Recensioni degli utenti

The existing reviews for this are useful and I'd agree with pretty much everything that people are saying. As someone who finds Alistair MacLean books and films a guilty pleasure, the decision to film on location and work in a little-documented actual festival gives the film a certain atmospheric appeal. However the subsequent commitment to using this footage appeared to hamper the creative team's ability to tell a coherent story. The frequent use of cutaways and montage such as the bullfight with the killing of De Croyter's daughter, suggests that the availability of the documentary footage drove the film's structure and so effectively killed opportunities to create suspense with more carefully constructed shots. Perhaps more unfortunate is that the Director constructing the shots was the hapless Geoffrey Reeve who managed to increasingly mess up three MacLeans. In addition to Vaccares, he directed the flawed, though undoubtedly watchable, 'Puppet On A Chain', noting however that the memorable boat chase was shot by Don Sharp. Then after 'Vaccares' he helmed the appalling 'The Way to Dusty Death' which confirmed that he was totally out of his depth as a Director in the industry. Writer, Paul Wheeler should also carry some responsibility for the eventual cinematic carnage. Maybe Reeve's TV work was better but he and the writer really didn't haven't a clue how to build suspense and handle this sort of material and as a result, a decade of exciting Alistair MacLean branded entertainments started to lose credibility with audiences. Starting here.

It's not exactly encouraging at the outset; plot development, dialogue, and scene writing alike all feel very thin, and one simply has to accept it at face value or immediately give up outright. David Birney spends a lot of scenes looking like a deer in the headlights, and some supporting cast members similarly don't come off well; in fairness, there are no few times when I can only question Geoffrey Reeve's choices as director. I recognize plenty of swell ideas in every regard, which I assume follow from Alistair MacLean's novel, but even the adapted screenplay has issues with narrative flow, nevermind particular instances of editing or sequencing. There is a complete, cohesive story being told, but the simple fact of the matter is that with the way 'Caravan to Vaccarès' is made, sometimes it really doesn't feel like it.

It all looks good, at least. There are many stunts and effects throughout, and they come off well; the filming locations and production design are excellent. The costume design, hair, and makeup are easy on the eyes; Stanley Myers' score isn't anything special, but it's enjoyable, and lends flavor. The narrative is actually fairly compelling, despite its weak cinematic treatment and the extraordinary leaps of faith it often requires as a viewer. Then again, even the heartiest suspension of disbelief can't withstand some of the storytelling decisions made here, and the Just So sensibilities that characterized the writing from the start collide with distinct dubious moments to place significant, low upper limits on one's engagement and entertainment. It would have taken astonishingly little to realize this as a satirical Euro-spy comedy, but no, it's an earnest action-adventure thriller. This poses a problem.

I don't think 'Caravan to Vaccarès' is altogether bad. It is, however, sadly middling, and even its best ideas just don't amount to much of anything. Insofar as it's enjoyable, it's a title one is able to enjoy very passively, without actively watching. There are worse ways to spend one's time, sure, but even if you're a major fan of someone involved, nor is there any specific reason to watch; Charlotte Rampling and Michel Lonsdale are rather wasted. Oh well. Check it out if you want, I won't stop you. Just don't get your hopes up.

The last time I saw this was in high school on the last day of term when you were allowed to watch a movie in class. We were looking forward to watching something like the Karate Kid when one of our classmates, Murphy, excitedly whipped out this tape THAT HE HAD BROUGHT IN SPECIALLY - this film, Caravan to Tedium. To our utter dismay our Geography teacher put it on and the class spent a double period thoroughly disenjoying themselves watching this Alastair Maclean snoozefest - all except Murphy that is, who was lapping it up big time. When our class wasn't collectively daydreaming about shoving Murphy's face into a vat of pig excrement we endured PG rated thrills and Wednesday afternoon level excitement as Charlotte Rampling and David 'personality' Birney run around dodging bullets while attempting to achieve something tiresome. I watched it again today, so the question is, was it better 34 years later? No, not really. Murphy if you're out there, this unfortunate event may have happened in 1986 but you're still a bell end for instigating it.

