Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Kirpianuscus a film of controversies. because it could be better. or because it uses , in not the most inspired manner, good actors. for atmosphere. for realistic details of story. for the status of history lesson, useful for understand the essence of a life and struggle and cruel idealism. Richard Burton is not the best option for the role of Trotsky. but , not surprising, he does a decent job. Alain Delon seems be on the thin ice. but his performance, version of empty soul character, is far to be bad. Romy Schneider is herself one of the virtues of film, only for her presence. "The Assassination of Trotsky" is one of films who has all opportunities to be easily criticized. if you ignore its message. because, more than a historical film, it is a warning. and, maybe, this must be the start point for see it.

insomnia One person who has "commented" on this film, consider Losey a 'hack'. Well, I beg to differ. If Joseph Losey had only made such wonderful films as "TheServant", Accident", "King & Country", to name but three, his place as a great director, would be assured. However, I do agree that this film, "TheAssassination Of Trotsky", is not one of Losey's better efforts. In fact, on second viewing, it's a total fiasco. It has no redeeming features whatsoever. I know that Hollywood tends to 'distort' history when it suits them, but "The Assassination of Trotsky" is not a product of the Hollywood Factory. In fact, if Hollywood had made a film about Trotsky, it couldn't, surely, be as bad as this one. Richard Burton plays Trotsky. He does have a passing resemblance to Trotsky, but itends there. Trotsky, who played a major part in the Bolshevik OctoberRevolution of 1917, was also an intellectual and led the lefist opposition to Stalin (how history would have been different if that despot had been deposed!). He was expelled from the party and sent into exile, ending up in a villa near Mexico City. There he founded the Fourth International - devoted to what Trotsky described as 'pure communism'. Which is perhaps why, on Stalin's orders, that Trotsky was assassinated. None of this given the importance it deserves. Without alluding to the crucial role Trotsky played in the founding ofcommunism, anybody who sees this film (poor blighters), will see this film as just so much histrionics. As Trotsky, Burton has all the believability of Groucho Marx in the role of Napoleon: thinking about it, maybe Groucho would have made abetter fist in the role of Trotsky. As for Alain Delon, as the assassin, he's all nervous twitches, and beetled eyebrows. Joseph Losey's mind must have beenon autopilot when he lensed this celluloid travesty

ddelamaide I saw this film when it came out, in 1972, and it made such an impression on me that I have a clear recollection of it now. I just visited the Trotsky Museum in Mexico City, the house where he was assassinated. He was in fact killed with an ax--there are photos in the museum of the actual murder weapon that is exactly like the one depicted in the film. So the commentator who makes such a big point about it being an ice pick is uninformed. This commentator may also be unaware that Joseph Losey was one of the great British filmmakers of his generation, so it's perfectly natural that he make films in English.What is good about the film? Richard Burton's ability to convey the charisma of Trotsky, the combination of visionary and pragmatic politician who had the misfortune to be outmaneuvered by two equally powerful men with far fewer scruples, Lenin and Stalin. Alain Delon's portrayal of the ice-cold assassin, motivated not by ideology nor even by money, nor in fact any discernible force other than his own profound emptiness. One of Delon's best roles ever.The cinematography is extremely powerful. As I say, 30 years later, the images are clear in my mind.Time to rehabilitate this film, folks. There's a lot of trash out there with higher ratings than this 4.6, so if you've seen it, add your vote. If you haven't, try to see it, and vote what you think it's merit is.

Varlaam The one thing that everyone already knows about the assassination of Trotsky is that he was killed with an ice pick. Well, in this film, he is killed with an ice axe. An ice pick, an ice axe, they're not the same. To be precise, he is killed with the pick side of a two-headed ice axe, but even then, that's still not an ice pick, which is something entirely different. So which was it really?The only reason I'm belabouring this very trivial point is that it results in the single decent piece of acting in this film, the reaction of Richard Burton as Trotsky as he is hit in the head with the axe. As you would probably imagine, you have to wait quite a while to get to this moment in the film.Other than Burton, the film's leads are Alain Delon and Romy Schneider. Neither one is comfortable speaking in English, the language they are required to use here. Most of their scenes are together. Why weren't their scenes done in French instead?Since the presumable market for a film about that old villain Trotsky would have to be the European Left, why was this film made in English in the first place? Why not French, the language of the leads, or Italian, the language of the crew? Burton's bits in English as the self-important Trotsky could have been interpolated later while everyone else could have acted in a language in which he could show a little expression. As it is, no one would ever guess that Delon and Schneider are major stars under different circumstances. Schneider seems to be here mostly so she can stand and/or lounge in lingerie, but even that appetizing opportunity goes underexploited since, as a self-respecting Trotskyite gal, she doesn't wear any make-up.There are several "characters" in this movie who in any normal film would have speaking parts, but since they never did settle the matter of what language they were shooting in, these people just stand there looking stupid and not saying anything. Unbelievably, we are expected to care when one of these ciphers gets killed (cue the cheap-looking mannequin) by Stalinists, or Fascists, or Anarcho-Syndicalists, or anti-Castro Cubans, or the CIA, or whatever. Nothing that goes on in this movie is ever very clear. And anyone expecting to learn a little something about the historical Trotsky will come away with the knowledge that he kept bunny rabbits at home.Delon plays Trotsky's assassin, Jackson, "spelled without a k". He's Belgian. When asked why a Belgian has a name like Jac(k)son, he explains that he's really French-Canadian. Oh, well, that's clear. Most of the movie operates on a "duh" level much like that.It is safe to conclude from the preceding that some mystery surrounded the precise identity of the assassin. If that is the case, the hapless direction of the utterly inept Joseph Losey was entirely confounded by a notion like "mystery". Or "tension". He manages to convey neither. The film has very little cutting, and hardly any reaction shots. There is no indication of what one is supposed to feel at any given moment. Everything looks like it was one take and wrap.Losey is fond of this absurd set-up where two people supposedly have a conversation with one in the extreme foreground and the other in the remote background. Natural sound wouldn't work so there's some badly dubbed dialogue on top. It's an attempt at an "arty" shot that Welles might have done something with, but which is completely botched in the hands of a hack like Losey.I can't conceive of anyone deriving any entertainment or elucidation from this fiasco. Five minutes spent with any reputable biography are more illuminating than 100 in the company of this film.