The Return of the Musketeers (1989)

Posted on December 22, 2012 by badblokebob

16 years after they first swashed their buckles for director Richard Lester, Michael York, Oliver Reed, Frank Finlay and Richard Chamberlain return as the titular swordsmen in an adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ Vingt ans après, aka Twenty Years After. As feats of sequalisation go, there’s something inherently pleasing about reassembling a cast and crew the best part of two decades later to adapt a tale set at a similar distance.

Unfortunately, it didn’t go down so well: although it did receive a theatrical release in Europe, in the US it wound up as a cable TV premiere a couple of years later. This may in part be due to the fact that it looks like it was shot close to the early-’70s originals, not in the late ’80s. It’s also tonally similar, a scrappy style that perhaps didn’t sit so well in the multiplexes of a decade-and-a-half later, despite a pulpy structure and emphasis on fun japes rather than serious-minded storytelling.

Despite being sourced from an Old Novel, The Return of the Musketeers is — just like its two forebears — far from being a Literary Adaptation. It may not scale the same heights of fun and frivolity as the first Lester-directed Musketeers movie, but it’s more or less on a par with the second, with moments (such as a clever opening) that shine through. Rough around the edges certainly, but likeable heroes, hissable villains, and widespread irreverence keep it the right side of entertaining for those who enjoyed this cast’s previous adventures.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Posted on December 21, 2012 by badblokebob

Conan was created by Robert E. Howard in 1932, but is probably best known to most thanks to the Schwarzenegger-starring 1982 film, which was successful enough to provoke a sequel in 1984. Having never read any of the stories or watched either of those films, that’s about where my knowledge of the character ends — except for this recent attempt at a remake/reboot/whatever “re”-prefixed word you want to use this week.

Here, at least, Conan starts out as a young boy in a village of warriors, who are then massacred by the villainous villain in his quest for some MacGuffin. Naturally our young hero is the only survivor and I imagine at that point he swore vengeance, so he goes off and grows up to become someone with more muscles than acting chops (played by Jason Momoa, previously seen as a non-English-speaking muscleman in Game of Thrones) and somehow or other gets on the trail of the villain.

If my poor description sounds like the film doesn’t make sense, that’s a tad unfair, because it is followable… I just didn’t really care at any point. The plot kind of pings about through some disconnected set pieces, few of them particularly inspiring with the exception of one featuring ninja-types who are formed out of sand. Whether the story is faithful to Howard or a reinvention I don’t know, but either he’s been heavily borrowed from down the years or the filmmakers ignored his work in favour of familiar bits and bobs from other sources. Visually it’s just as non-inventive, which is what you get when you hire the director of a middling Frankenstein TV movie, two horror remakes, and Pathfinder.

This new version of Conan isn’t a dreadful movie per se, it’s just sort of uninspiring. I didn’t hate it, I just don’t care to particularly remember it, and even when I do I’m not 100% sure if all the things I remember are even from this film. There’s now talk that the next attempt to use the character will be an Arnie-starring sequel to the first film, skipping both the original sequel and this version. Perhaps that’s for the best, for both the franchise’s financiers and fans.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Fantastic Four (2005)

Posted on December 14, 2012 by badblokebob

In the wake of highly successful franchise launches for X-Men and Spider-Man, the next Marvel superheroes to be afforded the big-screen treatment were the Fantastic Four, a kind of family imbued with superpowers after a space accident. “Kind of family” translated to “family movie” for Fox executives, and they produced this dross.

“Family movie” does not automatically equal bad superhero film. Indeed, The Incredibles is one of the sub-genre’s best offerings. I don’t know much about the Fantastic Four comics, but it strikes me that Pixar more successfully hit the tone and style that the makers of this film were aiming for.

The problem I felt is that this incarnation of the FF doesn’t really have a story. They kind of meander through a few things that Happen, then a villain finally emerges and they defeat him. It leaves the film bereft of narrative drive; a series of scenes strung together without a common goal. When those scenes are populated with middling acting, unengaging characters, lacklustre humour, stalled drama, and both practical and computer-generated special effects that look about twice as old as the film is, then the experience you’re left with isn’t entertaining on almost any level.

