A user on the film's message board pointed out that this wonderful noir had a little bit of everything. He really nailed it. It is a commentary on the state of modern life - bored and isolated people who are unable to form any connection with each other in the confines of their office. Scared that they would have to spend their whole lives doing some worthless job but unable to leave. It is almost a tragic romance - Elliot Gould and Susannah York are in love but cannot seem to consummate their relationship due to the distractions of money and other lovers. It is a terrific thriller - a heist gone wrong as a square but intelligent bank employee gets the better of a seemingly homosexual thief. A relentless cat and mouse game ensues not just between the employee and the thief but also between the employee and his co-workers. Elliot Gould's performance is in the same league as Martin Freeman's in The Office (UK) when it comes to disillusioned employees who grin and bear it. Susannah York is adorable as the Elliot's aging co-worker. Christopher Plummer looks sinister and scary as the thief. Best Regards, Pimpin. (9/10)

Another surprise package from the 70s (to add to Elliot Gould's 1974 feature "Busting"), in what isn't your typical suspense thriller. This little Canadian produced production is actually quite unconventional thanks to some glowing performances, deft plot turns and tautly handsome direction. A placid bank teller accidentally stumbles across some clues that a bank heist is going to occur, so he hatches up a plan to transfer the cash into a container just before it happens. For the teller things go to plan, until the thief realises that that he has been short changed and then he goes after the teller for the money. However a battle of wits occurs, as they try to out-smart each other in what becomes a twisty cat and mouse game. Watching these two characters trying to gain some sort of upper hand over each other is simply enthralling, as you're never quite sure how it's going to turn out. An ironic chain of events seem to occur and this helps keep the atmospheric tension right up there with its well-timed precision. While this is going on, it still takes time out to open up its characters for dramatic effect and it's believably done to match up with the sober-like manner. Elliot Gould might be discreet as the bank teller, but his performance is truly outstanding with complexities shining through. Christopher Plummer also chimes in with an understated performance, but still consists of unpleasantly creepy and psychotic shades. The interplay between the two simply crackled ("Feels like I know you every well") and this is what carries along the narrative. Across from them was the wonderful Susannah York and Celine Lomez was genuinely good. Also there was solid support by Michael Kirby, Ken Pogue and John Candy. Slow-winding and lean with some unpleasant moments, but a cleverly constructed thriller.

I saw this movie when it was in the theater originally. I remembered liking it a great deal and had looked for it for a long time. Although I remembered it as being excellent, I was 17 when I saw it originally, and probably drunk. I wasn't sure I would like it nearly as well when I was 47 and sober.I was very pleasantly surprised. Eliot Gould doesn't work for me all that often. Seems like he is unbelievable/miscast in most roles. This role is perfect for him and he does a great job. The only thing wrong with Christopher Plumber (Plummer?? I can't spell) is that he hasn't really gotten that many good roles. He has a great role in "The Silent Partner" and he swings hard and connects fully. He is completely believable and his eerie character is highly memorable.I can't think of many movies that I consider true "sleepers"-- movies that are vastly better than you would think given the lack of public attention or critical acclaim. "The Silent Partner" is on that short list. In a way it kind of reminds me of two other movies on my very short "sleeper" list-- "Blood Simple" and "Miller's Crossing." Tough to call any Coen Bros. movie a sleeper, but those got way, way less acclaim than they deserved. The Silent Partner has a similar kind of eerie intrigue to those movies. It is more similar to Blood Simple than Miller's Crossing. The plot and characters in Miller's Crossing were pushed to the point of hyperbole--and that line was kept the whole movie, but never crossed to the point of eroding the suspense. But, The Silent Partner displays many of the same virtues Blood Simple and Miller's Crossing have. It cracks into my top 50 movies. If you watch it on DVD, treat it like you are at the theater-- dark room, no interruptions, etc. It would be a waste not to.

There are some interesting ideas and unusual plot elements strewn about but overall this movie is a leaden-paced mess.Gould sleepwalks, York seems lost and both their character's actions make no sense, Celine Lomez is adequate but her character as well does inexplicable things.The only solid performance was Christopher Plummer, what his character does makes some sense and is consistent.During the first 45 minutes (up to the point Gould calls his own apartment and steals the truck) almost nothing of sustained interest takes place and the intriguing parts are belabored long after the viewer is well aware of what is going to happen. The film seems to be trying to flesh out the characters but Gould and York are just odd, not interesting and on top of that the performances are bad. The Celine Lomez character is also introduced in a horribly obvious manner.The film also fails to maintain a consistent tone (Farce? Caper? Thriller? Escapism? Romance? Character?... etc), there are gigantic plot holes and towards the end a slasher-film style murder obliterates the small pleasures. How is the viewer supposed to be entertained with character details and plot twists after a sympathetic persons head is sawed off on jagged glass and then dumped in a cement pit? WTF?? I am supposed to care who gets some money after that?? I sought this film out due to Roger Ebert's glowing review and all I can think is that he was drunk (evidence being how many obvious details he gets embarrassingly wrong).All that having been said though the film IS unusual and I would understand someone treasuring it for that alone after so many years of cookie-cutter thrillers.