Ladrão de Ladrão

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!".

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!

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.

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.

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.