Watch The Double Man For Free

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Yul Brynner is a CIA agent who hasn't seen his son in two years, so when the son is killed at a small Austrian ski resort, Brynner is driven by guilt to find his murderer and uncover the motive.Revenge gives Brynner an opportunity to glower his way through the entire film. His face seems carved of wood. If he changed his expression in the slightest, I missed it.He's been with The Company so long that he's paranoid as well as angry. He thinks something is up, something to do with his job at the CIA, and he's determined to unravel the mystery that may exist only inside his head. He belts Britt Ekland around when she's trying to help him, and he tears half her dress off. The former is a bad idea. Oh, he's ignoble. He never says hello or thanks anyone.I don't know exactly how much of this absurd plot I should give away. Maybe a hint. The Soviet Union has tricked him into coming to Austria for his son's funeral. They intend to kill Brynner and plant an exact substitute in his place. It gets twisted until the end, which is hopeful but still a little fuzzy. We hope for the best.Okay, so Brynner has the plasticity of a cigar store Indian, but at least with Britt Ekland you get that face, so full of good bone structure, the enormous blue doll's eyes, and the plump round lips providing a soupçon of sensuality. Well, more than a soupçon. In the context of her diminutive frame that overgenerous mouth looks like it could suck you up through a soda straw.The problem is that the entire movie seems awfully dumb. Ernie Freeman has overorchestrated it until it seems there's hardly a second without throbbing violins or pounding drums. And this William Wilson notion of substituting an exact duplicate is silly.Casting is no help. The ligneous Brynner aside, the chief heavy is Anton Differing, who works for the Commies here, although he's clearly meant to be a German and, in fact, alludes to having "lost two wars." He's been a Nazi in more movies than I can remember. And his Number One, George Mikell, was Sessler, the Gestapo sadist, in "The Guns of Navarone." Hollywood never has trouble switching the identity of the villains around. It's either the Nazis or the Russians. Makes no difference. We hate both of them.Nice features include beautiful shots of the Austrian Alps during the Easter festival, a reasonably perceptive portrayal by Clive Reville of a man torn between duty and self containment, and the scene in which Britt Ekland has her dress torn half off.

I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning and probably should not have done so as I was not too sure who was the survivor in the end. I do not like to have a movie end that way, but the location scenes were very good and makes me want to return there again.Cannot an American movie be made without the overkill of the "barroom brawl" smash and bang portion that, in my opinion, ruins the whole movie. Someone has to come crashing through plate glass windows, destroy mountains of dishes and glassware and demolish a whole kitchen or other room for "sensationalism". This cheap addition makes me not like whatever else (good story, good acting, beautiful scenery) may be in that movie. Americans are destructive orientated and I guess we thrive on the addition of this junk.

Passable spy thriller that's a disappointment considering the talent on display. While it isn't a dud, there's nothing particularly outstanding about it and it emerges as a fairly routine and forgettable film.There are some enjoyable aspects to the film however. I admired Yul Brynner for delivering a lead character that was so uncompromising, cold and ruthless – while he was hardly an admirable hero he was believable and convincing and therefore more interesting as a character. I'm sure if this film were made today the character would've had some more 'likable' elements inserted into him during the film.The weakest aspect is Ernie Freeman's dreadful score – cornball and overdone, regularly undermining the potential suspense in key scenes.For mine, while the film itself isn't particularly noteworthy, in a broader context it has a curious interest. Despite being made by a major studio, having a major star and a director who delivered many top-notch films in this period (especially a certain ape film made the same year), it didn't make much impact at the time and is totally forgotten today, even for a film made four decades ago. Why is this? I actually think it would be much more remembered if it had been filmed as a flashy, goofy spy film that is now considered to be representative of late 1960s film style and culture – the likes of which were spoofed in the Austin Powers films. For example, while imo 'In Like Flint' is a dreadful film, clearly inferior to TDM, because of its glossy and spoofy style I can see how its much more remembered and referenced today.Of course, TDM could've still been remembered on the basis of sheer quality but apart from Brynner's performance, it just doesn't have enough of it.

A pretty solid little spy thriller; it's never as intelligent as the "Ipcress File", but it's far superior to its two sequels, for example. No great shakes here, but the combination of an intriguing story, great cinematography, good Brynner performance(s) and Schaffner's adequate direction leads to a thoroughly passable time-filler.