Triple Cross (1966)

Strong and Moving!

Load of rubbish!!

Blistering performances.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Christopher Plummer a respected stage and screen actor won an Oscar for best supporting actor at the age of 82. A victim of the curse of Canadian actors who tend not to get Oscar nominated, he was only nominated for his first Oscar at the age of 80!With director Terence Young who also made Dr No and several actors who have appeared in Bond movies, I wonder if Christopher Plummer was auditioning for 007 in case Connery stepped down at short notice? The film has certain Bond elements, Triple Cross is based on true facts. Burglar and explosive expert Eddie Chapman is imprisoned in Jersey. When the Nazis invade the island, amoral Chapman requests to work for the Germans. However one Nazi suspects he has been put there by British intelligence. Chapman has guile, cunning, he charms the ladies, quick witted and thinks on his feet. Apparently Chapman used his position to trick the Nazis by giving them the wrong information.Unfortunately the film wastes its interesting premise and intriguing opening. It soon becomes rather confusing, not helped by choppy editing and flat storytelling. Some strong support by Yul Brynner, Gert Frobe and Trevor Howard. Brynner steals the film as a conflicted Nazi aristocrat.

Skip it – This WWII espionage movie could have been much better. The plot, which is based on a true story, has so much potential, but it never delivers. Christopher Plummer plays a former bank robber and "safe-cracker" who, after being imprisoned, volunteers his skills to the Germans so that he can be released. But who is he really working for? Is he a double-agent, or possibly a triple-agent? After watching the movie, I still don't know the answer to that question. This movie doesn't flow well, and there seems to be holes in the plot. Yul Brynner plays a mysterious German officer who happens to be an anti-Nazi. While Brynner is great as usual, Plummer doesn't bring much on-screen chemistry. And the director, who also directed a few James Bond movies, tries too hard to make Plummer a "007" kind of character. The main problem is that this movie is just boring. Not enough action to make it worth the watch. 1.5 action rating

What seems sometimes like an incredible tale of how a con man easily convinces the British and the Germans that he's working for them during WWII, with very little effort, is given rather routine treatment under the direction of Terence Young.Christopher Plummer, fresh from playing the Captain in "The Sound of Music," lends a polished air of humor and sarcasm to the role of Eddie Chapman, a safe cracker who makes himself useful to both the British and the German armies by acting as a go between who uses his skills to thwart Germany's war plans for bombing London. Based on a true story, I'm sure it embellishes the truth with lots of fictional twists and turns that serve the purpose of keeping a viewer tuned in to find out what happens next.A shorter running time would have helped, but the performances are all on a good level with special nods to Yul Brynner, Trevor Howard, Gert Frobe and Romy Schneider. Much of the story seems unconvincing despite the fact that the basic ingredients are based on a true story.Somehow, Plummer's casting seems slightly off for this kind of material. Gert Frobe is a standout as a doubting Nazi who suspects Plummer is not quite what he pretends to be. Brynner is more low key than usual as an anti-Nazi German officer who knows the end of the war is near. Romy Schneider is excellent as Plummer's love interest.Could have been a much tighter, more suspenseful tale than it is.

Quite right, it is definitely not a German plane. The aircraft is a 1946 French SNCAC Martinet.This was enjoyable to watch on a quiet evening at home. It was particularly interesting for me because I knew nothing of Edward Chapman's charmed life and wartime exploits so now I would like to know more about him and I'll be tempted to read up a bit and do some research about him.The film was well made with good production values and direction. My complaint is with the editing which was off kilter at times. The story line was abrupt and frequently resulted in too many fast changes. For instance we needed to see how Edward Chapman got passage on the vessel to Lisbon.