Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

TinsHeadline Touches You

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Leofwine_draca WHO? is an interesting little Cold War thriller with an existential theme. It involves a top American scientist who is involved in a car accident in communist Germany. When he's returned home, due to horrific burns his whole head is encased in a metal mask, which makes him look like a robot. However, the powers that be question his very identity, and wonder whether he is in fact a Russian spy...It's certainly an intriguing set-up, and what I loved about this film is that it deals with questions of identity and existence in a thought-provoking way. The whole movie hinges on the acting of Joseph Bova inside the mask, and very good he is too, despite looking ridiculous. He brings a real sense of sadness to the part so that you feel for his plight.The mystery aspects of the storyline are acceptable, and there are a few action scenes to perk things up a little bit. Elliott Gould is the nominal protagonist in this one but he plays rather a dull and stuffy character, although Trevor Howard is fun in his flashback scenes. WHO? isn't an entirely successful film, which is why it's virtually forgotten these days, but it's definitely worth a look for those with a penchant for offbeat cinema.

Wizard-8 It was around this time that Elliot Gould's career started to go downhill. He must have been desperate for work if he had to star in this quite low budget British thriller. Actually, while watching the movie one can see signs that a promising movie could have been made from this material; the premise is intriguing and original. Unfortunately, the filmmakers pretty much botch all of it up. It's way too talky for its own good, and much of the dialogue is dry and not very interesting. As a result, the movie becomes quite boring; Gould himself gives a very uninterested performance. There are a couple of chuckles from the sight of the cyborg since he looks like the Mexican wrestler Santo, but even he becomes boring in short notice.One last thing: Does the FBI really have jurisdiction in Europe?

artpf Interesting concept poorly realized.American scientist is in an accident and East Germans save him. He comes back to America with his head in a metal casing and American agents don't know if it's really the same guy or a spy.Very low budget. Elliot Gould stars in this vehicle as the US agent who doesn't think the guy is the real deal.I suspect this movie was the beginning of Gould's demise as an actor. It come after all his great movies and he hasn't done much of substance since.He walks through this role reading lines in a stiff fashion. Interestingly this movie was made nearly 15 years before the original RoboCop. Wonder if they got the idea from it. It's basically the same concept without the law enforcement angle.The giant fatal flaw in this film is if they really wonder if this is the real scientist, why don't they just take his fingerprints and compare them?Plus, flashbacks make it apparent it IS the guy. So all the suspense is lifted n the first 10 minutes. There's no drama no tension. Just a guy with a silver head wandering around.Super disappointment.

Jonathon Dabell "Who?" is an intriguing, low-key, totally unusual Cold War thriller that has faded undeservedly into obscurity. While not a lost classic by any stretch of the imagination, it remains a commendable little film which explores issues of identity and political paranoia in an affecting way. Based on an Algis Budrys novel, and adapted for the screen by John Gould, it is a film of much talk and little action.... therefore, viewers will need to give it a certain level of attention in order to follow the plot and understand the characters. Those who prefer special effects, explosions and other such brain candy will probably not enjoy it.American scientist Lucas Martino (Joseph Bova) is badly injured in a car accident whilst in the Eastern Bloc. He is rushed to hospital and saved by Communist doctors, but his face and much of his body is so grotesquely disfigured that they have to use metallic plating to rebuild him. By the time Martino is "repaired", he looks more like a robot than a man. A while later, Martino is returned to the U.S, but his startling new "look" arouses immediate suspicion. The American government wonder whether the real Martino has been sent back to them or if they have, in fact, been handed a Soviet spy disguised as this strange robotic man. Agent Sean Rogers (Elliot Gould) is given the task of interrogating the robotic man, to find out if he is who he claims to be or an impostor. Martino insists that he is still the same man, and that only his appearance has altered, but Rogers suspects that there is more to the case than meets the eye. Could the whole thing really be an audacious Russian spy plot? Or perhaps the Americans DO have Martino but he has been brainwashed by the Russians into carrying out espionage activities for them? Or maybe even the bewildered metal man is genuinely telling the truth, struggling to come to terms with his incredible new appearance in a paranoid world where all around him refuse to trust him?Gould is good as the "hero", a man whose sense of accountability towards national security motivates, and occasionally clouds, his quest for the truth. Also good is Trevor Howard as the Russian Colonel Azarin, who is seen in flashback trying to brainwash the injured Martino (not until the end of the movie do we learn if his brainwashing efforts were successful). But best of all is Joseph Bova as the robotic victim, evoking a mix of sympathy and suspicion with his voice and mannerisms, despite the fact that his face is concealed behind an inexpressive metal mask. Indeed, "Who?" is a well-acted offering throughout. The film's faults lie elsewhere. Jack Gold's direction is too pedestrian and low-key for the movie's own good. Many of the scenes are so dully staged and detached and grey that the film has a somewhat cold feel to it. An air of cynicism hangs over the proceedings - one might almost call it "anti-entertainment" or "anti-cinema". This actually damages the film in some ways and undoes the effect of the good performances and thought-provoking story-line. I'd still recommend "Who?" if just for its relatively strange ideas, but it is undoubtedly a picture that could have amounted to much, much more.