User Reviews

The Museum of Modern Art in NYC is having a "Huston family" festival and they showed this film last night. Big crowd to see this film that was a flop when originally released. I had been wanting to see it for some time out of curiosity: George Sanders appears in drag as a San Francisco gay bar pianist, and Barbara Parkins has a role, three years after "Valley of the Dolls." (I love Parkins not just for the "Valley" connection. I think she's talented and beautiful and I love her voice.) I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. So much better than the stuff Hollywood cranks out today, although sometimes just as difficult to follow. There's lots of verbal exposition in the movie, and at one point I think it's even implied that the Orson Welles character is a homosexual.

The sexual politics of the film are outdated, perhaps. But, then, the political correctness of today is even more numbing.

The movie pops up on the Fox Movie Channel occasionally. Be sure to see it in letterbox.

By the way, Pauline Kael hated the movie. Funny, bitchy review in her book "Deeper Into Movies." But just because Pauline hated it, doesn't mean you will. She complains about the sound, but I didn't notice a problem. She also complains about the look of the film, but I think the verite style was intentional.

One tiny thing I thought I noticed, the old lady who is the mother of the Russian thief Barbara Parkins lives with seems to have too nice a manicure! I could be wrong. The moment flew by.

Agents are sent from the west to retrieve "The Kremlin Letter" in this 1970 film directed by John Huston and starring Patrick O'Neal, Richard Boone, George Sanders, Orson Welles, Max von Sydow, Barbara Parkins, Dean Jagger, and Bibi Andersson. O'Neal plays Rone, who is removed from military service and put on the mission because of his photographic memory. Each man and Parkins, who is a safecracker sent in place of her arthritic father, is assigned a group to infiltrate, all with the objective of finding this anti-Chinese letter. Or is that what the assignment is really about?

This is an extremely cold and vicious look at the spy game - it's no fun caper film. It's absorbing, moves quickly and is filled with marvelous, if not altogether likable characters. The last moment in the film will leave you breathless.

With a cast like this, the acting should be uniformly excellent, and it is, with the not-so-talented but beautiful Parkins given a role where she doesn't have to do any scenery chewing. George Sanders is especially memorable as the spy assigned to the gay contingent. O'Neal underplays, which is ideal for his character. Many people on this board won't remember that Richard Boone was a prominent western TV star who had aspirations of being taken seriously as an actor. In fact, he even started some sort of repetory company, as I recall. He was very talented, and here plays the head man to perfection, blond hair, down-home accent and all.

Very intriguing, done at a time when spy films were a dime a dozen. "The Kremlin Letter" stands out for its detachment and lack of sentiment.

Maybe I'm using after-the-facts explanations, not intended when this movie appeared in 1970. But somehow, Kremlin Letter (KL) started to make more sense, once I saw the spy intrigue as rather an excuse for parading a set of seedy, vicious characters,drifting on a sea of self-serving cynicism. The team of the shadowy Tillinger Foundation seems to come right out of a catalog of the finest human weaknesses: the greed, boredom and perversity of The Whore, the stereotypical homosexuality of Warlock, the deadly cynicism of Ward. On the other side of the Wall, things aren't better either: the wickedness of Erika Kosnov, the ruthlessness of her KGB-husband, the scheming Bresnavitch…

The Z-team of useful weaknesses is send to the USSR. They want to find a document, which in reality is nothing more than a bait for a sinister trap, designed by a revengeful agent. A bit thin, no ? For a start, the content of the letter is far-fetched, weakening the plot. A letter, written by a top CIA man without approval of the highest political circles, promising military assistance to the USSR, if China would threaten Moscow with nuclear weapons ? Come on.... Why would a high ranking CIA man put something like this on paper, and sign it without approval of the White House ? What would be the value of such a letter, without White House backing ? The KL is supposed to have been stolen by the Russians, does it mean that the Russians managed to open a safe in the CIA headquarters ? But who told about the existence of that letter to outsiders ? And how can the Z-team be sure that once they have retrieved the real letter, no copies have been made etc. But hey, it's a movie, let's allow some space for exaggeration...

Even if one doesn't get much answers in the movie… Watching KL often feels like having to carve one's way through a dense forest of question marks. I haven't red the book yet. But if you are acquainted with the enormous difference between the screenplay and the book of "The Quiller Memorandum", you'll know that some prudence is indeed necessary here. Where the Quiller movie left me with a similar kind of dissatisfaction as KL, Adam Hall's book turned out to be excellent, putting everything in perspective and making more sense than the movie. So, maybe reading Noel Behn's book will have the same effect. At least the writer is supposed to have interesting background, having worked for the Army's CIC.

