FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

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

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

chaswe-28402 All films are inherently impossible, but this impossible story is so far-fetched and unconvincing it might work better if it were set in another universe. A totally unrealistic moral and intellectual conundrum involving sin, guilt, and atonement, as well as life and death, in many ways typical of Greene at his worst. The 5 stars are for the acting, which is competent, even skilled, but the writing is not good. Perhaps I should dock more stars, but I suppose the questions are mentally and philosophically engaging. The actors do their best with the story, which really is fantastic. Greene wrote it in 1944, and then forgot about it for 40 years, until the early 1980s. And I'm frankly not surprised. Its first appearance in book form seems to have been in 1985, and the TV film appeared in 1988.It gives an impression of being vaguely based on the crucifixion story, with Chavel, one man (of three) buying his life by giving another, named Mangeot, all his property and allowing him to take his place for execution, thereby incidentally redeeming the (non-existent) sins of the remaining Frenchmen, both in and out of prison. The Germans represent the Romans in this scenario. The imagery is picked up visually by having the three execution posts arranged to resemble crucifixion sites. You expect the three prisoners fated for death to arrive carrying their crosses. An additional philosophical implication is that since we are all going to die, does it matter when ? Or was the sacrificial lamb about to die soon anyway ? I thought he had a nasty cough.Most of the other reviewers seem quite willing to disregard the enormous plot holes, although at least one notices that the Germans were shooting prisoners after two days, but Hopkins/Chavel makes it through three years. Go figure. After that, every plot objection is covered by some convenient special circumstance. The mother of the sacrificed boy thinks he earned and has bought the property that she and her daughter Therese have been given, and is unaware of the way he died. There seem to be no photographs of Chavel in the house, beyond the age of about ten. Nobody anywhere recognises him behind his beard.In the end, the mother dies, and Chavel is pointlessly shot dead by a murdering impostor, thereby atoning for his shabby behaviour. I give up, but it is definitely hard on Therese, the sister, who has done nothing wrong at all. She is surrounded by her dead mother, her dead brother and her dead would-be lover. Still, she ends up with the château, the land and the cash. The Third Man is a long way better than this.

Joseph Smith In the late 1980s, I had just seen Anthony Hopkins in "The Bounty," which together with the earlier "Magic" convinced me he was an actor to watch for; and I had read Graham Greene's recently unearthed little novel "The Tenth Man," when I heard about this TV adaptation. My excited anticipation was not disappointed, and since then I have probably seen this little gem 25 times, often screening it for high school students, who watch in rapt fascination. The plot is amazing -- as only GG could concoct -- and I am still convinced this is Hopkins's best performance. Also superb are Kristin Scott Thomas, Derek Jacobi, Cyril Cusack and Brenda Bruce. Production values are strong if not stellar (after all, it's made for TV). Too bad this film is all but unavailable -- you'll have to buy a used VHS online if you want to see it; but you won't be sorry.

Robert J. Maxwell I was surprised at how gripping this story turned out to be. I've never been that fond of Graham Greene. Somebody commits a sin, mopes around feeling gloomy, and it all ends unpleasantly. That happens here, too, but the plot is lifted out of the ordinary by the simplicity of the story and the splendid acting.Anthony Hopkins commits a sin -- I guess. It's a sin I would have jumped to commit myself. He's one of about two dozen prisoners in a Nazi cell in France, three of whom must be chosen by lot for execution. Hopkins draws one of the three X's. He's scared witless and offers his estate, lands, money, and all other properties to anyone who will take his place. A young man accepts the offer in the name of his sister, Kristin Scott Thomas, and their mother -- two poor people living near Paris -- then goes to his death.After his release, Hopkins wanders around and, with no particular place to go, winds up at his old estate, now dilapidated. Thomas and her moribund mother live there. They reluctantly invite him in and he winds up being the caretaker.The problem is that Thomas knows all about the transfer of the estate and she hates Hopkins real character for buying his own life at the expense of her brother's. She has a pistol stashed away, hoping he'll show up so she can shoot him. Hopkins tells her nothing of his real identity, only claiming to have been in the same prison with Kristin's brother and having witnessed the transfer.The old lady is bitter but in a very human way. Hopkins finds himself enjoying his new role in his old home. And Thomas gradually warms towards him -- still ignorant of who is really is. The mansion and its grounds begin to take on a more respectable appearance.So far, so expectable. But then an impostor, Derek Jacobi, shows up claiming to be the original Hopkins. In reality, he's a nobody, thoroughly evil -- a collaborator, murderer, and accomplished liar. He invents all sorts of stories to glorify himself and to undermine Hopkins' status in the household and in Thomas's eyes.I don't think I'll give away too much more of the plot. The man incapable of feeling guilt squares off against the man dying from a surfeit of it. Let's say that Hopkins does his penance and it's more demanding than one Our Father and Ten Hail Marys.Hopkins gives one of his most striking performances. Not nearly as splashy as "The Silence of the Lambs" but at least as effective. He rarely does what we'd expect from a more routine enactment of his roles. I'll give one example. He and Thomas are alone in the kitchen of the big run-down estate, and she has just discovered one of Hopkins' lies -- a little one -- and she accuses him. Hopkins stares quietly back for a second, then drops his face and brings his fist to his mouth to gnaw a bit at his knuckle or fingernail, just like a man jostling along in a crowded subway might do in a state of mild distraction. Absolutely without bravura, and yet perfectly apt.Derek Jacobi looks right for the part of the very villainous heavy, in that his appearance is bland and his manner tentative except when it slides into deliberate slime. Nice job.Kristin Scott Thomas is a fine actress but she may not belong in the part of a superstitious working-class peasant. She's neatly groomed. Her cool blue eyes glow with intelligence. And her features are clean and even. She has the face of one of those exceptionally efficient nurses who know everything that's going on in the ward. I can't imagine her fingernails ever having been dirty.All around, a memorable job by everyone concerned.

norty840 I just watched The Tenth Man for the first time last night. Anthony Hopkins is one of my favorite actors and he did an amazing job with the lead role. The plot, which could have very easily been predictable and stale was made fresh and interesting considering the plot twists. My only complaint is that the end seemed a little hurried and unsatisfying. Maybe because it had to work in the confines of TV time. Any time Anthony Hopkins stars in a movie you know it has a chance to be good, and The Tenth Man lived up to that standard. Aside from the ending which seemed hurried like I said, I thought there was one logic issue that didn't make sense to me and it has to do with people not recognizing him. Other than that, great movie.