An interesting footnote about this film is the list of weird, minor regional differences, which don’t bear repeating but are at that link if you’re interested. It also received a surely-unasked-for extended cut on DVD in the US, which included completely different (longer) opening credits; both promenade & planetarium scenes from the regional variations; and mostly new character scenes, as if the film didn’t have enough of those already, or plot extensions that help make more sense of stuff that, actually, more-or-less scanned OK anyway. I can’t imagine anyone wanting an even longer version of this, but it takes all sorts, eh.

They’re re-booting Fantastic Four soon (an unusual summer-season-dodging Spring 2015 release date was recently announced) and I wish them well — the characters have run in comics for over 50 years; there must be something to them. Hopefully those in charge can learn from this film’s mistakes, and the successes of family-friendly efforts like The Incredibles, and give us something so good we can forget this ’00s incarnation ever happened.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

Predators (2010)

Posted on December 8, 2012 by badblokebob

It’s two-and-a-half years since this was released? Never! If it didn’t say so on multiple websites, I’d never believe it. Where does the time go?!

But anyway…

Predators is writer-director-producer-editor-composer-etc Robert Rodriguez’s attempt to relaunch the Predator franchise, after the mediocre Predator 2 killed it in 1990 and the utterly appalling Aliens vs Predator 2 killed it again in 2007. Based on the fact we’re two years on and there’s been no word of a sequel, I guess he didn’t succeed. Which is a shame, because the original film is fun action/sci-fi entertainment and this is very much in its spirit.

Based on a screenplay Rodriguez wrote in the mid ’90s (deemed too expensive at the time, and since re-written thanks to other films doing some of the stuff in it (chiefly Avatar, apparently)), Predators sees a bunch of unconnected people dropped into a mysterious jungle. All of them have some skill in the field of death-dealing — except, that is, for a doctor — and most are armed to the teeth. Where are they? Why are they there? And what’s that coming after them?

I’ve left my plot description vaguer than most you’ll find, including on the film’s own DVD/BD releases, because the more you know the more the early part of the movie drags. Most blurbs give away the revelations contained within the first act, which makes it an almost gratingly slow start. I reckon it would probably work well in isolation, but I’m not sure how many people are going to see this without having heard more of the premise than I’ve let on. When you know where it’s going, it seems to plod a little; equally, if all you know is that a group of people face a gang of Predators in a jungle then it works fine (it still takes the aliens a while to show up, but then so does the original).

It’s a similar story elsewhere in the film. If you haven’t already accurately guessed what the ‘twist’ is with the doctor just from me even mentioning him, then I’ll be surprised. You may also be aware that Laurence Fishburne is in the film — he’s in the trailer and, naturally, one of the top-billed names. If you weren’t aware, sorry; but if you are (as, indeed, you now are), then his lack of appearance early on will likely clue you in to the circumstance under which he’ll be found. But if you’re not expecting him, that’s all fine and dandy. But now you are. Sorry.

In fairness, the story does manage to pull out a few mysteries. There’s a fair share of action sequences too, naturally, but it’s not an entirely stock plot merely peppered with gunfights. Rodriguez and co have made the effort to push the mythology in new directions; ones which seem to build naturally out of other Predator media, even though those aren’t specifically mentioned. Indeed, although there’s a direct reference to the original film (plus a smattering of callbacks in dialogue), the production team were told to avoid looking at the other films, games and comics for inspiration. You’ve no need to suffer anything else to enjoy this. Indeed, it works even without seeing the original film.

In the special features Rodriguez comments that the film could function even if the Predators didn’t turn up, because you’ve got a gang of characters who might be quite happy to turn on each other if need arose. There’s nothing revelatory amongst the gang of humans, but they’re more characterised than the simple canon fodder of the original film, and the relative dearth of big names will keep you guessing as to the order of their inevitable dispatch.

