Scott LeBrun Bryan Forbes ("The Stepford Wives" '75) directed this adaptation of a Sidney Sheldon novel in addition to writing it for the screen. Sir Roger Moore tackles a change of pace role, playing Dr. Judd Stevens, a Chicago psychiatrist. One of his patients is murdered for no apparent reason, and his secretary is horribly tortured before being killed. Lt. McGreary (Rod Steiger) is a volatile police detective, bearing a grudge against Stevens, who's very quick to consider the doctor a prime suspect. The story then unfolds as one would expect it to, as Dr. Stevens must evade attempts on his life while trying to prove his innocence and keep McGreary out of his hair."The Naked Face" really isn't deserving of some of the talent here. Made on the cheap by the Cannon Group (basically because some of their other product during this time had under performed at the box office), it adequately entertains without being remarkable in any way. Viewers may feel underwhelmed by the twists that the story provides, and the climactic reveal and confrontation fail to be that satisfying. Editing, photography, and pacing are all reasonably well done, although that music score by Michael J. Lewis is awfully melodramatic. The last second shock ending is quite annoying.Moore is okay, no more, as our somewhat reserved main character, while Steiger is given yet another opportunity to rip the scenery to shreds. Elliott Gould is actually good as McGreary's partner Angeli. Lovely Anne Archer is appealing as always in her small role as one of the patients. David Hedison lends solid support as Stevens's good friend (and brother-in-law) Dr. Peter Hadley. The main attraction, however, is Art Carney in a likable turn as a sly private detective. The film gets just a little bit better when he turns up.Fans of these actors and this genre may enjoy this one. At least it delivers one memorable sequence involving one of the attempts to kill off Stevens.Six out of 10.

epegnam-1 The naked face is a remarkable film experience. It's not a good film but I recommend it anyway. It's worth seeing the way you see Dracula for Bela Lugosi a performance so filled with conviction that questions of good and bad become meaningless. Saying that Bela Lugosi is campy and over the top is making the assumption that he was trying for something else and landed where he did by accident. No one else in the film other than Dwight Frye as Renfield can even keep up with him. Frye's performance seems far more calculated but he seems to understand that this film is meant to be spooky and fun and that no one is going to stop him from doing exactly what he chooses. He's like the guy in the summer stock theater whose a little bit better than everyone else and inspires the other actors with admiration and envy. Bela Lugosi and Dwight Frye know that you've paid money to see them and they are determined to give you what you paid for. Lugosi/Dracula's victims could be moving or charming, the heroes could be dashing and silly, van helsing might be sage and warm and kind but they're not. The brides are creepy and the servants are ridiculous but the rest the living dead of actors. The crazy energy of Lugosi and Dwight Frye seem to sap the rest of the cast of theirs. The Naked Face is like that. It could have been directed by Tod Browning of Dracula fame. It's outdoors but stagey. The incidents in the film are outrageous and unconvincing but no more so than the everyday details. And every actor in the film walks through it like they're on Quaaludes except one. It isn't Roger Moore whose famous for not bringing much energy to wheat he does on screen. He fits into this film as if it were his home. The 007 films are so busy so full of incident and energy this film is like a fish bowl or a gerbil cage everyone is asleep or wandering aimlessly. It isn't Elliot Gould who also fits into the dullness of this film so well he's like a stripe on a dull pattern of wall paper. Why was he put into a film like MASH or it's hard to think of another film of his with much going for it when this is where he has always belonged. Art Carney, Anne Archer, David Hedison all like fish circling around a fish bowl or blobs in a lava lamp we watch them in a stupor. There is one performance that stands out one Lugosi, one Dwight Frye in a crowd David Manners and Everett Van Sloans. It's no surprise who it is, it's Rod Steiger. I want to be clear his performance is not good. He yells and whispers through the whole film like proto Nicholas Cage. He screams at the other actors, bullies them and worries over the turns in the plot as if they mattered to him personally. At times it seems like he's trying to wake the other actors up, trying to rouse them after they fallen asleep or lost interest. There is a crazy wonderful integrity to his performance that goes beyond questions of good or bad. He knows we're out there watching and he wants to give us something. His performance is a critique of dull bad acting. He seems to be seeing if you're going to be bad, if there is no way to be good than go big, don't go down without a fight, struggle against the awfulness. Laurence Olivier and some other highly skilled actors used to get through films like this by underplaying intentionally and quietly kidding and burlesquing the whole enterprise. Steigers performance critiques their approach and calls them cowards. He keeps laying on the energy cowing the other actors until it is not their characters that appeared embarrassed and intimidated but the actors themselves. Rod Steiger shows a crazed integrity. It's possibly the same integrity that allowed him to give so many fine even great performances. Cut loose from quality, artistry even competence, what else could he do?.

vegasniceguy I was getting ready to start some work, but saw this movie coming on cable. Saw the cast and thought that I really needed to watch this. Some of my favorite actors! I love Rod Steiger. But not in this film as his over-the-top persona was way too much to take. The final scene with Art Carney was a joke. It had the feel of a very cheap movie that bends reality to give a "shock scene".It's a bad movie. Bad writing, totally uninspired cinematography. But, it was bad enough to keep me watching it, AND, keeping me from going to work.Great cast put to great waste.

rixrex In fact the only reason to view this is for the fact that the cast, most of them, drag this tepid melodrama above water.Roger Moore, I asked myself, what's he doing in this? It must be for the fact that he had a chance to play a role out of type for him. He does a good turn as the psychiatrist who is over his head in attempts on his life.Elliot Gould is wonderful as the easygoing detective, until he is shown to be a mob sycophant. Then his portrayal becomes routine and hammy. This is typical for Gould, as he always plays serious and laconic characters well, and "yes-men" poorly. It isn't in his nature.Art Carney is memorable as the private detective. Anne Archer and David Hedison do good work if pretty standard for each.However, Rod Steiger is a shame. Where was the director when he needed toning down? He is just too overblown and intense to be believable. The fact is that Rod Steiger is a director's actor, he is able to take direction and create nuances when he is given that direction, and when he is let loose, he is not. Point in case, In the Heat of the Night, a similar character for him, alternating appropriately between outrage and understanding, well-done and well-directed role wins him an Oscar. Or how about his role of the Mexican bandit in Sergio Leone's Fistful of Dynamite? Again, directed well, he turns in a stellar performance.In this movie, it is embarrassing to see, for he's much better than what results are here. Other than the performances, this is a routine cop-mob-murder mystery.