Opiniones de usuarios

Definitely campy in its tone.. Though they make changes for 1990 (story is set in mid-1970's). But it is fun to watch. Same lines as in the book - they tried to stick to the source material with some changes in character back stories. It definitely deserves a remake, with some more panache.

Portrayal of Metcalfe was impeccable. He was played very well. The English roles are played well too - as for the time period in which it was built. A lot of the mistakes were kept in the film - and they somehow make it quite interesting as well. I felt they did a lot of "improvise" in making of the movie as well.

Jeffrey Archer was so chuffed that the BBC wanted to adapt his first novel that he sold the television rights for one penny.

This is the book this is apparently based on his own experience as Archer was himself made bankrupt in the 1970s however in light of subsequent events about him I guess I would not readily buy into him being an innocent victim.

Ed Asner plays Metcalfe a ruthless financier and swindler. Four his victims of a stock swindle plot to get their money back from him. The men, an Oxford professor, a Harley Street physician, an art dealer and a British aristocrat are conveniently blessed with skills to set up their sting.

This was an expensive BBC and US co production with several American stars. The tone is rather camp, the acting is slightly over the top. Ed Begley seems a little lost in all these while Ed Asner seems to get the brief right, just about staying in the right side of hammy.

Ironically the BBC parodied their own adaptation in arts programme The Late Show where they reduced it to two minutes which was actually just as good, if not better and certainly cheaper.

Still it was rather enjoyable camp.