MovieChat Forums > The MacKintosh Man (1973) Discussion > Things that Ruined This Otherwise Okay M...

Things that Ruined This Otherwise Okay Movie

posted 11 years ago by josephturner1975
8 replies | jump to latest

Not throwing a "hate" on this movie. Good actors, interesting story.

I don't even mind that I don't really understand it (british intelligence sent Newman to prison to do what? Kill Slade? Get evidence on James Mason? Uncover a diamond ring?). - that is just my personal stupidity and not the movie's fault. However, the major, hard to overlook plot points kind of ruined it for me.

1) In the escape scene, they (the people rescuing Newman and Slade) were able to drive a crane up to the prison wall and not get noticed? Then they abandoned the crane there when they escaped? That has to cut into the profits and be easily traced.

2) Newman's on again/off again accent was just horrible.

3) Great, unusual twist to let the villains go at the end (and Liberal, just like Newman). Ruined by the girl shooting them and tidying up the ending in a conventional way (i.e. bad guys never escape).

4) you can knock a Rottweiler out and drown it?

5) Why didn't he knock out the people in the mansion a little harder so they burned up in the fire instead of allowing them to chase him all over hill-and-dale? He had the upper hand and squandered it.

6) What did the villain mean when she said "i stopped being a woman 10 years ago"? Sex change? Is that why he kicked her in the crotch?

