Bullseye!

Yes its as funny as a burning burns unit but on the other hand it isn't 'Large'

Bullseye is the kind of film that lovers of the truly terrible will relish.

Its got bad everything, accents, acting, directing, script. Its like the Superman 4 of comedy.

I remember it being released at the cinema, how did that happen? Its probably made by Cannon so they could at least get it into their own flea pits (god bless em)

I'd love the DVD. If you like this film may I recommend Sextette.

One evening,while channel surfing, my friend and I came upon this film on TV. In its own way, it was more astonishing than anything by Kurosawa, David Fincher or Takeshi Kitano. We simply couldn't believe what we were watching. We sat there as dumbstruck and as open mouthed as if we were watching Elvis doing his shopping in the local Sainsburys store. How could any film be such a complete failure? Even awful films usually have some saving grace, some ray of light, that stops your viewing being a completely worthless experience - one good performance or one funny line or even just some good scenery. 'Bullseye!', however, exists entirely in a vacuum; in a cinematic black hole. The script: No good. The acting: No good. The direction: No good. The editing: No good. Even the music: No good. Yet, later, I realised that the ray of light that I'd been looking for was actually in the fact that the film was such a total, glorious misfire and, if one watches it from that perspective, it's a wonderful film. The next time it came on TV I made sure to tape it and every so often I watch it again, in awe at its uselessness. It's nothing against Michael Winner personally. I'm sure he's a lovely bloke but, as a film maker, he makes a magnificent restaurant critic.

My review was written in July 1991 after watching the movie on RCA/Columbia video cassette.

Michael Winner's attempt at a rollicking caper comedy falls flat in "Bullseye!". Film opened in London last November but is just a direct-to-video title with big name stars for domestic consumption.

Inspiration was evidently the smash "A Fish Called Wanda", whose star and creator John Cleese makes a cameo here. Unfortunately that film was probably a fluke since the caper format seems tired indeed this time. It' a pity, since Winner made one of the best '60s pics in the genre, "The Jokers".

Here, Michael Caine and Roger Moore front for a preposterous story line. Both are criminals, whose exact look-alikes happen to be government scientists who've devised a nuclear fusion energy process that promises cheap electrical power.

With their old partner Sally Kirkland as instigator they set about to steal the corrupt scientists' cache of diamonds (taken as bribes from foreign powers) from a safety deposit box.. This feat accomplished, the second half of the film chases around Scotland as the criminals are supposedly working for UK and USA government agencies to get the scientists' formula and thwart the baddies' attempt to sell it to the enemy.

Winner delivers his usual sprightly pace, but the frequent sight gags and dumb jokes aren't funny. Both Caine and Moore strain for laughs, the former made up like W. C. Fields with a false nose and latter bugging his eyes out in frequent astonishment. Moore's real-life daughter, pouty Deborah Barrymore, is cast as an unlikely 22-year-old CIA agent.

Kirkland, who wears gaudy outfits for no reason in the later reels like she did in "Cold Feet", is okay in a strictly functional role. In addition to Cleese, Jenny Seagrove and Patsy Kensit make pointless cameos.

Shot in 1989, pic has dated rapidly, especially a final gag involving a lookalike of then-prime minister Margaret Thatcher. John Du Prez, who scored "A Fish Called Wanda", punches up the film with catchy music, but his jaunty main theme is way too close to John Dankworth's classic "Morgan!".

This film is a real mess and that is especially disappointing considering that Moore and Caine work well together and the opening 25 minutes of the film are mildly entertaining.

The basic premise of the film is that Caine and Moore both play dual roles, firstly as an evil pairing (scientists) and as a good pairing (con-men). It's a silly premise but it works well on its own terms at first but once the evil pair are aware of what the good pair is doing, the film disintegrates. The plot becomes more and more convoluted and incomprehensible as the film goes along and therefore all the potential entertainment is extinguished. Caine and Moore aren't to blame for the film's failure as they both give good performances; the fault lies with director Michael Winner.

Even the cameo by John Cleese at the end is muffed.

Michael Caine and Roger Moore are two small-time crooks. They also look exactly like a pair of scientists who have perfected fusion power plants, are about to auction the plans to the highest bidder. They break into the scientists' safety deposit vaults and steal the money they've collected so far... and then are conscripted by British and American intelligence to steal the plans.

It's long been my opinion that if there's an exclamation point in the title, there's nothing that requires it in the movie. Director Michael Winner directs a frantic, unfunny movie from a script by Leslie Bricuse that does no credit to anyone involved. The editing pace is so fast that it cuts into laughs that aren't there, the staging is so cheap it would have made Jules White blush; when Caine is in the same scene as his lookalike, they shoot his double from the rear or cut to a separate shot, and the same for Moore. Neither Winner nor Bricuse had a writing credit after this, and if this is the best they could do at this stage of their careers, it's no coincidence.

Caine does an American accent that's flat and annoying. Moore doesn't change his delivery at all. Two actors capable of charm and comedy exhibit neither!