The main draw is still the action, which is suitably exciting on the whole. Best of all is a sword fight between a Yakuza and a Predator. Who’d’ve thought of engaging a Predator in a sword fight, eh? I love a sword fight, and while this is of course an atypical example, it shows the film’s level of creativeness with its inherited elements. It’s also a beautifully shot segment, making it one of the stand-out parts of the film.

Most of the direction is as good, though I have to mention it because of one unfortunate trope it develops: there’s an awful lot of lingering shots of the cast Looking At Something behind the camera, before we get to see it. Once you notice this — and you may well, like me, notice it pretty early on — it quickly becomes unintentionally comical, because it just. Keeps. Happening. And even when you think it’s gone, it makes a last-minute resurgence at an inopportune moment. I’m certain this wasn’t a deliberate comic device — it was probably employed to add tension and mystery and all that — but, for me, it just became a bit of a joke.

Then there’s the awful atmosphere-ruining end credits song. Honest to God, there’s weird artistic flourishes, and there’s immediately trashing the mood you’ve just strived to create. I know why it’s there — it’s another reference to the original — but it’s a glaring clash of styles that shatters the very particular ending the film has. On the commentary, Rodriguez asserts that it “deflates the tension in a great fun way.” Hm. Hmmm. What a misstep.

And the ending itself… is it sequel bait? It’s not as bad as Prometheus — an unintentionally resonant parallel given the franchises’ shared history, but not an inappropriate comparison. But where Ridley Scott’s confusing picture leaves glaring unanswered questions that demand a Part 2, Predators’ conclusion is both open-ended but also somehow fitting. Which is lucky, because I don’t think a follow-up is forthcoming.

For all the criticism, or gentle ribbing, I’ve levelled at the film throughout this review, it’s an enjoyable experience. There’s nothing deep or meaningful, and nothing that will enliven or revolutionise the genre, but as a sci-fi/action movie it’s at least as good as its blokey-classic predecessor.

The UK TV premiere of Predators is on Channel 4 tonight at 9pm.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Last Airbender (2010)

Posted on December 4, 2012 by badblokebob

Consensus holds that the work of once-acclaimed director M. Night Shyamalan has managed a near-perfect trajectory of decreasing returns. I’m not talking about box office — I have no idea (or much interest) in how that’s gone for him — but quality, starting with supernatural chiller The Sixth Sense and sliding gradually to the nadir of The Happening. I’m not as convinced (I quite liked some of his efforts along the way), but it’s fair to say The Happening was pretty awful and certainly his worst… until this.

Adapted from a US animated series (but having to drop the series’ Avatar prefix thanks to a certain other 3D blockbuster), Shyamalan’s live-action rendition condenses the storyline of the first season into a 90-something-minute movie. You can immediately see some problems are going to arise just from the maths involved. I should say, I’ve never seen the original series, so I have no idea how Shyamalan succeeds in translating it. There was plenty of controversy in his casting, which included Caucasians in the roles of apparently-Asian characters in the original, but happily using them for the villains. I don’t know that that bothers me so much, but it seemed to be a watershed moment for some.

Even ignoring the inevitable prejudice of an adaptation not living up to fans’ expectations, however, The Last Airbender is a mess. You don’t even need to see it in the notoriously too-dark post-production 3D to find yourself confused about what’s going on. The plot pings back and forth between locations and characters, basing itself in a heavy mythology that isn’t adequately explained. Chunks of it seem to be missing, conveyed through clunky voiceover rather than on-screen action. The first rule of screenwriting — literally, the first — is Show Don’t Tell, but Shyamalan does exactly the opposite.

In fairness to him, there’s some defence to be found in the trivia section of IMDb: “Almost 30 minutes of footage was cut from the theatrical release because Paramount Pictures wanted the film converted to 3D as quickly as possible, in an effort to save money.” That certainly might explain some of the awkward jumps in plot, and at times we can see a conversation taking place but only get to hear a narrated summary. Still, I don’t think these edits cover all of the film’s flaws — not even close — but it explains some of them.