Comparing KL with movies like "Spy who came in from the cold" therefor may be somewhat odd. OK, both movies are of course quite complex, both deal with betrayal and double crossing, but "Spy" left me much more satisfied in the end. It's based on a solid book, and the movie sticks closely to it. So, most questions one could have during the movie therefor have dissolved at the end of it.

The intention of KL seems to be quite different. It seems to seek deliberately to leave a different impression at the end. It doesn't care for answering all the questions, and seems to be seeking purposely to be more intriguing. But again, I might be explaining things with hindsight, not intended in 1970. It would take more research, to see if indeed the movie was promoted that way. Did the marketing boys and media spin doctors at the time try to sell KL as a "delicious dive into perverted cynical circles", "a stroll amidst a block of skyscraping human weaknesses", competing to tower above the other weaknesses ? Or did it try to reach the spy movie audience, and therefor failed catastrophically at the box office ? However, it certainly is not a good sign however, if indeed Huston didn't comment a lot about this child of him...

Anyway, if being intriguing, keeping us guessing was the real intention of the movie, it's clear it didn't succeed. Several reviewers criticizing bitterly the script missed the point it might have been the intention of the makers to weave some mystery, to wrap the intrigue in confusion. And if so, of course the main characters aren't likable as Tom Cruise or Renee Zellweger ! If the theory above is correct, that must have been exactly the point the movie wanted to make. But as said before, several reviewers missed that point. Without wanting to be insulting, this either says something about the reviewers, either about the movie. OK, KL doesn't have the clearcut and logical structure à la "Spy who came in…", nor does it have the same hip qualities as "Ipcress file". At least it has a top notch cast ! Richard Boone was outstanding as the falsely jovial, cynical team leader with his potato shaped nose. I also liked von Sydow very much as the efficient, ruthless KGB man (he is supposed to have killed off the population of a whole village, just to find a few suspects) with one damaging weakness, his love for a wicked woman. He seems to have made a career and a fortune out of playing such ruthless, efficient characters: Oktober in "Quiller Memorandum" or the hit man in "3 days of the Condor"

Strangely enough, the movie may not have been released officially on video in English, but CBS FOX edited it dubbed in French (1987). Did it maybe get a better reception here in Europe ? Anyway, as the original movie is otherwise impossible to find on either video or DVD, I immediately bought it, when I came across it in a second hand store in Brussels. And even if KL has serious flaws, I'm glad I did !

The film concerns an ex-official called Charles Ron (Patrick O'Neal) is recruited in an underground spies ring . They must retrieve at whatever cost a letter that a Cia agent signed by error in a document which promises American assistance to Russia and attack to China if this nation gets nuclear weapon . The group is formed by a priest (Dean Jagger) , a beautiful girl (Barbara Parkins) with ability as safe-cracker , an unscrupulous man called ¨the Whore¨ (Nigel Green) , an uncanny and astute spy (Richard Boone) and even an old drag (George Sanders) . They go inside Russia to find the mysterious letter . They'll confront a cunning head of Soviet Politburó (Orson Welles) and an evil KGB agent (Max Von Sidow) whose wife (Bibbi Andersson) falls in love with the protagonist Ron .

The film has suspense , tension , emotion , mystery and specially in its final a little bit of violence . Although the picture has various ingredients for entertainment , the screenplay is confused and complex , the plot has gaps and results to be sometimes embarrassing and absurd . This movie was made and released about four years after its source novel of the same name by Noel Behn was first published in 1966 and this was the first ever adaptation for cinema of a work by Behn . This exciting picture was filmed in four countries: Finland, Italy, Mexico, and the USA ; the scenes set in Moscow were shot in Helsinki, Finland . A number of characters in this movie are known by code-names , these include "The Highwayman" (Dean Jagger); "The Whore" (Nigel Green); "The Warlock" (George Sanders); "Erector Set" (Niall MacGinnis) ; "The Negress" (Vonetta McGee); "The Priest" (Marc Lawrence); "The Dentist" (Victor Beaumont) and "The Puppet Maker" (Raf Vallone) . The film belongs to spy sub-genre developed during the cold war and its maxim representation are John LeCarre's novels adapted to cinema in various films such as: ¨The spy who came in from the cold¨ (by Martin Ritt with Richard Burton), ¨Deadly Affair¨(Sidney Lumet with Maximilian Schell) and Russia House (Fred Schepisi with Sean Connery) . The star studded casting is important with known international actors but with a blurred writing they appear acting with no sense . The film was regularly directed by John Huston (who acts in a very secondary role) . Rating : Mediocre , though entertaining .