Of all the adaptations of books by Alistair MacLean, I feel that this qualifies as the worst, but don´t blame MacLean!. It would appear that all that this film shares with the novel is the same title. We have no suspense, no sense of foreboding of mystery, no chance to really empathize with the main characters. We spend the entire duration (or at least I did) waiting for Charlotte Rampling to shed her clothing (for Charlotte, this appears to take a remarkably long time!). Still, a glimpse of Charlotte Rampling´s tits really can´t save this disastrous film. MacLean has once again been kicked into the gutter to endure the sniping of those bitter hacks and nit-pickers who would appear to blame him for all the ills that befall attempted filming of his books. Poor old Alistair must have crawled into a corner and whimpered when this one came out. At least "Bear Island" - which also uses the Maclean name but apparently none of his novel - was a LITTLE exciting. The excitement here is in waiting for the final credits.

Charlotte Rampling must have been so bored with her character in this production that she went full tilt the next year after this picture was released into one of cinema's most confusing epics, 1975's "Zardoz," just for the challenge. Well, at least she got a good tan on location in this movie, and photographs here better than in any other film she has starred in. Alas, poor Charlotte appears to be so much smarter than the material she is given in this hamhanded cat-and-mouse yarn, shot entirely in the quaint environs of Provence, France. She smiles alot, and behind that grin she seems to be saying "Please call it a wrap so I can drive over to Marseilles for a wild night on the town."

Dullness doesn't translate to ineptitude however. The production values for this co-British/French effort are as high as those found on the other Alistair MacLean knock-offs of the '70s, like "Puppet on a Chain," "When Eight Bells Toll," and "Fear Is The Key." Like Barry Newman in "Fear Is The Key," actor David Birney gets to show his limited emotional range as the stalwart MacLean hero thrown into the middle of a deadly game of international policies and kidnapping. As a wandering American playboy, disenchanted with the Vietnam War and America, he stumbles into the schemes of the Duc, played with continental charm by the wonderfully droll Michael Lonsdale. Birney is coerced into protecting a Hungarian scientist who holds the secret formula to converting solar energy into economical power in his head. Shadowy hitmen, presumably hired by someone who wants that formula, follow their every move. Birney is occasionally forced to wipe his lackluster smirk from his face and perform some chop-socky moves on the villains.

Unlike the wartime MacLean novels like "Ice Station Zebra," "The Guns of Navarone," and "Where Eagles Dare," "Caravan To Vaccares" falls into the same trap as the majority of Alastair's later books displayed, that of simple chases, one curveball "twist," and a strong-chin, 2-dimensional hero always able to easily thwart the antagonists. The interesting tidbits to this picture come with the villains. Uncharacteristically (at least these days), this film's villains speak French, and yet their dialogue is not subtitled into English. Of course, you have no idea what they're saying if you don't parlez-vous, but in an interesting directorial choice, that's okay. Their actions and intensity translate their motives, and it's that decision to allow their every words to go unsubtitled that I applaud this element of the production. The producers knew their audience was intelligent enough to figure out what would be occurring on screen without spooning out translated dialogue. Thank you!

As for the principals, well, as mentioned, David Birney isn't the most convincing of badasses around. He exuded more testosterone when he got into a tiff with Meredith Baxter on "Bridget Loves Bernie." Charlotte Rampling is given very little to do but play the sexy, compliant companion who lets Birney make all the decisions. Her looks, however, betray this simplitude. She has the presence to suggest she could easily outmaneuver Birney on a speed-chess match. Which leaves us with Michael Lonsdale. Here, he exudes more confidence than his put-upon inspector in "The Day of the Jackal." He has a comfortable, wise delivery, a sly way of sizing up his minions and adversaries, that is a pleasure to watch. It is a shame Bond producers did not use him to the fullest extent when they cast him as super villain Hugo Drax in "Moonraker."

The plot neatly ties up most of its loose ends by the last reel, and you're rendered the satisfaction that David Birney didn't go on to reprise his role in any sequels. However, any movie that climaxes with him being attacked by rodeo clowns isn't all that bad. My rating: ** out of ****.

American Neil Bowman is traveling through France when he meets British photographer Lila. They are hired by French land owner Duc de Croyter to escort a Hungarian scientist to New York. But they soon realize that the job is not a cushy number, and have to deal with a gang of kidnappers who will stop at nothing to get their hands on the scientist.

One of my favourite Alistair Maclean novels is turned into a flat and dull cinematic affair, lacking the excitement, the suspense and thrills that Maclean is renowned for, however there are some bright spots such as the scenery of Provence, the culture, the aerial shots, and some exciting action scenes especially the bullfighting scene at the end. It's just a shame the film overall lacks that spark, not very engaging, and dull. I normally like David Birney and he looks the part but his character isn't too likeable and he smirks most of the time. It's a shame that this doesn't match up with the exciting book. The problem is that the filmmakers deviated significantly from the book, which had a great plot and was tailor made for the big screen, and settled for what now is on film. A big faux pas on their part.

