Too much of everything

Simply Perfect

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Saw this 3/15/16, via YouTube.An obvious comment, but yes, here in this dialog-free film is "pure cinema", a narrative film that aggressively distinguishes itself from word-based art forms of written literature and theater.The movie revisits in inverted form Hollywood's big problem of the late 1920's, the transition to sound. Back then moguls sorted out who among the silent era stars could succeed with a dialog track (Laurel and Hardy, Ronald Colman, Garbo in a nail-biter) and who could not (Emil Jannings, famously). Here the lead is played by one of cinema's great line-deliverers, Ray Milland, giving an artistically complete performance with no more voice than Lon Chaney had in "Ace of Hearts" (1921). Milland's Dr. Fields worked for me even though his communicative activity is limited to picking up a discarded cigarette wrapper or anxiously staring at a telephone as we join him in counting how many times it rings."The Thief" also carves out a single-occupancy niche all its own, consisting of what might be called "pure espionage cinema". Through its wordlessness the film transports the audience into the secretive, hermetic world of the high-stakes nuclear spy. For Dr. Fields every utterance is a potential admission, casual conversation a revelatory trap. Writer-director Russell Rouse, working with Clarence Greene, gave Fields his Miranda warning. Fields by necessity exercises his right to remain silent. It is another entry in the cinema of "subtraction", a film that forgoes one or more cinematic components expected (and too often demanded) by a viewer. The film joins other subtractive works, such as "La Jetee" (1962), which dispenses with continuous motion for its Mobius-strip narrative, and "Rififi" (1955), whose middle, suspenseful act cuts the music. Then there is "Pulp Fiction" (1994), shuffling the deck of narrative sequence.The music is as emotionally hammering as anything this side of Alban Berg's "Wozzeck" (an interesting TV movie version appeared in 1972) or Ennio Morricone at his thundering best in "Un Uomo a Meta" (1966). Sam Leavitt's cinematography, combined with the music of Herschel Burke Gilbert, join the audience in Field's torment. Much of the action (and there is a lot) reminded me of "Vertigo" (1958) as James Stewart broodingly trails Kim Novak, with the images on screen acting as commentary on the score.Maybe "The Thief" is not for everyone. Hard to tell. Those who found the last seven minutes of Antonioni's "The Eclipse" (1962) completely appropriate and understandable will likely hold "The Thief" in high regard. On the other hand, this is probably not the movie for viewers who feel the need to ask after a half hour, "Why isn't anyone talking?"

Possibly because it was made in 1952 during the height of the McCarthy period, certain aspects of the plot seem to go unmentioned in the descriptions of the film that you find in Film Noir books. It is not just that the protagonist has become unwilling to go on spying. It is apparent from indications of his aversion to women that he is homosexual and is being blackmailed because of this. The lack of dialogue helps to keep this plot in line with the mentality of the 1950's. He was certainly not doing it for money or because of his political beliefs. It is a brilliant film in every way. I think that it has gone unappreciated to some extent because it has been classified as an anti-communist propaganda film. This is particularly ironic since the FBI agent pursuing him later in the film does a very stupid thing. (Not the kind of thing J.Edgar Hoover would have liked to see in a film.) (Comment by June of JoeJune)

This film came out before Mr. Hulot's Holiday, but it employs the same concept: the protagonist never utters a word. But whereas "Hulot" was a comedy, this one's rather noirish.MAJOR Spoiler follows: The ending of the film is a little fantastic. Suddenly, the protagonist, who's on the run, gets nostalgic about New York City. Seeing as his crimes, given the era, were capital offenses, I don't see any advantage in his action.Also, there was a cheat: when he was walking through Grand Central terminal, the PA system was broadcasting an unintelligible announcement. Deliberately unintelligible, I suppose, so that "not a word is spoken"; that is unnecessary.Not bad, but not classic.

Why haven't I heard of this movie before? Not a single word spoken, yet every detail of the mental torture that Ray Milland endures as a seemingly unwilling Soviet spy is conveyed by his features and demeanor. Film review books call it tame, pretentious, uninspired. I suspect those reviewers (this means you, Lenny Maltin) have never actually watched "The Thief."