I saw the original release (uncut) and was not disturbed by George Sanders in drag. It seems to me that this one point raised by almost all of the movie anthologies indicates that none have seen the film but only copied one person's comment. The story is clever espionage, keeps you guessing, and keeps your interest. I do not want to say anything else about the story for it will spoil it for those who have not seen it. The performances are all strong and the graphic portrayal may have been too much for the critics. If you want to sense the power and fear of espionage, this is the film to see. There is no holding back. Even the great one, "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold", does not push the cruelty of the spy game as far as this one does. I wish we could get some interest going so that this film will be released on video. I would like to revisit this unique spy film.

I've watched this movie a number of times since shortly after it was released, and my appreciation for it has declined over time. Huston not only directed but wrote the screenplay, so you know going in it's no fool's work. He tried to do something more serious more serious than a James Bond movie. By piercing the gray exterior of Soviet life, it disrupted some stereotypes and assumptions that our propaganda had created, such as not being able to enter a country like the USSR without being detected, and that Soviet officials were boring bureaucrats who weren't corrupt high-livers, and that criminality was not widespread in the Soviet Union as elsewhere. The problem is that Huston just made up a lot of stuff, or made it look as though he had in a rather clumsy way, and couldn't resist some completely implausible James Bond touches. Thirteen years later "Gorky Park" improved considerably on this groundwork, though not without similar errors. For pointing the way, though not for his own offering, Huston deserves credit.

John Huston made many great movies, but I think that he failed more often than he succeeded ("Annie" is the worst, but Huston also killed "Red Badge of Courage" and "Moby Dick" on the screen). "The Kremlin Letter" has a cast of Bergman stars (Bibbi Andersson and Max von Sydow) and an international cast of actors who were good elsewhere (Lila Kedrova is the biggest disappointment to me, but she is joined by Dean Jagger, Ralf Vallone, Orson Welles, et al.) but drained of emotion here or given no character with which to work. Patrick O'Neal lacked the charisma to carry a movie or to make the audience care what happened to him. Richard Boone makes an impression as the bullying mentor, and George Sanders amidst stereotypical homosexual circles, and von Sydow was a master of coldness, but everyone else seems stranded (as in lacking direction!)

The movie has a very complicated plot (or set of plots), an international cast, some kinky sex, lots of brutality, drugs (but no rock'n roll), no visual merits and exceptionally poorly recorded sound for what must have been a big-budget production in the heyday of Cold War spy films. "Beat the Devil" and "The List of Adrian Messenger" are more entertaining Huston movies of international intrigue, but better still are Huston's films of intranational intrigue such as "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Asphalt Jungle."

The Kremlin Letter is the most intense spy drama, with the tightest script and the very best characterizations ever to appear in this peculiarly appealing genre.

John Huston (who plays one scene himself, masterfully) somehow assembled the incredible cast, which reads like a who's who of its time. This was one of the great Nigel Green's last roles, and his performance is typical of all the others in the cast, smooth and riveting.

Barbara Parkins is at her peak, and is more alluring than you would believe. Much hotter than you've ever seen her. Wow.

Critics say this movie is slow and hard to follow. Perhaps they watched it at a cocktail party. It keeps you on your toes and you do have to pay attention, but that's how a good spy movie should be. This ain't James Bond Spoofs A Bad Guy!

If you like a good story filled with intrigue, double-crossing, revenge, sudden deadly action, plot twists and just plain evil bad guys, watch The Kremlin Letter.

Somee well known names in this... Max von Sydow, Orson Welles, George Sanders. Rone (Patrick Oneal) is borrowed from the military to go on a mission to retrieve a letter for the CIA. In it, the US agreed to assist russia against agression from china. Some interesting techniques used in the film. Most of the cast is just listed by their occupation. And when foreign nationals speak, they start in their native tongue, and then we hear the english. Saves money all around. Mexico, a drag bar in san francisco. Russia, but not really. A whole lotta violence. Some twists and turns. It's pretty good. The story kind of plods along. On fox retro movie channel. Directed by John Huston, of the Huston dynasty. Based on the novel by Noel Behn. His other project about a brinks robbery was nominated for best set decoration.

John Huston's early films included masterpieces like The Maltese Falcon, The Asphalt Jungle and Treasure of the Sierra Madre. As his career progressed, he made rather too many bad films, among them Phobia, Escape To Victory, and this incomprehensible and miserable spy opus. What is especially dismaying about The Kremlin Letter is that it features a cast to-die-for, and you come away from the film filled with bitter regret that such a great assembly of talent has amounted to so little.