7) Why did Newman seem so disgusted that the girl shot Mason? Mason just had her Father killed for crying out loud.

~~~~~~~~~
what is the purpose of this really?

[–] aldiboronti 10 years ago

Mackintosh (Harry Andrews) suspected James Mason of being a Communist agent. The whole point of the plot was to trap and expose Mason, which is why Newman was given the false identity of a diamond thief and sent to prison. The diamonds had nothing else to do with the story, there was no 'diamond ring'. Diamond dealers were using the parcel post legitimately and anonymously to transport diamonds safely and foil thieves. Andrews knew when and where a parcel would arrive and arranged for Newman to steal it, get caught and buy a prison escape to infiltrate the same escape ring that would get Slade, the communist spy, out. Andrews then deliberately told Mason of the plot to bust the escape ring and recapture or kill Slade, hoping that it would panic Mason into getting involved personally. That's just what it did.

1) Prisons were less secure then. The mobile crane could have been covered by a tarpaulin until ready for use. Don't forget Ronnie Biggs escaped by jumping into a furniture van parked just by the prison wall.

2) Yeah, the accent was dumb. Why not make him Canadian (as later in the movie when he was given a Canadian passport?

3) Do you really think there was any chance of the girl allowing the murderer of her father to walk away? If Newman believed that then he wasn't as smart as he thought he was.

4) While the rottweiler's out of his depth and swimming? Of course you can, it wouldn't be that difficult to use your weight to keep his head under water.

5) Because he didn't really have time. He had no idea how many people were in the mansion and whether they were about to burst in on him in the next few seconds.

6) Yes, that's how I took it.

7) I agree, although you've just answered your own point in 3.

[–] josephturner1975 10 years ago

good post. I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

p.s i'm not as afraid of rottweilers as i once was....:)

[–] Roel1973 9 years ago

It's not your personal stupidity. It's the story. It just doesn't make any sense.

How did Mackintosh know that Sir Wheeler was going to use the Secret Organisation of Prison Breaks to break out Slade in the first place? Had he done so before on behalf of yet another spy who got caught?

And why would the secret organisation break out two prisoners at once and house them together in one room?

And how did Wheeler know in advance that the secret organisation was going to do that (that is, keep Rearden and Slade together at one location)?

The whole premise seemed very far fetched to me, but having said that: I quite enjoyed this movie for its pace, plottwists and wonderful cast.

As for point 6: I think it's simpler than a sex change. To 'stop being a woman' can also mean 'to stop having sex'. Besides, if she had had a sex change she would have stopped being a man, as she was clearly meant to look like a woman.

[–] suicidea 8 years ago

The story makes sense, but only if you follow the dialogue closely and make the connections between the scenes. I agree that it's difficult for today's audience, who will give up on a film in 10 minutes if something doesn't blow up. Also, pre-90's spy films certainly aren't for an audience who keep checking Facebook while watching a movie. I don't mean anyone posting on this thread, who actually took the time to watch this and write comments, I'm talking in general.

Mackintosh knew that the organization would break out Slade, he certainly knew their methods. I don't know how he knew, and it doesn't really matter. He wanted a man, his best man to infiltrate the organization, and the only way was to have a man join Slade in his escape.

As the OP said, it was an expensive way to break out prisoners (the crane would probably have to be ditched there) Therefore instead of planning two different escapes for two prisoners (and it would be difficult to arrange the second, security would probably be tighter after the first) they'd prefer to settle for two at once. And Mackintosh was counting on that, and he was right.

The lady who worked for the organization meant "I stopped having any sexual feelings", because Newman offering to sleep with her. She had nice legs, btw.

Never be complete.

[–] Roel1973 8 years ago

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't agree.

MacKintosh might have known that the organisation would break out Slade. That is a given, I agree. And that a second escape would be too risky, I'll give that as well. But how did MacKintosh know beforehand that the organisation would

A) break out a second prisoner in the first place? With all the risks that go along with that, it just doesn't seem very professional.They don't know enough about Rearden. To risk their original operation for some extra cash is just plain stupid.

B) that the organisation would keep Rearden and Slade in the same room? MacKintosh's plan is wholly depended on that assumption. And for the organisation to do that - that is: keep those two fellas in one room - is, again, just plain stupid.

It's a silly story alright, but as I said, I did enjoy the film.

You also seem to imply that if someone has trouble following the plot of this film, it must be their fault. They did not pay attention or are not used to pre-90's films or are checking Facebook. I don't agree with you there either. I hate to appeal to an authority, but in his original review, published in 1973, critic Roger Ebert called the script for The MacKintosh Man 'criminally messy' and he had to 'make a few wild surmises' to even make sense of the story. So I'm pretty sure it wasn't me nodding off in the case of this film.

[–] suicidea 8 years ago

I don't think Mackintosh knew that they'd be kept in the same room, or counted on it. But it makes sense that they'd be kept together in one place, instead of arranging separate accomodation and personnel to deal with them.

About breaking out Rearden together with Slade... You have to keep in mind that the organization worked solely for money. They actually did work together with spies, but only because it was convenient for them. They weren't spies themselves, they were criminals. At least that's what I took from it. So there was no reason they would refuse a customer like Rearden.

I didn't mean any insult by saying the newer generation of audiences have trouble following complex movies, I meant that as an honest observation. Just like the older generation of movie lovers have problem adjusting to the violence of today's films, today's generation (being used to simpler plots) has trouble following "implied" parts of a story. If you follow the other boards on imdb, you must have seen incredible questions like "Why did Michael Corleone kill Fredo?" or "So, what was Rosebud after all? I didn't get it." The movie-watching experience has changed drastically, and being distracted for a couple of minutes doesn't help in cases of films like The Mackintosh Man.

By the way, I absolutely love Ebert. Even when I disagree with his ratings, it's always a pleasure to read his educated opinions and points. I have bought and read almost all of his books.

Never be complete.

[–] Roel1973 8 years ago

Hi there,

I don't comment as much on IMDb to know about all the stupid questions (although, why did Michael kill Fredo cracks me up!), but I do agree with you that the viewing experience has changed tremendously. I talked to a young employee of a movie PR firm a couple of years ago, when Killer Joe came out. She said she had to catch up on all the Friedkin classics for her job and found them incredibly boring. So I said: You sure you watched The French Connection? And she said: yeah, it was way slow. I did not know how to respond.

As for The MacKintosh Man, these plot points bothered me, and I understand your rationale for them, but even so, it all sounds too far fetched for me to appreciate the film as a serious spy movie. But then again, it probably wasn't meant to be that serious anyhow. (Incidentally, have you read about the story that inspired the character of Slade? There's a wonderful book called The Greatest Traitor: The Secret Lives of Agent George Blake).

[–] suicidea 8 years ago

It's sad, isn't it, that anyone should find The French Connection slow? For me it's one of the most breathtaking movies, and it's sad that some people will never have the enjoyment and experience we had from these classics. Hell, it even has a car chase that's better than all the fast and furious dozen combined.

About The Mackintosh Man, I get your point. If I'd seen it 20 years ago, I'd have found it rather cheesy I guess. But I just watched it a couple years ago for the first time, and was pleasantly surprised, after being bogged down by dull contemporary movies. Perhaps I'm biased, because I really can't say anything bad about any movie with Paul Newman, Harry Andrews, James Mason and Ian Bannen.

I haven't read that book you mentioned, but I'll certainly give it a try. And if you haven't already read the book or seen the adaptation, my recommendation for an incredibly well done spy story would be Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and its follow-up, Smiley's People by John LeCarre. I'm talking about the BBC adaptations from 1980's, not the recent movie (which I thought was very good, but can't hold a candle to the TV series). It requires constant attention, and even then you may often wonder what the hell is going on (I read that a radio station held a weekly "Does anyone know what's going on?" competition during Smiley's People) but the acting, dialogue and the great story are infinitely rewarding. The DVD is dirt cheap, too.

Never be complete.