Reviews

I spent quite a few pennies to get my hands on this film as it was consigned to oblivion after its brief cinematic release some 35 years ago, and it was money well spent. They certainly don't make them like this anymore. From the off you're thrown into this situation with Shaw and McDowell as two convicts on the run and being pursued by a menacing black helicopter through hostile, mountainous terrain. The aerial cinematography is breathtaking at times, more real than anything you see on the silver screen today, and quite frightening too. The chase becomes personal, with one character hell-bent on destroying the enemy and the other just wanting to escape. It's compellingly brilliant - beautifully shot, in most parts, and well acted. There are some lengthy sequences which the majority of todays directors, and actors, would struggle to pull off without CGI. It does have flaws, most films do, but there are enough positives here and it's a shame it ended up as another of those 'lost' films. Okay we don't find out where they are, although it was shot in Spain, or what crimes they have committed, so what? It's a bloody good film, though I can't help but think, what a film it could have been.

I watched it when it was first televised in 1993 and watched at all again recently. Could sit and watch it again and again. Naked ladies, stuttering Welshmen, war office clerks/professional mimers, creepy old perverts, old school eccentrics...what more could you ask for? A great soundtrack? We can do that. Well written, well directed and superbly acted. It's a shame Dennis Potter is no longer with us, we need more of his ilk to produce top quality TV comedy so we don't have to endure anymore crap we get from across the pond. I think we're getting there with people like Peter Kay. Would LOYC or Phoenix Nights do well in the States? The guy who played Hopper stood out for me, what happened to him?

I purchased the DVD some time last year...and returned it the next day. Malcolm McDowell, as well as being a fellow northerner, is one of the finest actors of his generation and Hugh Grant, though not exactly diverse in what he does, never disappoints as the blabbering, quintessential Englishman. So why was this film so bad? In the words of Alfred Hitchcock, 'To make a successful film, you need 3 things. A good script, a good script...' you can work the rest out for yourself. I'm all for art-house films and abstraction, but we need something to feed on here, a linear thread of some kind. As the film progresses you think maybe, just maybe, it has an Ace up its sleeve. It turns out to be a Joker. The end throws up some aerial shots of beautiful Venice. Sadly, this doesn't compensate for an allegory which left the unfortunate few who've seen it forever scratching their heads.