U.S. Navy officer Rone (Patrick O'Neal) is enlisted to recover a government letter stolen by the Russians which contains a potentially catastrophic declaration of war between the U.S. and China. He tracks down some of his old spy buddies to help him with the mission: the Whore (Nigel Green), the Erector Set (Niall MacGinnis), Warlock (George Sanders), and other imaginatively-named spies and assassins. However, the team begin to realise that there is more to the mission than meets the eye as they are picked off one by one. Ultimately, they discover that the letter doesn't even exist and they have all been used as sacrificial pawns in a complex revenge conspiracy.

The film sounds quite interesting and exciting from its synopsis, but the handling is incredibly dull and the plot developments are extraordinarily confusing. The fantastic cast is all but wasted, mainly because none of them get the required screen time to build an interesting character. Worse still, rather than providing subtitles for the occasional foreign dialogue, Huston opts for a totally ineffective "simultaneous dubbing" effect, wherein you can hear the Russian being spoken and its English translation at precisely the same time. This deeply flawed, deeply uninteresting spy film really is one for John Huston completists only. No-one else could possibly find it a worthwhile experience.

I will never forget the image of Ward whispering 'We will do anything...' as Bresnavitch's (Welles' appearance is almost a cameo; purely setup for the story) face is caught in the flicker of the projector (see the movie to understand his fear) . The 'cruelty' of the game is played out in these few moments.

The story line is simple and I won't repeat it here. I will say that from the Highwayman's exit (near the beginning) to the final revelation, the film is non-stop. George Sanders is a bonus. Not absolutely necessary to the story but certainly an amplification of the stakes involved.

Ward is the key to the story (no pun intended). Rone is drawn in for his memory. The Whore, jaded and disinterested in anything other than his immediate existence agrees to participate for money... or perhaps something else.

Remember the opening scene in Mission Impossible (Tom Cruise version)? Phelps' wife is drugged and the race is on to get the information so she can be given the antidote. Contrast this 'we're in it together' attitude with the 'I'm in it for myself' attitude of the Kremlin Letter; lots of lies and deception, but completely self-serving. Not a platitude in sight. A refreshing 'honesty' for the new millennium... from a film nearly thirty years old.

Having seen several versions including the original theatrical release, television cut and the second theatrical release I can understand the misconceptions surrounding this film.

This film is extremely violent. The violence is not the '90's variety. You aren't shown it but you feel it. Bresnavitch's fear... Rone's 'matter of fact' attitude... Ward's 'direction'... The Highwayman's' resignation...

Oh, the method for Russian/English/Russian translation must be experienced. It might not be a first but I haven't seen it in any film since.

Finally I must add that there is not one likeable character in this movie... they are all far too human.

This reminds me of The Christie novels in which the lead is all-knowing and all-seeing. Twists at every turn, and most of the characters get turned on at least once! Unfortunately, every scene holds the possibility of a few seconds/words that twist the story more - so much that you lose track, or at least lose the ability to believe the action. It might be a good candidate to do over today with a less ambitious screenplay

I caught this on one of the cable channels and was blown away by the cast lineup - Max von Sydow, Richard Boone, George Sanders, Dean Jagger, and - mirabile dictu - Orson Welles. What could go wrong, says I, in a Cold War intrigue drama with such a lineup, and directed by John Huston (who puts in a cameo)? As it turns out, plenty. I wondered why I had never heard of this flick, and after watching it, I realized why. The plot is incomprehensible, involving a mysterious letter that must be retrieved. It turns out that this letter, which we learn of at the beginning of the movie, is nothing more than what Hitchcock called a "McGuffin," an undefined object which gives the director an excuse to strut his stuff. In this case the "stuff" is a beautifully filmed exercise in obfuscation. It is never clear at any point who is doing what to whom. Huston got Welles to play a role, but he phones in his part in the pompous way of his later years. After a couple of hours of confusion, the ending, rather than giving us any closure (heaven forfend that a viewer might ask for closure), merely prolongs the incomprehensible. In sum, a confusing, overwrought, pretentious mess. The only upside is that it is beautifully shot. I wish I could also say that it's a pleasure to watch, but good cinematography only takes you so far. The frustration of the confusing plot kills everything. Skip it.

"The Kremlin Letter" is a Cold War spy film from director John Huston. It focuses on the story of a young American agent and a team of spies that infiltrate the Soviet Union in an attempt to recover a letter compromising to the United States.

Patrick O'Neal is effective as Charles Rone, who is accepted as a spy due to his photographic memory. Also notable are Richard Boone as the genial mentor to Rone, Bibi Andersson as the desperate wife of a Soviet spy chief Kosnov and Barbara Parkins as an enchanting fellow agent. Orson Welles is solid in a minor role as a Soviet official. Veteran actor Max von Sydow has a good turn as Colonel Kosnov, a determined man with a brutal record, who organizes a "third section" of Soviet agents.

