Double arnaque

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.

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.

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.

Apparently Michael Caine and Roger Moore are good friends but never worked together so they teamed up in this 1990 film. Unfortunately they ended up with Michael Winner as the director.

Winner who might had once been a decent director was on a downward spiral. He ultimately ended up being better known as a food critic and fronting car insurance adverts.

Here the duo play dodgy nuclear physicists that have invented a form of nuclear fusion but plan to sell their formula to the highest bidder and make themselves rich and double cross their backers.

However at the same time there are a couple of con men who look exactly the same as these nuclear scientists. They get hired to retrieve the formula by CIA and MI5 not before they and a former partner played by Sally Kirkland try to steal some diamonds.

Somewhere along the line Moore's real life daughter pops up now and again. Moore disguises himself as a piano tuner as well as other disguises and there are some poor jokes and some funny ones.

It is all a bit of a mish mash as if the actors were enjoying themselves too much but forgot about the audience.

The critics slated this upon release, it failed at the box office. It is amusing enough and I liked some of the humour but then again I might be easily pleased.

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.