About the only good thing I can recall is the CGI, which is fine. But you get good CGI everywhere these days, so it’s far from a reason to watch. The action sequences it’s employed for are largely uninspiring, their style stolen from 300 or other equally familiar sources. The acting is routinely appalling too — Dev Patel, for instance, is more like his lacklustre first role in Skins than his BAFTA-nominated, worldwide-attention-grabbing turn in Slumdog Millionaire.

I wouldn’t call myself a Shyamalan apologist, but I think he has at times suffered harshly at the hands of critics and audiences disappointed that he’s never re-reached the heights of The Sixth Sense (though, personally, I prefer Unbreakable anyway). Unfortunately, The Last Airbender is more fuel to the fire. It’s not only Shyamalan’s worst film, it’s a plain bad film by any reasonable measure. Laughably awful, even.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2012. Read more here.

The Last Airbender featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2012, which can be read in full here.

Skyfall: Initial Thoughts

Posted on October 26, 2012 by badblokebob

The following article is resolutely spoiler free.

My spoiler-filled review/commentary is here.

Bond is back, and you’ve surely seen the torrent of 4- and 5-star reviews (and the insignificant handful of dissenting voices). I’m pleased to report that the consensus is correct: Skyfall is Bond at his best.

There’s also a lot of potentially interesting stuff to discuss from it, which is why I’m throwing this out now and will try to be more considered in a full review later. I read someone on the ‘net this week express surprise that anyone would be concerned about being spoilered for a Bond film, because “no one” watches them for the plot. Well, that person was clearly a first-degree idiot anyway, but of all the Bonds I think Skyfall offers something different. The climax, for instance, which is stunningly brilliant in all sorts of ways, is not one you could picture occurring in any other Bond film. Aside from that, there are themes and subplots that are, more than ever, best experienced in the film and discussed after.

So leaving that to a later, spoiler-y review, a few thoughts I might return to later. Firstly, this is in many respects Judi Dench’s film. Nothing against Daniel Craig — he’s great too — but she has surely the largest part ever afforded to M; even more so than her featured role in The World Is Not Enough and her increased importance through the previous two Craig outings. She’s given some relatively meaty stuff to play and, of course, Dench is more than up to the task. Plus Javier Bardem makes for a great villain. Some have compared him to Heath Ledger’s Joker, but that undersells it — he’s camp, but nowhere near that over the top.

Technically speaking, the film looks gorgeous thanks to Roger Deakins’ cinematography. Best looking Bond ever? There’s little I can think of to dispute that. Obviously it could be said to lack some of that ’60s glamour, but from a purely photographic perspective, it shines. (Incidentally, this shot isn’t actually in the film.) I’m less sold on Thomas Newman’s score. While in no way bad, and with undoubted sparing but precise use of the Bond theme, it didn’t always click for me. The fact I at times felt like I was listening to cues from Lemony Snicket did it no favours. I love that film and I love its score, but it has no place here.

Daniel Kleinman is back on title sequence duties, and the work he’s delivered is second to none. Familiar yet also innovative, whatever you think of Adele’s Skyfoal theme, Kleinman has delivered an instant-classic sequence to go with it.

The action sequences are well done, which can be a worry when you hire a more dramatically-minded director, but there’s some stunning stuff. Nonetheless it’s to the writers’ and director’s credit that people are more likely to come away talking about events in the plot than “wasn’t it cool when X exploded, or when A did B to C?” But there are some cool bits, and even stuff you’ve seen in the trailers has a better or different impact in the film itself. One stunt, just part of the familiar montage seen in most of the trailers, even drew a laugh at my screening (in a good way).

This is the 50th anniversary and Skyfall has acknowledgements of that. This, for fans, would be even worse spoiler territory than the plot — honestly, there perhaps aren’t as many twists as you might expect in that department, but the ways they’ve nodded to the franchise’s history are sublime. Die Another Day was ever so conscious it was the 20th film and was stuffed with blatant callbacks throughout. It’s kind of fun, but a bit on the nose. Skyfall is more subtle and therefore more effective. But, as noted, those would perhaps be the worst things to spoil, so I’ll tally my favourites later.

