ostensibly and it should be hard to understand why certain movie slip into obscurity despite be load with talent and but then you come across a case like this one and the possibility suddenly become not just plausible but inevitable . on paper and this anglo canadian existentialist thriller certainly have potential represent an impressive cast donald sutherland and david hemmings and john hurt and david warner and christopher plummer and virginia mckenna be mouth the word of screenwriter paul mayersberg under the guidance of director stuart cooper ( the man behind recent criterion dvd release and overlord [ 1975 ] ) and be light by the late great cinematographer ( and frequent stanley kubrick collaborator ) john alcott while besides and the whole thing be be overseen by producer hemmings himself . so and where do the film go wrong . well and for starter and the central mystery itself be not very interesting represent the neglected wife of brood donald sutherland the no . 1 hit man for an enigmatic espionage organization be forever threaten to leave him and do exactly that at the very start of the film while unfortunately and while sutherland be very good in his role and literally the best thing in it and the actress play his wife ( francine racette ) be a stiff and unappealing a one of her husband handiwork . this fact render the knowledge that racette be none other than sutherland own wife in real life as well almost impossible to believe and since this be hardly bear by their interaction here least of all during a fragmentary sex scene that ludicrously ape nicolas roeg dont look now ( 1973 ) which and of course and also star sutherland . actually and i have see racette act previously in two notable film dario argento four fly on grey velvet ( 1971 ) and joseph losey mr. klein ( 1976 ) but i can not really say if her effort be any good there . for the record and the disappearance prove to be racette penultimate film before retire to raise her three child with sutherland . thankfully and although most of them be practically extend cameo and the support cast of whom and i think and john hurt come off best do keep one watching but and again and the utterly predictable double surprise end close the film with a whimper instead of a bang . equally to blame for the film ultimate failure be stuart cooper whose direction be pretentious to a fault and and unsurprisingly and he too fade exclusively into tv movie limbo soon after while for what it worth and many year ago i do get to watch two of his tv venture a. d. ( 1985 ) and the fortunate pilgrim ( 1988 ) both of which be large scale production . have say that and screenwriter mayersberg be himself well know for his non linear script but the would be audacious time jump technique abuse here merely attempt to imbue an obscure and thin plot with some elusive sense of significance while incidentally and even if the 88 minute version i watch be 12 minute short of the original and i doubt that the missing footage would make thing any clearer . unfortunately for the viewer and stuart cooper be no visual stylist like nicolas roeg and much less a master film maker in the league of alain resnais . besides and give the structure and theme of the film and at time i couldn not help but unfavorably compare it to john boorman vastly superior point blank ( 1967 ) .