One of the Bryan/Edgar Wallace series from the mid 1960's (though not based on one of the books) is a well made well acted little thriller. To be certain the plot concerning an extortion scheme of the rich has been done before (in any number of Wallace films) but the handling of it somehow rises about the mundane into something that captures your attention and makes you want to curl up on the couch with a bowl of popcorn. A large portion of the success of the film goes to the cast which sells what's going on. Klaus Kinski is very good as a knife thrower hired to kill the target who ends up being seen by the family of the victim. Its Kinski's mistake that begins to bring down the whole criminal enterprise as it allows the police and the victim's nephew to have a means of tracking the villains. Worth a look, especially if you can see it in the widescreen that the film was shot in.

There's so much to like in this film - an adaptation of a James Hadley Chase novel - and so much to admire, especially in the playing, and the all-pervasive sense of cruelty and despair - but ultimately it fails, due to the compromises it makes, not least in the apparent need to appeal to fans of James Bond films; and of super- villains, and 60s cool.

For the most part, the best elements are in the London scenes of the first third of the film, and our expectations are high for the film, given the crispness and bluntness of the early establishing scenes: the way that we're forewarned of an imminent assassination- and the manner in which we are familiarised with the various gang members assigned to carry it out: ice-cruel blonde, (Hildegarde Knef); facially-disfigured henchman, Crantor (Carl Lange) - masquerading here as a London taxi-driver - and twitchy ex-circus knifethrower, Shapiro (Klaus Kinski). And then there's their mysterious leader, Alsconi (Richard Munch ),initially present only by way of a trans- continental car-phone,

Doubts begin to set in when the action switches to Trieste, - and the budget cranks up, accordingly: a far remove from the claustrophobia of dingy hotels and broken down caravans of London backstreets. Now, we're in a land of exotic castles; and gadgetry more befitting the 21st Century; and underground tunnels, and sleek rooms and corridors; and super-villains more suited to Bonds and UNCLEs. It doesn't unravel completely, as we're continually pondering character motivations, and who will ultimately double-cross who; and danger seems to lurk around every frame. But, ultimately it's not the film I had wanted it to be.

Knef's magnetic screen charisma - and carefully-enunciated calculation - dominates every scene she's in, irrespective of competition ;the bleached-blond, cruel-lipped Munch just manages to steer the right side of caricature; Kinski is even more riveting - and his characterisation is all the more iconic for being briefer than we might have wanted it to be; and Götz George - although he perhaps shows a tad too much resourcefulness for the of average intelligence Cambridge student that's introduced to us - at least proves that he could make for an ideal German James Bond equivalent.

If for no other reason than the London scenes, series stalwart, Alfred Vohrer, acquits himself well; I'd lay the film's failings at the hands of the scriptwriters and producers

The Mark of the Tortoise is not, as is the case with most of the rest of the genre, based on a book by the great Edgar Wallace (or his son Bryan) and instead takes its plot from a novel by crime writer James Hadley Chase. Alfred Vohrer once again takes the director's reigns but unfortunately the end result is a film that is simply not as good as many other genre offerings. The main thing I like about this genre is the style and the wayward/ridiculous plot occurrences; and this one is lacking in both areas, which leaves it feeling rather plain and bland. The plot focuses on a young man whose uncle is a rich man. The uncle has fallen under the threat of blackmail and the nephew endeavours to get to the bottom of it. It turns out the gang of blackmailers is being lead by a crippled mastermind who, due to loss of the use of his legs, finds his only pleasure in life is derived from extorting money from rich people.

One benefit of the film being fairly simple is that it's easy to follow and this allows the director to focus more on the characters and their situations rather than getting wrapped up in various plot points. It's the antagonists that are most interesting; with the crippled mastermind in particular being the most fleshed out character, and he gets support from his scarred assistant and his beautiful mistress who may or may not be entirely loyal to him. The film really lacks in suspense and mostly just relies on its plot to deliver the thrills and this doesn't always happen. The film rather lacks atmosphere and a lot of it takes place in the daytime too, which doesn't really help a lot. It does at least feature the crisp black and white picture that is seen in most of the early Krimi films. There's one moment of suspense towards the end in which some characters are trapped inside a room and that leads into the ending which is not entirely typical or expected; but isn't all that good either. This is a little different from most Krimi films, but I wouldn't list it among the best of the genre.