I will not crack any important secret by noting that the most significant aspect of Crack in the Mirror is that its three main stars, Orson Welles, Juliette Greco and Bradford Dillman, each play two central roles, essentially representing similar but different characters of two parallel love triangles. In one story, where a crime of passion is committed early on, the three actors portray somewhat scruffy, French lower-class characters, while in the other, they wash and dress up to play "la creme de la creme" of French society. While the two plots soon join to form a rather bizarre drama, only the viewer can spot the physical sameness of the characters concerned, as they are clearly not meant to look identical in the story. This unusual double role-playing is somewhat intriguing and does evidently brings home the theme that rich or poor, educated or not, human beings are ultimately driven by the same base passions and ambitions, and are equally capable of crime and deception. However, it seems to me that in order for such an approach to fully work, the film must either be a comedy (a la Dr. Strangelove for example) or a compelling drama where the double roles somehow help to explore and reveal deep philosophical themes. Otherwise, having each star play two roles can just come off as gimmicky and pretentious. In the case of Crack in Mirror, I fear that the result is closer to the latter, though I would not dismiss it as simply gimmicky. The point that it makes is rather obvious and could have been made equally well without this doubling of roles, but the approach did contribute to the strange mood of the film, and it was interesting to watch the different portrayals of Welles, Greco, and Dillman, who each gave two, mostly good performances (I assume for the price of one). The plot had some originality to it, and while it lingered at times, it generally maintained interest. Welles' final statement as a defense lawyer was particularly well acted and meaningful, helping to redeem what was becoming an unexciting courtroom drama. On the other hand, setting the film in France when all the actors spoke English with their usual accents (and most except Juliette Greco are English speakers) seemed artificial and served no purpose (unless in 1960 Americans believed that only the French were capable of such crimes of passion). Overall, Crack in the Mirror comes off as a rather above average melodrama with an interesting casting experiment that ultimately does not quite fulfill the effect intended. Though largely forgotten, it could be worth searching out for.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Crack in the Mirror
(1960)
Unusual forgotten drama that is worth checking out
14 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Danger Route
(1967)
Above average cynical and complicated spy story
14 March 2021
Danger Route has usually been dismissed (if not ignored) as an unexciting, confused and run-of-the mill spy thriller, not to say another unsuccessful attempt from the second half of the 1960s to cash in on the success of the James Bond series. Yet, while it is imperfect in several ways, Danger Route deserves credit for its original and intelligent plot, dark realism and fine performances. Despite its misleading promotional poster, the film does not actually try to entice the viewer with Bond-style suspense and action sequences, but rather with its complex intrigue and character study of a disillusioned secret agent operating in a world where no-one may be quite what they seem to be. Indeed, the film's style is closer to the genre more successfully represented by the likes of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and the Harry Palmer films starring Michael Caine. Perhaps the plot lingers a little bit at the beginning and appears unnecessarily convoluted, but if one is willing to struggle through some confusion, it is quite interesting to follow and remains consistently unpredictable. It is somewhat difficult to get emotionally engaged into the story, partly because the main character, played by Richard Johnson, is rather enigmatic and distant - he is after all a cold-blooded assassin (albeit one working on "our side"). But this is arguably part of the film's originality. While there had already been a few similarly dark and cynical espionage dramas by 1967 (notably those aforementioned), it was not yet common to have such a morally ambiguous and cynical hero. This would, however, become much more the norm for this film genre in the 1970s. Richard Johnson does a fine job of conveying the detachment and weariness of this character, even subtly managing to attract some sympathy for his predicament. Johnson is surrounded by a strong cast that includes Carol Lynley, Barbara Bouchet, Gordon Jackson, Sylvia Syms, Harry Andrews, and Diana Dors, who all give very good performances. Where the film slightly fails in my view is in its uneven direction (it is known that director Seth Holm became ill during the shooting of the film) and average production values, which sometimes make it seem like a B-feature, although it is not.
Ultimately, I don't consider Danger Route to quite be a good film, but it is certainly better than your routine spy romp, and has some interesting elements going for it.
