Rakesh Kumar

Pairing Roger Moore and Michael Caine must have thought to be a great Idea. Probably inspired by The Man Who Would be King, where Caine was paired with another ex-Bond, Sean Connery. Bullseye didn't have benefit of larger scale epic-like canvass of TMWWBK, as it didn't want itself to be taken seriously. Did Bullseye work?

Yes and No (God, we all hate this kind of answer). No, because most of the time, the jokes fall flat on the face. Yes, because Caine and Moore (as usual) are always great to watch. They play a pair of conmen and a pair of treacherous scientists. Keep an eye on Moore, always known as a great ad-libber. Unfortunately only this two guys are the only reasons to watch the movie.

Bullseye takes the premise of impersonating (this time two of them) and adds twist and turn, moving from a caper flick to espionage. While it tries hard to be a comedy, most of the time you see some humourless farce in an inconsistent progress. I quickly lost interest in the story during the first half an hour and just sat through the rest watching the dynamic duo of England. Being a Bond fan, I was especially delighted to see Moore playing off his Bond persona, even throwing lines like, `For England'. Ring a bell, Bond-fans?

There is Sally Kirkland, who provides some personal agenda to the ageing conmen, while also providing a bit of flesh here and there. She looks positively old and attractive at the same time. But her character does nothing much but to be in between Moore and Caine, and helping them with their con. That's all.

I checked out Michael Winner's (the director) past record, and was surprised to note that he directed the more seroius films like the Death Wish films and The Big Sleep (a supposedly sequel of Farewell, My Lovely). While the former was successful in its own way, the latter killed nostalgic-noir delight began by Farewell, My lovely. He later went on to direct many bombs, and regarded generally as a horrible director. Wonder how he managed to find job for so long. It is so evident in this film. Whether it's him, the script or his crew, the movie failed to amuse many at that time; it will still fail to amuse many now. Bullseye is something the film couldn't achieve.

I have always strongly believed that the right successor to Marlon Brando is Robert de Niro and Al Pacino. No films have highlighted this fact any other than the first two Godfather films. In the first, Pacino plays son to Brando's Don Corleone, while in the second, de Niro plays the younger Corleone. While Pacino never appeared with Brando again, de Niro gets to be paired with the old master of Method in The Score, a slightly lethargic but exciting heist caper. Imagine, movie buffs, the young and the old Vito Corleone in the same scene! I was excited, of course.

In addition to these casts, we have Edward Norton, a hotshot young actor, and since this is a genre film, everybody is more or less just enjoying himself or herself. Of course, I have got to mention this; Brando had problem with the director Frank Oz, and wanted de Niro to direct all his scenes. This news is debatable, and personally I don't care. Scenes with and without Brando worked very well.

Heist movies have mostly worked, and I believe The Score should be listed as one of the classics, simply for the last forty minutes when the actual heist takes place. There, remains the problem. It takes time to develop its story, introduce the character and build the suspense. The latter is not realised until the final part and fans of action may be disappointed with it. I sat through the whole thing mainly for its actor.

The most amazing thing about this movie is the fact that the plot depends entirely on old worn-out cliché of heist flicks – the hero retiring, wants out and pulling off the final score. The story is built around it and gave ways to twist and turn. You might have seen some of them, but Frank Oz and the cast manage to keep us from cringing.

I cannot take my eyes of Brando and de Niro. Those two guys defined and redefined acting for Hollywood, and probably anywhere else. Both have gone to the extend very few have gone and many have imitated. Here, both are relaxed, and mostly, enjoying themselves. Only of recent, both of them have involved themselves in commercial genre films, considering that in the past, most of what they did were award material. Here, there is no need for Method, just follow the script and everything will fall in place. One must congratulate director Frank Oz for the good build-up towards the climax.

As usual, lighten up and enjoy it. You might find plenty of problems during the first half. There is still suspense here and there, but a trifle on the cliché side. If you are patient, you are in for a big treat. There is plenty of hardware involved, and even if they look a bit fancy, they are, like the characters, very believable. Sooner or later you will understand what is going on. It is simple and doesn't need the audience to crack theirs or other's head. The final scene had me literally on the edge of my seat. It has been a long time since that happened.

Again, fans of action need to back off. No explosions, no car chase and no fights. Just plenty of suspense and edge-of-your-seat thrill. Oh yeah, there is a statement about listening to the older and the wiser.

Sometimes we spend too much time looking for analysing probabilities and possibilities. It bothers me a lot when I view the 70's Bond movies. If not for Moore, I would never watch them. Not that I don't want to have fun and laughter, but I was cursed with the knowledge of Ian Fleming novels and have devoured Connery's films. I am getting sidetracked here. I am talking about John Q, which was trashed by just about every critic in town.

All I ask is lighten up and enjoy the show. It starts realistically enough, with a kid dying of heart problem and the parents trying to scramble enough money to pay for his transplant. Could be a TV movie with burnt out ex-soap drama actresses playing the dedicated mom. This is a feature film and it wants audience to pay for the ticket and get entertainment. That's where the gun comes in.

OR else, how do you explain the presence of some of the great names in Hollywood, like Washington, Woods, Duvall and Liotta? The latter two gets to lock on power struggle, a cliché in any other 'hostage' movie, but they make it interesting and funny.

Okay, the movie got a lot of tear-jerking scenes and it might get to you if you are not open minded. Put that aside, and move with the character. With Denzel's sympathetic character, you have the hospital people and some jerk-patient as bad guys to deal with. Hell, you can even relate to the expensive medical bulls*** and insurance policies that never come up to expectation. The healthcare issue has big impact on American audience, and I am sure just about every other middle class citizen around the world can relate to it too, me included.

There is enough suspense and humour in this movie to keep you hooked. The performances alone worth the ticket. Good stuff, if you overlook the impossibilities and improbabilities.