different genres namely suspense and thriller,The list of Adrian Messenger throws its biggest surprise when it embraces comedy with natural ease.The pace of the film is fast with no scope for any type of dull moments.The end result is an important film which would be an inspiration for other thrillers.

kmoh-1 There has been much discussion about the accents in the movie. For the record, George C. Scott's English is nearly OK but very variable - no Englishman would say 'dah-ta' for 'data'. Jacques Roux is barely comprehensible. But the worst performance is that of Tony Huston, his first and mercifully final film performance, as Derek. No English nobleman would be called Derek - even Kevin or Trevor would be more plausible names. And his attempt at English is lamentable; it makes Dick van Dyke in Mary Poppins seem like Sir C. Aubrey Smith. Young Derek is possibly the most murderable child actor in the history of cinema.But strangely, the duff Englishisms add to the film's sense of an end-of-term pantomime. It is great fun, not serious, and not worth taking seriously.

writers_reign After his bitter disappointment with The Red Badge Of Courage Huston began to lose interest in directing though he still, of course, needed to pay the rent which explains some of the assignments he accepted. In this case a re-jigging of Kind Hearts And Coronets in which Kirk Douglas like Richard the Third and Alec Guiness before him, systematically eliminates the line of succession standing between himself and an estate and title. In an effort to sweeten the air around this stale plot the film employs the gimmick of having four 'stars' in cameo roles but as each is heavily - and ridiculously - made up it could be - and probably was - anyone under the masks. No one from lead George C. Scott on down, seems remotely interested in the plot and I can't really blame them. To say ho hum is to give it the benefit of the doubt.

derekcreedon Shortly after Huston's engaging oddity was released in the U.K in 1963 a Sunday Newspaper article 'exposed' the stars-in-disguise as a hoax. I'd just seen the film the previous week and though I'd half-suspected something of the sort I still felt cheated - mainly through the smug 'last bows' of the 'guests' who hadn't even come to the party. Mitchum was obviously an honourable exception, you couldn't mistake him and he had given us an excellent dialect-cameo. Douglas' villain gradually assumed command of the piece and could be excused, I suppose, for sub-letting a disguise or two. His creepy Mr.Phythian was certainly all his own. Mr.Lancaster, on the other hand, was nowhere to be found on the hunting-field. His role was played by Marie Conmee (the surname is peculiarly appropriate under the circumstances) an Irish actress reportedly sworn to secrecy. Sinatra's gypsy was filled-in, it transpires, by Hollywood look-alike Dave Willock. It was an additional marketing-ploy, of course, to bring in the punters and we fell for it. I enjoy the film certainly as an old-fashioned Holmes vs Moriarty intriguer which could have stood alone without the gimmicks.