The Point Men

The director of this film is John Glen. The missing "n" means that he's never been an astronaut, but he did direct some real movies. In fact, he directed the Bond films in the 80's, and he was the editor on three the earlier Bond films dating back to 1969 (Lazenby, George Lazenby). Following his roots, he tried to make this film like a Bond picture. In addition to multiple exotic locales (Nice, Luxembourg City, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem), it has other Bond-like elements like a motorcycle chase through catacombs, and former Bondbabe Maryam d'Abo from "The Living Daylights" (which Glen also directed)

Glen is in his 70's now, but his presence here lends the film some production values that it could not otherwise achieve.

DVD info from Amazon.

Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1, or a pan 'n scan full screen version
no features

Lambert is miscast, that's for sure, but there is a fairly complex plot, solid direction and editing, and the impressive locales. You can view the glass as half-full or half-empty.

If you prefer the pessimistic approach, it is a sub-par international thriller and a really bad Bond film flawed by an abrupt ending, a miscast James Bond, and some weak line readings ( I love the guy who plays the Israeli General as a momma's boy. I have the feeling that the real career Israeli soldiers are probably some seriously tough hombres.)
If you prefer the optimistic approach, it is top-of-the-line for a Grade B movie. It even comes in an anamorphically enhanced widescreen version on the DVD, which is certainly unusual for a movie which never had a theatrical release. Am I saying it's a good movie? No, but it isn't as bad as the 3.8 at IMDb would indicate. It's a solid "B" movie.

The Critics Vote

No articles online

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 3.8

With their dollars ... no theatrical release

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C-. A really bad James Bond movie, or a good and expensive "b" picture. Take your pick. It has a few howlers but is, more or less, watchable.