Shake Hands with the Devil
(1959)
Fine historical drama on the Irish troubles
14 March 2021
While there has by now been a host of movies on different periods of the Irish civil war/conflict, the topic had rarely been dealt with in mainstream cinema until 1959's Shake Hands With the Devil (though Odd Man Out is an important, more well-known predecessor). The film is an interesting on-location shooting of a 1933 novel by Rearden Conner, taking place against the backdrop of the Anglo-Irish conflict in the early 1920s. It provides an evocative, realistic and thoughtful rendition of this particularly tumultuous period of Ireland's history. A more recent and comprehensive historical, dramatized account of the period can be found in the film, Michael Collins, starring Liam Neeson. But for its time, Shake Hands With the Devil does a commendable job of depicting the politics surrounding the conflict, Irish society, the brutality of the British Black and Tans, and the ambiguous morals and objectives of the IRA. It is somewhat less concerned about history than in showing how a peaceful person can be drawn into an idealistic violent conflict, and how sometimes, apparently noble causes can lead to violence for its own sake. These themes are explored through two central characters, played by Don Murray, as an Irish-American medical student who initially resists taking part in the Irish liberation movement but changes when he himself falls victim to the violent methods of the Black and Tans, and James Cagney, as a hard-boiled IRA cell leader who has become obsessed with fighting and killing even when Irish self-government seems possible. Cagney's character is presumably the manifestation of the old Irish proverb that provides the story's title: "Those who shake hands with the devil often have trouble getting their hands back".
Murray, a promising leading man of the late 1950s, delivers an honest performance, appropriately conveying the self-questioning and ambivalence of his character. He is, however, overshadowed by Cagney's powerful characterization and self-assured acting. Cagney manages to make his character both sympathetic and chilling. Towards, the end, he becomes perhaps less believable when he apparently takes sadistic pleasure in killing in a typically Cagneyesque manner, which seemed to me not quite consistent with his behavior earlier and not necessary to understand his actions. In that sense, the film somewhat simplifies the motives of those in the IRA who chose to continue to fight after the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 and avoids delving into the true complexities of the conflict. Still, it's a compelling and credible story, beautifully shot and expertly directed by Michael Anderson, with a good dose of action and suspense. While Dana Wynter may be a bit cold as a leading lady (and that's maybe the way she is supposed to be), there is excellent support from a string of reputed Irish and British actors, including Michael Redgrave, Glynis Johns, Cyril Cusack, Ray McAnally, Sybil Thorndike, and Richard Harris, making a strong impression in his first film role.
Marlowe
(1969)
James Garner succeeds as Marlowe!
7 March 2021
An updating of Raymond Chandler's 1949 novel, The Little Sister, Marlowe is a sophisticated mystery thriller, with quick, humorous dialogue, and slick direction by Paul Bogart. Perhaps unjustly, the film is less appreciated than several of the other adaptations of Chandler's novels featuring private detective, Philip Marlowe, who had been played before this film by the likes of Humphrey Bogart (The Big Sleep) and Dick Powell (Murder My Sweet), and later on by Elliott Gould and Robert Mitchum. Some the criticism leveled against this film is that James Garner is too laid-back as Marlowe, as compared to the hard-edged portrayal of Humphrey Bogart or Dick Powell (even though Garner's Marlowe actually resembles more the actual character from Chandler's novels). In fact, as others have pointed out, Garner brings his own personable characterization of the private detective, obviously very different than Bogart's, but one that brings out the best of his sardonic humour and easy-going charm. Effortlessly lashing out witty replies at every turn as if he invented them, Garner gives the type of performance that would later earn him an Emmy in TV's The Rockford Files (for which this film was likely an important source of inspiration).
He gets first-rate support from a string of character actors portraying various low-lifes, showbiz types, criminals, and cynical cops. Much has already been said about Rita Moreno's delicious turn as a glamorous striptease artist and Bruce Lee's hilarious Kung fu scenes. However, equally good are Sharon Farrell as the little sister, exquisitely displaying a manipulative, girlish charm that quickly becomes annoying, and Carroll O'Connor as a hard-boiled, frustrated police lieutenant who gets increasingly exasperated at Marlowe.
The plot moves quickly through the convoluted intrigue, set against the backdrop of Los Angeles in the late 1960s, with the cool, jazzy musical score and groovy theme song contributing to render the atmosphere of the period.
