Superstars Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Frank Sinatra headline the witty thriller The List of Adrian Messenger directed by Academy Award(r) winner John Huston. A retired officer (Academy Award(r) winner George C. Scott) must uncover the identity of a mass murderer who is killing off the potential heirs to a family fortune. The only clues are the names on the list of murdered heir Adrian Messenger. The tension builds as the final evil unfolds during a suspense-filled fox hunt. Let the chase begin!
This product is manufactured on demand using DVD-R recordable media. Amazon.com’s standard return policy will apply.
This disc is expected to play back in DVD Video \”play only\” devices, and may not play in other DVD devices, including recorders and PC drives.
John Huston was eager for a lightweight lark, and The List of Adrian Messenger was just the project he needed. Philip MacDonald’s upper-crust British murder mystery allowed Huston to work close to his Irish estate, including fox hunting and quail shooting well suited to Huston’s lord-of-the-manor lifestyle. The mystery itself is clever enough: As a former MI-5 agent, George C. Scott is lured into the case when writer Adrian Messenger (John Merivale) gives him a list of 11 names to investigate, just before Messenger is mysteriously killed. Scott combs for clues to connect the names, and the film’s promotional gimmick–big-name stars disguised under Bud Westmore’s expert makeup–kicks into gear. Thus you get Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum, Tony Curtis, Kirk Douglas, and Frank Sinatra, barely identifiable under layers of latex, and the mystery never suffers from this playful distraction. Huston enjoyed making this film (he makes a cameo appearance, and his son Tony plays a supporting role), and that pleasure is passed along to the viewer. –Jeff Shannon


May 17, 2008
#1
The problem with “The List of Adrian Messenger” is that it has a lot of great premise but never uses it to its potential. Essentially, the whole movie is one big demo reel for make-up effects. And yes, the make-up is well done, and Kirk Douglas does a decent job in his role, but ultimately it really doesn’t amount to any thing.
The issue is that a lot of it seems rushed, or even to formulaic. For example, the plot is (as you can tell by the title) one of those “list” movies where a person has to kill off a certain number of people for whatever reason. These plots tend to get boring because the audience knows that ultimately the killer is going to either A) get everyone, or B) get everyone down to the last person, and that’s when they’re foiled. It’s that case here: Kirk Douglas kills off pretty much everyone he has to except one person, the young son who will inherit a major estate Kirk has his eye on. He seems to kill off everyone rather easily, yet his final murder attempt seems even more easily thwarted. So George C. Scott just happened to be walking a dog when the dog got a fox scent, and his character LET the dog lead him miles through the forest towards that scent to find the trap? Thank God he must have had a lot of free time that morning.
And speaking of George C. Scott, I had trouble seeing him in this role. Certainly he is a great actor, but watching him play a character that might’ve worked better for Peter Sellers than a big guy with a gruff American voice wasn’t too believable. There were also moments when Scott’s accent seemed to disappear.
The other plot elements, including the love story between the Frenchman and the heiress, never get the development they need and seem to be put in for the sake of existing. Kirk Douglas, when he reveals himself, does very little. He catches a fox, woos the heiress, then dies. In fact, the ending is awfully abrupt, and reminds me of Kung Fu films that end RIGHT AFTER the villain has been killed, resolutions be damned. Instead of giving us some closure we get a sampling of who was behind what make-up. Pretty much as I said at the beginning, this film is a demo reel of what you can do to change a person’s looks.
I would not suggest a viewing unless you’re really interested and have free time. But then again, why not use your free time to let your dog take you across thousands of acres?
May 17, 2008
#2
It’s a decent, entertaining film, filled with star cameos. However, as is often the case, the plot veers off wildly from the original book by Philip MacDonald, which I enjoyed much more. In short, while I would (and have) re-read the book, I have no real desire to see the film again.
May 17, 2008
#3
A good one for masochists. It is actually quite well done, but if you are not interested in fallen heroes, don’t bother. If you want a good clinical analysis, buy it.
May 17, 2008
#4
While not necessarily one of the shining stars of director John Huston’s career, “The List of Adrian Messenger” is a fairly engrossing mystery. George C. Scott stars as a retired MI-5 inspector who is given a list of 11 men by his good friend Adrian Messenger (John Merivale). When the men on the list–and Messenger himself–all end up dead, Scott must discover what links them together, and who is eliminating them one by one. The excellent supporting cast includes Herbert Marshall, Jacques Roux, and Dana Wynter, but the central gimmick of the film is spotting the cameo appearances by Tony Curtis, Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster, and Robert Mitchum. It’s not hard to spot the heavy makeup; it’s tougher figuring out who is behind it. Huston himself also makes a cameo toward the end, but without makeup.
Not a classic, but one of Huston’s more diverting minor works. It will probably be to the liking of those who enjoy the Agatha-Christie-British-upper-crust school of mysteries.
May 17, 2008
#5
I have a close friend whose husband is disabled. He watches a lot of T V mostaly movies he has bought or obtained somehow. He is a more clasic movie buff. He mentioned the movie and was explaining the plot and such. He wished he could see it again. I came home and found it. I gave it to him as a birthday present. He was extatic. He has watched it many times I am told. It arrived in great shape.