In closing, I’m not sure that Skyfall is, as some have claimed, the best Bond ever. It is, perhaps, too atypical for that. But then so are From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, to one degree or another, and I’d have no problem placing those at the top of such a list. No, what’s really required before such a decree is multiple viewings — Die Another Day was well-received on release but is now widely derided; On Her Majesty’s Secret Service suffered years of neglect before its relatively-recent re-assessment (Quantum of Solace, conversely, is still waiting for such a re-evaluation). In short, Skyfall may well be the best Bond film ever made, but only time will tell that. Until then, you can be certain that it’s bloody brilliant.

Knight and Day (2010)

Posted on October 17, 2012 by badblokebob

2010 #16
James Mangold | 105 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

James Mangold is one of those filmmakers with a thoroughly eclectic CV, taking in crime thriller Cop Land, psych-ward drama Girl, Interrupted, fantasy rom-com Kate & Leopold, killer thriller Identity, Johnny Cash biopic Walk the Line, Western remake 3:10 to Yuma, and is currently calling the shots on superhero sequel/prequel The Wolverine. Here he does something different again: the comedic action movie; the ever-growing subgenre we seem to have seen a lot of lately, with films like Shoot ‘Em Up, The A-Team and RED.

That’s the kind of film Knight and Day was advertised as — spy-action-movie spoofery — and it should therefore come as no surprise that that’s the kind of film it is. There are no big surprises in the plot or characters, but because it’s a comedy it can push the action sequences in ways that are too silly for a regular Tom Cruise kinda film, and I think that also allows us to forgive the fairly standard plot. Plenty of reviews and online commenters have expressed disappointment with the film, perhaps expecting something else — sometimes it pays to listen to the advertising, eh?

As a quick note, I watched the theatrical version but there’s an extended one too (that’s what comes of taking something from Sky Movies instead of a rental Blu-ray). It offers a couple of extra character scenes for Cameron Diaz and a few more beats in the action scenes. Essential? I shouldn’t think so, but it looks like some fun stuff if you have the choice. The total difference is around seven minutes.

Knight and Day is nothing deep or revelatory or groundbreaking, but if you were expecting it to be then more fool you. If you can’t abide Cruise or Diaz (and I know some people really can’t) then it should certainly be avoided, but those caveats aside I thought it was good fun. No classic, and far from destined to be a standout on Mangold’s multi-Oscar-winning filmography, but an appropriately entertaining couple of hours.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Posted on August 28, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #24
Peter Weir | 133 mins | TV | 2.35:1 | USA / English | 12 / PG-13

There are a few Oscar nominees from the ’00s that inspire little desire in me to bother seeing them (I’m certain that’s completely true of every era, but I’ve seen most of the ’00s nominees so I tend to focus on them more often), meaning it’s taking me a very long time to get round to them (maybe I never will). Master and Commander isn’t really one of those — it’s no Seabiscuit or In the Bedroom — but I can’t say a naval inaction film with Russell Crowe held massive appeal. Turns out I was completely wrong.

For starters, it’s definitely not an “inaction” movie. It’s not an action movie in the regularly understood sense of non-stop fights on varying scales, but there are a few stunningly realised naval battles, and other exciting sequences as the hero ship either tries to keep track of or elude their enemy. That’s essentially the film’s plot — one ship after another — and the long chase (they rarely have each other in direct sight) gives it an epic feel, as they chase an almost phantom ship, rather than engaging in regular heated battles.

There’s lots of good detail about what it would be like to live that life, woven in and around the plot. I’m sure this thoroughly thrilled maritime enthusiasts (assuming it’s all accurate), but for those of us whose interests lie elsewhere it still provides a vivid picture. It’s not so much a character picture, although the nature of Russell Crowe’s Captain is surely revealed in the way he goes about his tactics and the nature of his various relationships with various crewmen. Paul Bettany, as the ship’s doctor, is more our point of view: he’s not a naval man and doesn’t always understand their traditions. He’s not a crass audience-cipher in the way such parts often can be, but it does make him identifiable.

