A first-rate cast, a fine script, a decent plot and a so-so director, (Guy Hamilton), so why wasn't "Man in the Middle" a better movie. It's certainly not a bad film but Hamilton was a dull director, ("Goldfinger" being the notable exception), who lacked imagination and the most he does here is help the movie plod along in an entertaining, if unimaginative fashion. It's set in India in the closing days of the Second World War and begins when an American soldier, (Keenan Wynn, very good), shoots dead a British soldier in full view of witnesses.
Robert Mitchum is the poor sap of an American officer drafted in to defend him and what looks like a cut-and-dried scenario is soon revealed to be anything but. Given the material, (it's based on a good Howard Fast novel), it ought to have been much more complex and exciting than it is but it's certainly a very handsome looking picture, nicely shot in black-and-white Cinemascope by Wilkie Cooper. Never destined to become a classic, it's still fine Saturday Afternoon Matinee fare.
Robert Mitchum is the poor sap of an American officer drafted in to defend him and what looks like a cut-and-dried scenario is soon revealed to be anything but. Given the material, (it's based on a good Howard Fast novel), it ought to have been much more complex and exciting than it is but it's certainly a very handsome looking picture, nicely shot in black-and-white Cinemascope by Wilkie Cooper. Never destined to become a classic, it's still fine Saturday Afternoon Matinee fare.