Lack of good storyline.

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

I just finished writing about the first episode of the television show It Takes a Thief and I could almost take that plot synopsis and use it with Requiem for a Secret Agent. Tired of seeing agents killed one after the other in Morocco, a spy agency decides to think outside the box and send in a specialist of sorts. They hire a mercenary (and major bastard) named Merrill (Stewart Granger) to get to the bottom of what's going on in Morocco. Again, as with the episode of It Takes a Thief I just watched, I enjoyed Requiem for a Secret Agent up to the last act. It seemed that the film sort of loses its way and runs out of steam. The ending doesn't really work with me. Too bad, because after the first two acts, I was really enjoying the movie. Sure, as others have pointed out, it's misogynistic and violent – but so are a lot of other spy-type films from the 60s/70s, including the much-beloved James Bond. I think the big difference is that here, Granger is our hero, but his Merrill doesn't always act as we have come to expect. Smacking women around and using them the way he does isn't a very heroic quality. However, Merrill treats everyone horribly – men and women. I'm not defending him – he's really is a bastard. But he is a bastard that gets the job done. And in the world in which he operates, that seems to be all that matters to him and the people who hire him.Highlights for me include: the Moroccan locations, the title song, the unusual opening (two characters that I assumed would play a large part in the movie are killed in the first 15 minutes), Peter van Eyck (what a baddie!), and the cat and mouse game played by Granger and van Eyck. As far as negatives go, beyond the poor final scenes I've already mentioned, my biggest complaint is with Daniela Bianchi's role – it's not big enough.

Well, Stewart Granger is a different kind of James Stewart, a more masculine voice, less whining. But he can't be considered a tough guy like Sean Connery, he's more the Roger Moore type. Daniela Bianchi is beautiful, blonde and that's it. With Peter van Eyck, things are different. He is a very good actor, a real personality, a character of great charm . Sergio Sollima's is not bad as director. Yet this Requiem for a Secret Agent is fad. It fails to captivate with anything, except that it shows us a little of Morocco. Maybe that is even the reason for which the action in all spy movies is set in an exotic location, if it's not Morocco, is Istanbul, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Havana, Rio, Mexico, Cairo, etc. If we don't have a good great plot, we travel a lot.

While this movie can't be considered a classic due to its low-budget and uneven acting, it does have an appeal for me, in some strange way. Stewart Granger is all smiles and morally corrupt in his actions, but there's something about his character that makes you wonder where he originated from and what set him on the path to being the bastard that he is at an older age, compared to his younger compatriots. When he does unleash that smile upon hearing about an offer of more money to do a job, you can't help but laugh at his smarmy style. He's like the dark side of espionage...something the genre of spy films rarely recognizes as a possibility, in that any man in such a world doesn't need any morals, he just needs finances to get the job done, whatever it may be. This is also something verbally acknowledged by those who hire him for the job early in the film. They don't want an upstanding citizen or agent...his actually being a bastard is what makes him right for the task, because those he faces are just as bad!The title, while connected to events in the film, is also saying something about the whole genre of spy films at that time; that these men, being a Bourne, a Bond or whomever, can't always be doing the right thing for the right reasons, and that such films as a whole are more often about assassins and men of violence than those of noble and misunderstood heroes. (and yet, there is a touch of nobility and honor to his character in the film, too)Maybe that's reading more into what is essentially a low-budget take on the popular espionage films of the 60's, but I think the film has a better script, and some decent enough dialogue, to make it hard to ignore completely. And Stewart Granger is a delight to watch as a gray-haired, older anti-hero spy-for-hire.

Stewart Granger's last foray into the spy genre opens with a stripper act where a bullfight film is projected onto a girl's body as she seductively removes her clothing. I can't help but see this as a metaphor for the general attitude of the film in treating women as appliances, or worse. Of Granger's three spy films made in the 60's (the other two being Red Dragon and Target For Killing), this is the most violent and misogynist. The film wants to be a morality play but the lack of conviction for such things shows through too often to be taken seriously. It's a pretty tight little espionage thriller but the hidden agendas of the filmmakers make it clear we're in the hands of the less capable. What could have been a cynical look at the meaninglessness of politics at this level, and it certainly tries to be that, the film instead reveals itself as a showcase of redneck attitudes and poor judgment. Adding insult to injury is the fact the score by no less than Piero Umiliani is not up to the standard we have come to expect.