just watch it!

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Good start, some suspense, some tense music, filmed from above, and you say, I will see a great movie. But, in spite of several big names like David Hemmings (also producer of the film), David Warner, John Hurt, Christopher Plummer, all real actors, The Disappearance do not offer us anything. I never considered Mister Donald Sutherland a great actor except... because of his stature. Only now I understand why Fellini chose him precisely in the role of Casanova, to make a total caricature of Casanova (Fellini is famous anyway for the fact that he preferred non-professionals to real actors, he preferred mugs, expressive faces with grimaces...) In any case, you do not cast Donald Sutherland as a killer, it's ridiculous. You cast Lee Marvin or Jack Palance for that, they are more than Actors. I am not convinced of anything, all that Mr. Sutherland does in the whole movie is to stand frowned, teeth clenched, angry that her wife disappeared. And, if the start was so promising, the end it's absolutely disappointing. We discover that it was his wife the one who hired the killer and, in the last scene, the killer himself is shot. Probably by Santa Claus, because it's winter time...

I was lucky enough to view Stuart Cooper's original cut of 'The Disappearance' which has never seen and is not available on DVD. Just like his film OVERLORD which has been released by the Criterion Collection and become a classic, 'The Disappearance' holds it's own. The acting is first rate, the original music is lush and the John Alcott's cinematography is outstanding. It is a shame that untalented producers are allowed to tamper with the original works. The original is in a non-linear format. Perhaps the reviewers should watch the original uncut/unedited version and then I would think they would revise their reviews. It is brilliant! Hopefully it will be screened at a festival in the future so all can enjoy.

Ostensibly, it should be hard to understand why certain movies slip into obscurity despite being loaded with talent, but then you come across a case like this one and the possibility suddenly becomes not just plausible but inevitable. On paper, this Anglo-Canadian "existentialist" thriller certainly had potential: an impressive cast – Donald Sutherland, David Hemmings, John Hurt, David Warner, Christopher Plummer and Virginia McKenna – was mouthing the words of screenwriter Paul Mayersberg under the guidance of director Stuart Cooper (the man behind recent Criterion DVD release, OVERLORD [1975]) and being lit by the late great cinematographer (and frequent Stanley Kubrick collaborator) John Alcott; besides, the whole thing was being overseen by producer Hemmings himself. So, where did the film go wrong? Well, for starters, the central mystery itself is not very interesting: the neglected wife of brooding Donald Sutherland – the No. 1 hit-man for an enigmatic espionage organization – is forever threatening to leave him and does exactly that at the very start of the film; unfortunately, while Sutherland is very good in his role and literally the best thing in it, the actress playing his wife (Francine Racette) is as stiff and unappealing as one of her husband's handiwork. This fact renders the knowledge that Racette is none other than Sutherland's own wife in real life as well almost impossible to believe, since this is hardly borne by their interaction here – least of all during a fragmentary sex scene that ludicrously apes Nicolas Roeg's DON'T LOOK NOW (1973) which, of course, also starred Sutherland! Actually, I had seen Racette act previously in two notable films – Dario Argento's FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (1971) and Joseph Losey's MR. KLEIN (1976) – but I can't really say if her efforts were any better there. For the record, THE DISAPPEARANCE proved to be Racette's penultimate film before retiring to raise her three children with Sutherland. Thankfully, although most of them are practically extended cameos, the supporting cast – of whom, I thought, John Hurt comes off best – does keep one watching…but, again, the utterly predictable double surprise ending closes the film with a whimper instead of a bang.Equally to blame for the film's ultimate failure is Stuart Cooper whose direction is pretentious to a fault and, unsurprisingly, he too faded exclusively into TV-movie limbo soon after; for what it's worth, many years ago I did get to watch two of his TV ventures – A.D. (1985) and THE FORTUNATE PILGRIM (1988) – both of which were large-scale productions. Having said that, screenwriter Mayersberg is himself well-known for his non-linear scripts but the would-be audacious time-jumping techniques abused here merely attempt to imbue an obscure and thin plot with some elusive sense of significance; incidentally, even if the 88-minute version I watched was 12 minutes short of the original, I doubt that the missing footage would made things any clearer! Unfortunately for the viewer, Stuart Cooper is no visual stylist like Nicolas Roeg, much less a master film-maker in the league of Alain Resnais! Besides, given the structure and themes of the film, at times I couldn't help but unfavorably compare it to John Boorman's vastly superior POINT BLANK (1967)...

This film does a fine job of putting the viewer into the position of the main protagonist, Jay Mallory. It isn't until the climax of the film when Mallory and Christopher Plummer's character, Deverell, meet that the viewer can understand the disjointed, roller-coaster ride that Mallory has been on.The haunting piano music beautifully reflects the tension of the film. The support cast is made up of outstanding English and European actors who give the feel of the film the pace so often brought to the screen of excellent non-US films.