Who? (1974)

Some of the negative reviews here seem to be because of not paying proper attention to the story (particularly, understanding the clever flashback structure), and/or getting hung up over the makeup/tin head effects. Its a huge shame that these might dissuade people from seeing this brilliant film. The appearance of Lucas Martino (the tin man) is irrelevant. What matters is that all the FBI has to go on to identify him is his responses. Another reviewer (no doubt distracted by facebook rather than actually watching) mentioned 'why don't they just compare his fingerprints?' but its explained in the film that whilst the arm may belong to Martino, it doesn't guarantee that the head/mind does. At its heart, the film explores a fascinating theme about identity, what makes a person who they are in a way that couldn't be imitated and taught to someone else. Between the lines is a chess-game style thought-battle between two sides, figuring out what to do with this guy, and trying to solve the puzzle of how to prove that someone is who they say they are. There's a desperate, tragic and lonely feeling underlying the conversations, when trying to distill the very essence of a person's humanity. What really makes the idea work is the meticulous structure of the film - we see the present day situation of the FBI trying to figure out who he is, intercut with flashbacks of the Russians questioning him and figuring out whether to send back a spy instead. So the audience has to think and consider all the angles along with both the Russian spy commander and the FBI agent, trying to second guess events but never really knowing for sure who the man is (or more importantly - HOW to know) until the very end. I've seen this film at least six times and still enjoy its ideas and main philosophical puzzle each time, despite knowing the outcome. Its such a great shame that people are so blind-sided by the lack of action, the dodgy makeup effects, the woeful mis-marketing and obvious low budget of the film to recognise what is actually a great story, and a very intelligently structured film. There are two particularly ropy moments - a car-chase/shootout at an airport, and a completely pointless/unnecessary moment where an agent chases our mystery man across a road, runs into the side of a car, then leaps over its hood and ends up dead. Next scene: mystery man says "Sorry about Finchley". FBI agents ignores it, moves into next line of questioning. Its pretty absurd. If these stupid shoe- horned attempts at 'action' were cut out completely, it would be a better film. I would love to see a polished remake of this story by someone like Chris Nolan or Denis Villeneuve - taking the flashback structure and running with it to really explore the themes and push the emotional side into new territories. It would surely be a classic of philosophical sci-fi. Genuinely, this is one of my favourite movies of all time.

Just when you think Cold War espionage films can't get any more absurd, along comes this positively robotic sleep-inducer, which strives to be much more clever than it actually is.To be frank, the plot itself has opportunities for a nice if silly play on identities and the shuffled chronology offers a good basic premise, but it's all ruined by weak direction, a lame narrative, lackadaisical acting (although Gould is his usual lovably crumpled self) and a terrible score.Dumas used an iron mask to much better effect...3 out of 10 ridiculous car chases

WHO? (3 outta 5 stars) Actually, the movie was re-titled "Roboman" for its video release (let me guess... some time after "Robocop" came out?) and has some trashy cover art making it look some kind of killer-robot-on-the-loose kind of movie... which this most definitely is not! It's actually a very interesting suspense film/character study... kind of philosophical and very low-key. Elliot Gould stars in one of his finest roles... as a US agent who has to decide whether an important American scientist returning from a Soviet country is, in fact, who he claims to be. A nasty car accident on foreign soil almost killed Dr. Lucas Martino (Joseph Bova). Russian scientists saved his life by placing him in a newly-developed robotic body... but he is hardly recognizable as human anymore... so there is some questions as to whether he really IS Dr. Martino... or a Soviet agent pretending to be him to gain access to an important defense project. The entire movie deals with Gould's quest for the truth... and a very interesting story it is, too. The ending is particularly interesting... cross-cutting a final meeting between Gould and Martino with flashbacks to the medical procedure. Is Martino really Martino? And does it really matter? You won't know until the final, fascinating moments.

1973: American scientist Lucas Martino is seriously hurt and mutilated during a car accident in East Germany. The best doctors in the Communist state are doing the best to save his life, making him a kind of early cyborg with his head and most parts of his body covered or replaced by metal. Returning to the U.S.A. with a completely new "outfit", the F.B.I. tries to find out if it's the same person or an Eastern spy who's aim is getting information on a top secret military project.What could have been a very interesting and thrilling seventies spy story is just a lame movie about a robot man walking around stupidly. The acting is dull, but you can't blame main actor Joseph Bova as is is constantly acting with a mask on his face. The Cold-War-Conflict is just a background for a silly love story, and the worst is Bova's "make-up", as the robot outfit looks rather like the iron man of the "Wizard of Oz" or a funny figure from an old Disney movie instead of being a symbol for a human tragedy. The "Who?" script is a promising idea for a film, but the production itself is disappointing, and even stars like Elliot Gould and Trevor Howard can't rescue this movie.