This must rank as one of Cinema's greatest debacles. I was wandering Europe at the time and had the misfortune to stumble upon the crew making this movie in what was, even then, one of the world's idyllic, unspoiled settings. I was enlisted as an extra, and what followed was an exhibition of modern day debauchery. Forget all the accusations you've ever heard of Peter Mayall's intrusions on this rare piece of French life- Geoff Reeve and his cohorts embarked on a level of revelry at the restaurant at Les Beaux that left the Maitre'd slack-jawed in disbelief. They were, quite simply, awful, uncultured and undeserving of French hospitality.

It's a shame that such a lame plot should be hung on such picturesque locations, with some documentary style reportage shoved in for extra length. A shorter film may have held the tension a little more, and a more charismatic lead may not have mangled his lines so much. The female lead also, was not allowed to do enough resulting in a pretty but boring affair. It builds towards the end but the lead actor's own redemption is too little too late and should have been revealed earlier in the film. Not awful, just a pity. Unexciting but nice enough to grace TV schedules of the early hours.

An atrocious waste of time. The story plods along so slowly, I expected the clothing trends to change as the movie went on. Woodenly acted, poorly directed, even Charlotte Rampling with her limited but "70s-pretty-faced" range can't help that, especially after the only interesting thing about her character gets sidelined thirty minutes in. An absolute disgrace to the novel, the south of France, the Romani, and movie-making generally.

I gleaned all that from the first 54 minutes. I couldn't bear another.

I only gave it three stars because of the countryside, the Fiat X-19, and the absolutely abhorrent continuity in the first ten minutes re the gun used. Three stars for putting a silencer on a revolver, it turning into an automatic later in the scene (with a non-suppressed report when fired), then back to a revolver the scene following. That was the entertainment.

Seriously, you're better off watching a 1970's Film Studies end-of-year project.

It's weird, this film; you get the impression that the makers of this snooze-fest spent more time in the local bars than on set. In fact, it's a surprise not to see Harry Alan Towers' name on the credits; it certainly has the flavour of one of his tax-shelter productions but here the motivation behind the project seems to be for all involved to enjoy a prolonged stay in Provence. Despite the fact that the film is supposed to take place all over the region, Les Baux and the area around it stands in for almost everything.

David Birney makes for a spectacularly colourless hero - as Michael Lonsdale says at one point "you're a walking cliché". What Lonsdale is doing in this is anyone's guess. For some reason, the most interesting character, played by Rampling, is sidelined, whereas, regardless of the book, she should have been the central figure because she clearly has the skill to carry the movie (which would have been dull anyway, but at least we'd have got more of something pretty to look at).

All in all a pointless affair that is only worth watching to see how action-less an action movie can be.

One of those films they could use in a "Movie Making 101" class, in order to demonstrate how not to do it, as some promising ingredients are wasted.

First you buy the rights to the latest novel by a popular adventure / thriller author of the day (in this case, it being the 1970s, it's unfortunate Alastair MacLean).

Then you throw 95% of the plot out the window and fill in the gaps with loosely connected action (most of which is of a decent enough standard for the time period in which this was made)

Finally, being unhappy with the result, you hack 15 minutes off the running time, so that the plot makes even less sense, and then quickly throw the resulting mess at an unsuspecting public, fans of the author and the book and the genre, who will hopefully have paid over their hard earned money before discovering that they have been conned. (I watched the 1 hour 24 minute version, apparently there was once a 1 hour 40 minute version which might have been much better, but probably wasn't.)

The bare bones plot has the hero, Neil Bowman, hired to assist in the defection of a Hungarian professor to the USA, via France. (The Prof has come up with a secret formula that will allow us all to have unlimited cheap power for ever). In the book it is eventually made clear who, what, how and why everything happens, in the film nothing is ever clear. The opening scene is from the book, but is never followed up, never connected with, or has any relevance to, the story that follows. It's a portent of things to come...

Why Bowman in particular is chosen by the mysterious Duc remains vague. The audience never find out enough about his background to understand him, or how the Duc identified him as being the man for the job. Bowman himself seems to have little idea what's going on and the Duc refuses to explain further, yet somehow expects him to succeed in his mission. The motivations of Bowman and the Duc remain vague and unconvincing throughout.