This is also the first movie ever to film on the Galapagos Islands, featuring it in an extended sequence in which Bettany — who also happens to be a keen amateur whatever-ist — ventures onto the island to collect specimens of the strange and unusual creatures they see as they sail past. Bettany would later play Darwin in 2009’s Creation, which lends this stuff some kind of odd intertextual significance in retrospect. While it’s an interesting aside from the story — an unusual kind of diversion — it is nonetheless an aside, and perhaps kills some of the momentum. On the other hand, along with some earlier sequences of trading with natives, it lends the film a feel of exploration, of an era when parts of the world — and the people and creatures that inhabited them — were still being discovered, even just by common sailors.

It looks like too many people felt as I did and didn’t turn out to see Master and Commander in big enough numbers: it opened at #2 in the US, grossing just $93.9m on a budget of $150m. It managed $212m total worldwide, but when you consider marketing costs… It was clearly considered quite a pricey proposition, considering it was, unusually, produced and/or released by 20th Century Fox, Universal and Miramax (that makes for a strangely bizarre array of company logos at the start). Despite the fact it’s based on a series of 20 (completed) books, and various people involved have mentioned the possibility down the years, a sequel is so unlikely it seems silly calling it just “unlikely”. And that’s a shame, because this is an entertaining action-drama with likeable characters and an engrossing atmosphere. A little to my surprise, I loved it.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World placed 3rd on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

The Saint Meets the Tiger (1943)

Posted on August 27, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #67
Paul Stein | 66 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK / English | PG*

Produced in 1941 but not released until 1943, owing to Saint creator Leslie Charteris’ dispute with RKO over their new Falcon series (which is fairly unashamedly a rip-off of the successful Saint films), The Saint Meets the Tiger is a belated adaptation of Charteris’ first Saint tale, but was to be the series’ final film. Fortunately, it’s quite a good one.

Whether it be by conscious effort or serendipity, several of the problems suffered by The Saint’s Vacation are rectified here. Consensus seems to hold this is even worse than Hugh Sinclair’s first Saint film, but I definitely preferred it. The plot is not only engaging but makes sense, flowing onwards rather than going round in circles and not trying to push ‘twists’ that can be seen a mile off. The sense of place is also back: it’s very much The Saint in Cornwall. The downside is that’s a bit less glamorous than New York or trotting around Europe, the tiny Cornish village setting giving a low-key and quaint sensation, despite the story concerning international gold thieves. Secret passages, a smugglers’ cave and a yacht add some Boy’s Own excitement and borderline grandeur nonetheless.

Unfortunately the titular villain is a damp squib. Clifford Evans’ performance is good enough, and the notion of him working with our heroes under an alias is a good one, but ultimately he’s not the kind of crime lord the dramatic title and initial setup serve to imply. His underlings are the focus of the Saint’s investigations at first, and then they overthrow the Tiger with a basic double cross and become the focus for the climax too. Insert some predictable comment about him being a tiger without teeth here.

It still lacks the wit and light touch that make the Sanders films so entertaining, with only vague attempts at humour that generally raise little more than a smile. Sinclair doesn’t seem quite as wooden this time out, but he’s a straight-cut hero-type, not the kind of charmer this series really wants. In fact, one moment when he bursts into laughter, only to suddenly cut it short, is actually quite creepy. Perhaps he was trying to emulate Sanders more — the film does feel lighter than Vacation — but he still comes up short.

Gordon McLeod is Inspector Teal for the third time, but is still no Fernack; and Wylie Watson as Templar’s butler-butler (as opposed to the usual criminal-turned-butler) isn’t the series’ best sidekick either. Still, they’re both light years ahead of the ones offered in Vacation. Jean Gillie is actually one of the better ‘Saint girls’, though.

All in, Meets the Tiger plays as a straight-up thriller in the ’40s filler model. It’s fine for what it is, with some nice moments particularly during the third act, but it’s not quite as entertainingly memorable as the series’ middle entries.

