GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

bensonmum2 Given Danger Route's lackluster 5.7 IMDb rating, I really wasn't expecting to like it as much as I did. In the movie, Jonas Wilde (Richard Johnson) is a successful government operative who handles more sensitive cases (he's an assassin). Recently returned from a mission, he's immediately sent on another. This time, his handlers really don't care if he's successful or not. Either way, they want him dead. Coincidentally, Wilde wants out of the game altogether and has taken steps in that direction. His steps, however, do not include his own death.Most of the spy movie I watch tend to feature comedy or some other craziness. They may not be out and out spoofs or something like that, but they do include their share of humor. These spy movies generally feature crazy gadgets, over-the-top villains, exotic locations, and scads of beautiful women. Not here. Danger Route is deadly serious stuff. And while it does feature enough beautiful women for a Bond movie, there are none of the other trappings normally found in a spy film. I wasn't sure how this would play with me, but worked almost flawlessly. I appreciated the serious tone and the real tension it created. There's still plenty of action, but it's more subdued and realistic. I also thought the film had a nice flow to it. Never was I bored. I'll give credit to the brilliant Seth Holt who directed Danger Route. It's really too bad he died so young and after directing less than a dozen films. I'd like to have seen what a longer career might have produced. Finally, the writing is strong as well. The plot is filled with twists and turns. Most of these twists, including the final one, worked as intended on me. Overall, Danger Route is fine filmmaking.The acting in Danger Route warrants a mention. Richard Johnson never gets enough credit as a rock solid actor. Whether it's a more comedic film like Some Girls Do or he's running form zombies in Zombi, I always seem to enjoy his work. He's joined by a very capable cast that includes Carol Lynley, Gordon Jackson, Diana Dors, and Harry Andrews. My only complaint with the cast is Barbara Bouchet. It's not that she's bad or anything, just terribly underutilized. I really have nothing negative to say about the movie. It's a solid film with nice direction, writing, and acting. And, as is always key for me, I was thoroughly entertained. Danger Route gets an 8/10 from me.

A_Different_Drummer Come with me to the wonderful world of 60s spy fiction. Emboldened by the success of the Bond books and movies (Fleming wrote his novels on the beach, literally, with hunt and peck typing) the world enjoyed the greatest variety of spy fiction ever seen, present day included. Two of the most popular and critically-praised tomes, the Matt Helm series by Donald Hamilton, and the consummately perfect Jonas Wilde series by Andrew York, were serially destroyed by producers who were more interested in showing how clever they were than trying to capture the essence of the story. Jonas Wilde, as written, was a spy so well drawn that, in a showdown, you might pick him over Bond. No gadgets, no women, just a physical zeal to get the job done, and a rare (perfected) judo move which allowed him to kill with one blow (most of the time, often his back went out which reduced him to a mere mortal). This was the one and only attempt to bring Wilde to the screen, based on The Eliminator (one of the Wilde series, they are all excellent) and it is nothing short of wretched. Badly written, badly directed, showing no appreciation for the uniqueness of the character, and the lead actor so badly miscast that you wonder if he ever stopped mugging for the camera long enough to actually put some personality into his role. A travesty.

TxMike I sought out this movie for one reason ... it has Carol Lynley in it. I first saw her when I was 14, she was a teenager in 1959's 'Blue Denim', a risqué teen pregnancy movie, but I just had the biggest crush on her. Something about her, her face, the way she moves, the way she delivers lines, to me she was the epitome of the girl you wanted to date.Anyway lots of years have passed, neither of us are young anymore, but it is fun to re-visit those memories.In this movie, set and filmed in England, Brit Richard Johnson is agent Jonas Wilde with a license to kill. And in fact he does kill a few targets. Sort of a poor man's James Bond without all the gadgets. But as the story develops he learns that he has become a target of his own organization, and he has to use his cunning to survive.His American girlfriend is Carol Lynley as Jocelyn . She doesn't have a large role, but an important one. She is pretty much the same girl as in 'Blue Denim', just about 8 years older.I enjoyed it as light entertainment, as a 'blast from the past', but it is nothing more than a 'B' movie.SPOILERS: As Jonas begins to learn of the plot against him, he is told someone very close to him is keeping an eye on him. He figures out correctly that it is Jocelyn and in their final encounter at the apartment they shared, she tries to poison him via ice he always uses for his drink, but he is wary, puts a cube in the fish tank instead, the fish die but he doesn't, and he is forced to kill her by breaking her neck.

Michael A lacklustre British spy thriller which sets itself Here, There and Everywhere, puffing along in the hopeful wake of the success of the James Bond series. The 'plot', about Johnson becoming embroiled in murder and intrigue when called upon to bump off a defecting scientist, quickly becomes as coma-inducing as it does brain-scrambling for those paying enough attention to care. Seth Holt, along with his regular art director someone or other (check the credits), was responsible for some of Hammer's best 60s suspense films; apart from a few revelatory sequences on a train you'd be forgiven for overlooking this fact on the strength of what is presented here.