In the book Bowman is English, here he is American, and the scene where he continually complains about how the Europeans pronounce his name (shock horror, they say it using their native accent) and over rules his host, to order American style food (including ketchup) for himself, while going out of his way to disparage French cooking, comes across as boorish and is entirely irrelevant to the story (was it intended to be comedic reverse chauvinism? If so it's another fail, as both French and Americans are often considered to be particularly chauvinistic by other cultures)

In the book Professor MacGuffin has been smuggled out of Hungary in a gypsy caravan (in both senses of the word, a travelling band of gypsies and a dwelling on wheels). The story contains significant gypsy characters and their culture is an integral part of the story, woven into the fabric of the plot (whether it is portrayed accurately or not is another matter). But in the film they are entirely peripheral, a few shots of singing and dancing for local colour here, a pretty girl and a guitar solo there. Perhaps they were afraid of being accused of stereotyping? Instead the Romani here are bland and marginal.

Lead actor David Birney made his name appearing in a sitcom called "Bridget Loves Bernie", which was apparently quite well regarded by the public, but controversial among some high in the Jewish community, because of its subject matter - an interfaith marriage between a Jewish man and a Catholic woman. It was cancelled after one season, but succeeded in raising Birney's profile considerably (he also found love and later married his co-star). Birney's type of wholesome good looks and moderate acting abilities were well suited to television and comedy, but for playing the part of a tough, cynical movie action hero, not so much.

However all the other actors are well cast and Michael Lonsdale in particular delivers a memorable and nuanced performance as the mysterious "Grand Duc Charles de Croytor", a role that could easily have become camp in the hands of a lesser actor (just a pity he wasn't able to achieve as much with his Hugo Drax character in the James Bond movie Moonraker).

Charlotte Rampling is at the peak of her attractiveness as the freelance photo journalist / love interest. Marcel Bozuffi, as the wealthy, powerful super villain, Serge Marquand, as the lead henchman / assassin along with assorted other Europeans, make suitably evil impressions.

Then late in the film, out of no-where and apropos of nothing, during the helicopter chase scene, former 2 time Formula One World Drivers Champion Graham Hill makes an appearance, as the chopper pilot. He's allotted a decent amount of face time, without being allowed to contribute any actual dialogue (bonus curiosity value for those who notice there.)

The film is shot in the Camargue, a distinctive region of France, located in the Rhone delta and known for its white horses, flamingos, brine lagoons and marshes. It makes for a memorable location and is well utilised by the director, so it's one of the plus points of the movie.

As mentioned above, the action scenes are plentiful, and executed reasonably well most of the time, which helps to distract from the lack of decent plot development to some extent. But after a while, as events continue to "just happen", the lack of common sense, forethought, anticipation and intelligence on the part of the characters becomes harder and harder to accept or ignore.

After stumbling along in somewhat adequate fashion for most of its running time, the film finally collapses in a heap, with the second bull ring scene. For me this is the straw which breaks the camel's back. The setting itself is fine (some sort of local / practice bull ring, out among the sand and marsh, near the tide line), but the ridiculous rodeo clown henchmen are not, and neither is the obvious inter cutting between shots of an adult bull and those of an adolescent bull, which make it all completely unconvincing and undermine any tension the scene might otherwise have generated.

Onward to the rom-com finish, over and out.

Despite the fact that it has enough action. But the whole action is around the character "who has to get to the USA" (Zuger) and is repetitive from beginning to end. Something totally crazy, we will never know why Ferenc The Killer (Serge Marquand) had to shoot that man in the car in the first two minutes of the film. Charlotte Rampling is young and beautiful but her role is as if she is not even in the film. 3 very good actors, Françoise Brion, Marcel Bozzuffi and Michel Lonsdale, are wasted in a banal story with many flaws. Watch for Graham Hill, the great racing pilot, as the helicopter pilot at the end!

In France, Neil Bowman (David Birney) picks up British photographer Lila (Charlotte Rampling). They get invited to dinner with a French duke who hires them to accompany a scientist to New York. They are pursued by kidnappers who really want the scientist.

Charlotte Rampling is one of the great beauties of cinematic history. There is also plenty of beautiful European locations in this film. It's too bad that it has all been wasted in the boring action thriller. They try quite a bit of action, but I wouldn't call any of it thrilling. Mostly, this is boring and I find myself more interested in the locations.

Sometimes I wonder what possessed a studio or a director to make a certain film. And this is a prime example. I won't bother to try and explain the plot, because while watching it, I forgot what it was. Not even the luscious Charlotte Rampant Rampling can save this movie. And David Birney, a low grade ham if ever there was one, seems to be going through the motions while on the way to his bank.

Avoid at all costs!!!!!