Read more of my thoughts on Sinclair’s time as the Saint here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since 1941 (when it was also 12 minutes longer — that’s not just PAL speed-up!). Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint’s Vacation (1941)

Posted on August 27, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #66
Leslie Fenton | 58 mins | TV | 4:3 | UK & USA / English | PG*

The Saint’s gone on vacation indeed — with the saintly George Sanders nabbed for RKO’s rip-off Falcon series, here we’re treated to fellow Brit Hugh Sinclair’s take on Leslie Charteris’ hero. For “treated” read “subjected”. I’ll come back to him, because sadly he’s not the only thing that makes The Saint’s Vacation the worst film in the entire series.

On paper it should have all gone fairly swimmingly too: not only is this film adapted from a Charteris story, it’s also the first to have the Saint’s creator co-pen the screenplay; plus the character has spiritually come home, as RKO moved filming to the UK to make use of funds frozen by the British government’s Cinematograph Films Act.** But none of that helps; indeed, perhaps it hindered, because the result is a mess.

The adventure is a runaround across Europe. I say “Europe” — it looked broadly Germanic to me, but there’s mention of Paris, and I read online it’s meant it to be Switzerland. Possibly it’s a combination of the above. Considering it’s technically set during the war (not that anyone explicitly mentions that), at least one of those is thoroughly implausible. Having praised the series for its palpable sense of location in earlier entries, that’s all gone here.

The plot itself barely hangs together. The Saint for no apparent reason decides to stick his oar in to someone else’s business, at which point everyone’s racing around the countryside after a mysterious little box that we have no idea why anyone wants. Things are compounded by the regular appearance of local police who will apparently believe whatever they’re told by the first person who tells them something. Apparently the villains are Nazis, though there’s absolutely nothing to suggest that here (again, that’s something I’ve since read online). The Saint knows both the villain and a Mysterious Woman of old, but it’s never explained how or why or what their relationships are. It’s like a set of stock adventure-story elements assembled without any understanding of how or why they should connect, which makes for an unsatisfying and unenthralling experience.

Matters are compounded by this apparently being a TV-friendly version created in retrospect. The title screen has a badly superimposed TV company credit stuck on it anyway, so I presume that’s why a fight scene halfway through has been butchered. It’s that or it was a complete hash job in the first place, with continuity-destroying jumpy editing and choppy music. It doesn’t even look especially violent, as you’d expect from ’40s filler, and it’s certainly no worse than other bits included later… but then of course I don’t know what was cut.

So we return to Hugh Sinclair, who is not a match for Sanders or The Saint in New York’s Louis Hayward. To be blunt, he’s as stiff as a board — pretty much literally, at least to begin with. Sanders oozed charisma just by appearing on screen; Sinclair doesn’t manage any throughout the entire film.

The rest of the cast don’t offer much compensation. Arthur Macrae as the Saint’s cowardly friend Monty is no replacement for the parade of ex-cons he formerly hired as manservants, while Sally Gray of The Saint in London (but here a different character) aims again for pluck but somehow isn’t gifted with the same quality of screenplay and/or direction. Cecil Parker is a solid villain, not that the screenplay treats him that well.

This is easily the worst entry in the series to date — and, having seen the final one before writing this, I’m prepared to say the worst overall. The series spluttered to an end after the next film over an argument between RKO and Charteris about the Falcon series, which was essentially a thinly-veiled Saint rip-off, but one wonders if it wouldn’t have tottered to its own end anyway.

Read more of my thoughts on Sinclair’s time as the Saint here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1941 (when it was also 20 minutes longer — that’s not just PAL speed-up!). Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

** According to IMDb, The Saint’s Vacation “was the first film made using those frozen funds”. I’m no expert on this era, but the act I presume that bit of IMDb trivia means is the 1938 one discussed in the final paragraph of this section on Wikipedia, so presumably it was just the first RKO film to use that money. As I said, no expert — everything I know about this was gleaned from those two pages. Back to the review: ^

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: Adventure

The Return of the Musketeers (1989)

Conan the Barbarian (2011)

Fantastic Four (2005)

Predators (2010)

The Last Airbender (2010)

Skyfall: Initial Thoughts

Knight and Day (2010)

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

The Saint Meets the Tiger (1943)

The Saint’s Vacation (1941)