John Smith I came across this movie very late one night recently and as it was a Connery movie with which I was not familiar I decided to stay with it. Big mistake. It appears to have ideas way above its station and the plot boils down to being about both Political and Corporate interests combining to ensure that Connery's character's peace plan for the Middle East fails. To ensure this a top female assassin (Sharpe) is hired to liquidate Connery. However, such is the clunky nature of the plot, in one scene she actually saves his life when she has ample opportunity to kill him. Given that this is a mid 70s "serious political movie" a downbeat ending is compulsory and this is ensured when Sharpe kills Connery at the movie's climax.I'm guessing any feminists watching this movie appreciated the irony of James Bond being murdered by a beautiful woman.

CorumJI The remarkable thing about this movie is that it was fully conceived, filmed, and released *before* Anwar Sadat and the Camp David Accords, and, in its own way, echoes the events in its own future. If you are too young to remember these events, then I recommend you look it up in Wikipedia... Then realize that this movie did not follow that history, it preceded it.Not much should be expected of the movie, it is a definite B-movie from Connery's lower-rent period, when he did a lot of doubtful pictures following his "Never Again" appearance in "Diamonds Are Forever", and before his talent, so evident in his early, pre-Bond pictures, was re-recognized by critics and fans alike.It is a decent and effective, if not surprising picture, and Connery himself does an effective job as an Arab leader seeking to end the strife with Israel, against substantial political opposition. At the time, the whole idea of it seemed preposterously far in the future, but in reality, the Camp David Accords were less than 4 years away.

manuel-pestalozzi I watched a DVD version of this movie, called The Arab Conspiracy, a pretty choppy affair in several aspects. Yet, I felt well entertained. Cornelia Sharpe stands out as the most efficient and deadly contract killer I have ever seen, a kind of a Mutant Mata Hari. And she looks it too, like someone you really do not want to mess with, if it can be avoided.From a historical and political viewpoint the story is not entirely without interest. It is basically about Arab politicians who try to break away from the stalemate in the Middle East which persists up to the present day – and get bumped off one by one. Sean Connery plays a Saudi aristocrat who as the envoy of his country has the audacity to propose an integration of Isreal and that country's economical and scientific know-how into the region – signing herewith his death penalty.I find it notable that this movie was released three years before the Camp David agreements, five years before Egyptian president Anwar as-Sadat's assassination. One could even say it was prophetic. It must also be noted, and I give the movie credit for this, that the motives of all protagonists (not least the deadly female) are left pretty much in the dark. The victims of the mentioned murders seem to be anything but selfless idealists. Connery's character appears to be primarily a gambler and a pleasure-seeker. It is insinuated that underneath all what happens and can be seen there lies a highly complex structure of power relations and interdependencies, like a fungus, that cannot be overlooked in its whole by any of the protagonists. Maybe that is the curse of the Middle East.

Jonathon Dabell Sean Connery has to be admired for refusing to allow his box office reputation to dictate the film roles that he has chosen over the years. Many stars accept the scripts that they believe will result in financially successful films. While Connery has made more than his fair share of box office hits, he has also been in quite a few films that did not do huge business during their cinematic run. Connery's attitude has always been that he chooses roles that INTEREST him; perhaps roles that he finds challenging as an actor, or roles that require a certain amount of emotional depth and research. In The Next Man, a 1976 thriller from director Richard C. Sarafian, Connery assumes the unlikely but effective role of a Saudi Arabian statesman with a revolutionary political idea that places his life in grave danger. The film itself is nothing special, being a pedestrian-paced political thriller with a double-edged romantic subplot, but what is fascinating is watching big Sean playing this visionary idealist with such aplomb. It is a shame that the actor and the character were not given a more interesting film in which to appear!Following three assassinations of Middle Eastern politicians, Khalil Abdul Muhsen (Sean Connery) is appointed by the Saudi Arabian king as the country's ambassador to the United Nations. Muhsen soon has many an Arab heart skipping a beat as he makes a stirring speech to the UN assembly, outlining his revolutionary plan to forge a co-operative agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the production of petroleum. Formerly bitter enemies, Muhsen envisages that the Saudis and the Israelis will unite and create an oil-producing alliance capable of replacing OPEC. His optimistic ideas are met with great opposition from some quarters of the Arab community and it is not long before Muhsen's life is in jeopardy. Little does he realise that a gorgeous female assassin has been placed on his trail with instructions to seduce then eliminate him. The assassin, Nicole Scott (Cornelia Sharpe), captures the heart of the Arabian statesman and allows him to romance her as she waits for the order to erase him. But gradually she seems to fall in love with her target…. when the time comes, will she follow her professional orders or her heart? Little suspense is generated regarding the dilemma facing Sharpe's character. Although Muhsen is perfectly likable, especially as portrayed by Connery, not enough is made of the relationship between politician and assassin to generate the necessary sympathies. In the closing scenes, when Sharpe may or may not be about to kill her man, there is no particular level of interest or excitement. The film is quite a globe-trotting affair, with various exotic locales nicely lensed by the ever-reliable Michael Chapman. The script (worked on by four collaborators) jumps around somewhat messily, especially in the early stages, but Richard C. Sarafian manages to keep the plot just about understandable. However, it is important to note that the film exists in a couple of severely edited versions known as Double Hit and The Arab Conspiracy, both of which are so clumsily shortened that they are all but impossible to follow. If you are planning on watching this film at all, at least pay it the service of seeing the full length version which, while not without its flaws, is at least half-decent.