rodrig58 Well, Stewart Granger is a different kind of James Stewart, a more masculine voice, less whining. But he can't be considered a tough guy like Sean Connery, he's more the Roger Moore type. Daniela Bianchi is beautiful, blonde and that's it. With Peter van Eyck, things are different. He is a very good actor, a real personality, a character of great charm . Sergio Sollima's is not bad as director. Yet this Requiem for a Secret Agent is fad. It fails to captivate with anything, except that it shows us a little of Morocco. Maybe that is even the reason for which the action in all spy movies is set in an exotic location, if it's not Morocco, is Istanbul, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Havana, Rio, Mexico, Cairo, etc. If we don't have a good great plot, we travel a lot.

gridoon2018 "To catch an S.O.B, you need a bigger S.O.B". That's the motto of Stewart Granger's boss in "Requiem For A Secret Agent", and Granger's character certainly fits the bill. From his often excessively violent methods to his valuing money above morals, he is not your typical suave and easygoing secret agent. His new associate is a young Norwegian who is just about the exact opposite of him (a pacifist with limited field experience), and what is interesting is that the film doesn't paint one as the complete "good" and the other as the complete "bad" guy; instead, it suggests that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Both of these men, but especially Granger, evolve through the course of the film: what the Bond films tried to do with the two latest Craig vehicles, this one accomplishes 40 years earlier in just 100 minutes. Despite his relatively advanced age, Granger is convincing in the physical aspects of the role; because of his age, he is even more convincing as a veteran at this sort of thing. The two main villains are smart, creepy, and have personality. My only major disappointment with the film is that the second-billed Daniela Bianchi has only about 20 minutes of screen time in total. **1/2 out of 4.

armandcbris While this movie can't be considered a classic due to its low-budget and uneven acting, it does have an appeal for me, in some strange way. Stewart Granger is all smiles and morally corrupt in his actions, but there's something about his character that makes you wonder where he originated from and what set him on the path to being the bastard that he is at an older age, compared to his younger compatriots. When he does unleash that smile upon hearing about an offer of more money to do a job, you can't help but laugh at his smarmy style. He's like the dark side of espionage...something the genre of spy films rarely recognizes as a possibility, in that any man in such a world doesn't need any morals, he just needs finances to get the job done, whatever it may be. This is also something verbally acknowledged by those who hire him for the job early in the film. They don't want an upstanding citizen or agent...his actually being a bastard is what makes him right for the task, because those he faces are just as bad!The title, while connected to events in the film, is also saying something about the whole genre of spy films at that time; that these men, being a Bourne, a Bond or whomever, can't always be doing the right thing for the right reasons, and that such films as a whole are more often about assassins and men of violence than those of noble and misunderstood heroes. (and yet, there is a touch of nobility and honor to his character in the film, too)Maybe that's reading more into what is essentially a low-budget take on the popular espionage films of the 60's, but I think the film has a better script, and some decent enough dialogue, to make it hard to ignore completely. And Stewart Granger is a delight to watch as a gray-haired, older anti-hero spy-for-hire.

vjetorix Stewart Granger's last foray into the spy genre opens with a stripper act where a bullfight film is projected onto a girl's body as she seductively removes her clothing. I can't help but see this as a metaphor for the general attitude of the film in treating women as appliances, or worse. Of Granger's three spy films made in the 60's (the other two being Red Dragon and Target For Killing), this is the most violent and misogynist. The film wants to be a morality play but the lack of conviction for such things shows through too often to be taken seriously. It's a pretty tight little espionage thriller but the hidden agendas of the filmmakers make it clear we're in the hands of the less capable. What could have been a cynical look at the meaninglessness of politics at this level, and it certainly tries to be that, the film instead reveals itself as a showcase of redneck attitudes and poor judgment. Adding insult to injury is the fact the score by no less than Piero Umiliani is not up to the standard we have come to expect.