Armadilha Mortal

i think that this film is a entertainer.It makes you cry.laugh and makes you think what will happen next.The great Mr Dharmendra was the best but i don't understand is that why did this film do so bad at the box office? and why Mr Dharmendra never signed for a western film again.The songs were also good like 'Hum Bewafaa' was good, the film was also made in English to but voices were dumbed over and the film opens with a good scene.I didn't not know that this film was produced by Hollywood and Bollywood and after this film they never did that again because it was a disaster at the box office but some people still think that they should make more films like this.The main credit for this film goes to both Dharamendra and Rex Harrison who both did a great so BRAVO!!!

We were required to see this film by our college professor.

After watching this film... I can only conclude... that this is one of the great films made in India. It is a mere classic! It has been made with combined great performances by both Hollywood and Bollywood stars, making the film one of a kind.

If you haven't watched this film I wholeheartedly recommend you to. I give it a 10/10 rating!

The Entire movie there seemed to be only 1 actor with proper emotions & that happens to be of Dharmendra. Rex Harrison who is a Hollywood big wig was no where near Dharmendra's ability, even a "C" grade villain of Bollywood would have acted better, Deepak Shirke would have acted better. Poor Shammi Kapoor was wasted, Zeenat had not much role, John acted as a dumb man so his ability to express was cut off. The countess's role whoever played was the worst of all.

When Bollywood actors act in Hollywood movies they easily overshadow the famed Hollywood actors because the facial expressions are lot more & the ability to give dialogues is also better. Dharmendra has not won any filmfare award in India is because he is himself a 2nd grade hero, had it been the Mighty Amitabh Bachchan or Rajesh Khanna this movie would have been even more watchable & it would have been a big hit too. The entire movie would have been even one sided against the Hollywood stars.

An interesting blend of Western and Indian filmmaking, "Shalimar" (a.k.a. "The Deadly Thief," the title under which I saw it) is a light, undemanding piece of entertainment. Director Krishna Shah demonstrates a great deal of visual flair (particularly during the final jewel-theft sequence, which I can't describe more fully for fear of giving it away). The entire cast is appealing, especially Rex Harrison as the suave, manipulative host, and John Saxon as a mute master thief. The movie's weak point, in terms of plausibility, is the miscasting of the gifted but ungainly Sylvia Miles as a tightrope walker/acrobat. (The cuts to her stunt double during the action sequences are among the most obvious, unconvincing substitutions I've ever seen.) However, the vivacious Miles has such fun with the role that this flaw can be overlooked.

I would start saying, it was a film too ahead of it's times, when released in India. It was what we have today as Ocean's 11 or 12 or the Italian job. For the fact it flopped in India, is because the majority of the audience saw it go over the top and there was no connectivity with this film.Caper films have never been a forte in 'bollywood', so shah's western influenced ideas did not really go well with the native masses who were more interested in revenge melodramatic dramas, 'dakus','mujras', and 'angry young men'. Looking back, it's definitely a cult film and the Gen today would appreciate shah's efforts more than the Generation of '78.