Le Saint

It's quite frustrating to see a such a good movie idea as The Saint go to waste again and again since the original. Past that, this version is OK to watch if one has nothing else to watch, at a time when one MUST watch something... It has here and there some bits of good humor, action and acting ,but all in all it cannot shake off the B movie feel.

Well, I take that back. I wasn't crazy about Val Kilmer.

I loved George Sanders, Louis Hayward, Ian Ogilvy and Roger Moore as The Saint. Since this version featured two ex-saints, Ogilvy and Moore, I wanted to see it.

Yikes.

This is a TV movie, and if you've been having trouble sleeping, this is just the thing. What a slow-moving bore replete with flashbacks of little Simon and the past life of his assistant (Eliza Dushku). And next to no plot.

Ian Ogilvy looked awful -- someone said here Moore looked awful - give the man a break - he was in his mid-'80s (this was made in 2013 as a TV pilot and was not picked up - what a shock). No one is dazzling forever.

Lots of karate-type moves. That's about it. At an hour and a half, it felt like Birth of a Nation.

Simon Rayner didn't excite me, although I'm sure he's very good in other films. But what could one expect from him, no doubt trying to stay awake.

British international thief Simon Templar (Adam Rayner) is known as The Saint. Patricia (Eliza Dushku) is his girl Friday. They are recruited to rescue a kidnapped girl as a devastating past is revealed.

This character has had many reincarnations. This is generally inferior mostly due to the directing efforts of Ernie Barbarash who seems to have made a career of second tier B-movies. It's also notable for Roger Moore's final film. There is some fun chemistry between the leads but the movie doesn't have the writing to accentuate it. It's probably the biggest missed opportunity among so many others.

To know The Saint one must be truthful to the source material. The Saint as a character is brash, abrasive, annoyingly intelligent, and driven by a set a principals to do the right thing, even if "right" in any given instance is stealing, murder, or any other action that on the outside is technically a crime. "The ends justifies the means" is a kind of MO for The Saint, which creates a sort of dilemma - especially in the west - where we tend to regard all individuals - good and bad - to be subject to the same rules. But, is it really a crime if the subject had it coming to them? Such is life of The Saint - getting rich while sticking it to the bad guy. Or saving the girl. Or righting the wrong. Or insert cliché' here. Fun stuff all around.

Unfortunately, most of the texture of The Saint is lost in attempts to portray him just as a lovable, quip-flinging, thief. A sort of James Bond type who always has something witty to say at the right moment. Anyone who has read any of the Charteris novels would strongly disagree.

Which brings us to this latest attempt to put Saint on film. All the elements are there but watered down and cliché'd to the point of atrophy. Although this is the most lovingly adaptation attempt since the Roger Moore days. In short, I like this Saint, but the film won't get out of it's own way. There's been a strong push in Hollywood in recent decades to use technology as a panacea to whatever problem the antagonist might come across. Sixteen-inch steel vault door? No problem - just hack that sucker and in you go.

It gets real old real fast.

We want to see our heroes solve problems, not have them solved for them by inexplicable (and non-existent) technology. In the days of the original Saint - the 1920's and 1930's - you still had to do real detective work to solve mysteries. Now all one needs is a tablet and a wifi connection and you can tell everything about anything anytime anywhere.

Where's the fun in that?

So far as this film is concerned, this Simon Templar is more like the real Saint since Roger Moore - so watch it for that. Otherwise - or in addition to - go find a copy of Meet the Tiger and enjoy the real Saint.

I love The Saint and often watch several episodes at a time. From the 1962 black & white and into the colour versions finishing 1969. I enjoy them all but there is no way you could make a new version of this show because it was of it's time. Today you can't go around saving ladies from danger and being a Gentleman Adventurer, it is just not believable in today's world so he required a purpose. It is stylishly shot but does lack the glamour of the original, probably down to the fact it started as a TV show then made into a movie.. They even sort of had a slight update on the theme tune occasionally playing in scenes. One of the reviewers said the years haven't been kind to Roger Moore, he was 89 and I would like to know if any of us are going to weather that many years as well.

As a stand alone 2017 update it is OK and I will leave it at that.

RIP Roger and thanks for all the marvellous entertainment you have given me and my Dad over the years.