This is the seediest spy story I have seen to date. Harsh tactics are used by both the Americans and Soviets and agents are expected to compromise themselves to the fullest extent in the service of their country. The story remains interesting throughout with intrigue, duplicity and twists. The pace is slow, so this film is not recommend for those looking for a James Bond style spy thriller, but rather those looking for a John le Carré type spy story in the vein of "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold".

I can't believe there are four positive comments for this dud! If you're tired of the James Bond pictures and you want to try a more "adult" and mature spy film, check out "The Ipcress File", or even "The Naked Runner", with Frank Sinatra; they are far superior. "The Kremlin Letter" is poorly structured (the main hero, for example, is kept offscreen for about an hour!), nearly incomprehensible, uninvolving, talky, and loaded with so many stiff performances that you may wonder why they didn't hire some wax-museum figures instead; they'd be a lot more lively. The lead has all the charm and acting talent of George Lazenby, and Orson Welles is used for decorative puproses only; you never even understand what he's doing in the picture. The movie's only interesting moments come at the very end, when it finally manages to suggest how cruel and inhuman the world of espionage can sometimes be. And Richard Boone is the one actor who injects some life into his role. Otherwise, this is a fiasco of epic proportions.

Just how seriously John Huston took any of this is hard to say but "The Kremlin Letter" is still one of his most entertaining pictures. A shaggy dog story with a plot that is virtually impossible to follow, it's possibly his daftest picture since "Beat the Devil". An all-star cast play various spies, both Russian and American, and they would all seem to be after the letter of the title; that much is clear...or is it! Huston himself wrote it, together with Gladys Hill, from a novel by Noel Behn though like "Beat the Devil" you feel as if they're making it up as they go along, which is all part of the fairly nasty fun. The superb cast act with the straightest of faces, (there's a great cameo from Orson Welles while Max Von Sydow and Bibi Andersson as usual walk away with it). Sold at the time as a serious antidote to the Bond movies the film wasn't a success but is now seen as a cult classic.

I can't believe anyone would not think this is a 4 star movie, great performances, complex plot and no "James Bond" gadgetry, this is really good stuff. The film has a grainy quality that's perfect for the time and subject matter. The characters are real, human, flawed and believable. In a time where most "thrillers" insult our basic reasoning, this presents a picture of all the human foibles that allow people to be manipulated in various fashions. Similar in feel and texture to " The Spy Who Came in From The Cold " this movie offers some unique performances from some "big names" in unusual roles. The ending is filled with some twists and turns that make this movie well worth seeing.

Director John Huston also co-penned this complicated adaptation of Noel Behn's acclaimed spy novel set in 1969, with a team of crack operatives skilled in counterintelligence sent to Moscow to retrieve an unauthorized anti-Red Chinese letter promising US aid to Russia via the destruction of China's atomic weapons. Star-studded tale of espionage and double-crosses rarely livens up, is often crass and offensive, yet it does have a certain arrogant style which maintains interest. The early assemblage of talents for the mission is fun (although there's the usual hubbub about accepting a woman into the circle), and Patrick O'Neal is commendably non-showy in the central role of the Naval officer who is unceremoniously dropped from the military to take part in the operation. Huston's decision not to use subtitles is most interestingly handled, and the Finnish locations are convincing (if drab). Still, the brutality in the film's final third is disheartening, and the twist climax underwhelming. ** from ****

Best spy film of the genre. It has an exceptionally high caliber of actors who, portray the coldness, ruthlessness and reality of espionage, particularly during the cold war. The premise of the film is complex in that things are not what they seem. The reality of what spies do is never depicted more coldly and as a result more negatively in what it entails and the cost it has to one's humanity. If one is interested in a movie that, even by today's standards, would not be made, because there are no 'heroes', see the best spy movie Ever.

I will take my hat off to anyone who after watching this film for the first time knew what the hell was going on. I had been wanting to see this film for a long time, so I decided to buy the DVD when it became available. The only thing I can say after viewing it is "What was that all about"? On this first showing I found the plot very difficult to follow and, because I lost interest,do not even know what happened to the damn letter which everyone was looking for.Perhaps it will all become clear if I watch it several times. This is a very talky movie,(which I don't mind) but it does help when you know what they are talking about. Also unlike some other spy movies I have seen, this film lacked tension and atmosphere. I was really looking forward to watching this film, but after doing so I can only feel that it was such a let down.