That said, Marlowe is hardly a perfect film. For one thing, it makes little use of cinematic elements that could have contributed to the aesthetics of the film, such as dark lighting and wider angle shooting. It all seems a bit too bright for a mystery and rather closed in considering the LA location. This may be intentional and reflective of director Paul Bogart's style as a television director, but it somewhat limits the possibilities to convey mood and suspense. Secondly, the female character at the centre of the investigation, played by Gayle Hunnicutt, is not provided with enough screen time to make the viewer seriously interested about her fate. While Hunnicutt is billed as the female star of the film, she really has more of a supporting role, and her interactions with Garner lack any kind of romantic subplot that may have helped the viewer care more about the outcome of this complicated story. Still, the witty dialogue, intelligent plot, and colorful characterizations manage to make Marlowe a fine and enjoyable yarn. Those expecting a kind of neo-noir will be disappointed, but the film largely succeeds to deliver on its own terms.
Operation Crossbow
(1965)
A top-notch war adventure!
7 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I was looking at various rating sources for Operation Crossbow (IMDB, Video Hound, Letterboxd, Rotten Tomatos, All Movie Guide, Leonard Maltin etc.), and found it interesting that this movie seems to be more appreciated by critics than the current rating public. It seems it should be the other way around somehow. After all, Operation Crossbow is not a great piece of art, but a lush, beautifully photographed, big-budget adventure with an impressive cast, a good dose of suspense and action, and very good special effects and camera work for its day (particularly in the scenes depicting the rocket bombs hitting London). Even upon its release in 1965, the film was only a moderate hit at the US box office, leading MGM to consider changing its name to The Great Spy Mission, in order to avoid the misconception that Operation Crossbow was a medical drama, though the original title persisted.
Certainly, the film can be criticized for mixing fact and fiction, casting an American (George Peppard) as the main hero of a British operation, and ignoring any kind of character development. But this in itself was not uncommon in other, more successful major WWII adventures of the time. What may be less endearing to some viewers, however, is the rather unusual structure of the film, with the first half hour alternating between the Germans' development of the V1 rocket bombs and British intelligence officials trying to figure out what the Germans are up to and how to thwart their efforts. During this part of the movie, Richard Johnson, as the government Minister charged by Churchill in coordinating the British response to the German rocket development program, is the mainstay of the story, with support from Trevor Howard, John Mills and a few others. Following this rather extended prelude, the actual operation to infiltrate the German rocket-making factories slowly gets started, and George Peppard gradually takes over as the lead, though the film remains more of an ensemble cast, with Tom Courtenay, Jeremy Kemp, Anthony Quayle, and Lili Palmer all playing important parts, and Sophia Loren appearing half-way through in a short but still substantial role (no doubt, to raise the box office appeal of the film, courtesy of husband Carli Ponti who produced it). The story then switches back to London where there are a couple of superbly executed rocket bombings destroying parts of the city. Most of the real action, however, takes place towards the end of the movie.
Operation Crossbow may have been more appealing to audiences if it jumped to the spy mission sooner, stuck to a couple of main characters throughout, and spread out some the action sequences. For my part, however, I found the plot to be well structured and the focus on several characters helped to create a wide breadth to the adventure. The first part of the film was quite interesting, as it is largely based on facts and firmly sets the ground for the partly fictionalized story that follows. The middle part of the film, focusing on the encounter between Loren and Peppard was well woven into the story and did not artificially extend into an obvious romantic affair as is often the case in other war-time thrillers. None of the key characters were particularly well developed, but each was sufficiently interesting in his or her own way and the stars who portrayed them were all more than equal to their assignments. The respective fates of these characters were not predictable as the plot twisted suspensefully in different directions, with several tensed moments effectively directed by Michael Anderson, including an exciting, explosive, Bond-like finale. If the film took some liberties with history along the way, it was largely worth it, and it still managed to retain the essentials of what is a compelling true story while avoiding any kind of sentimental conclusion.
The Honey Pot
(1967)
Classy and original comedy mystery
7 March 2021
The Honey Pot is a delightful comedy mystery that seems destined to be under-appreciated. On the surface, an updating of Ben Jonson's Volpone, the plot twists in unexpected directions, confounding the viewer until the very end. While the mystery itself takes some time to get started, I found the film thoroughly entertaining due in great part to the witty dialogue of masterful Jospeh L. Mankiewicz and the colorful characterizations delivered by a wonderful cast led by Rex Harrison, Cliff Robertson and Maggie Smith. The dialogue also reaches some interesting depths towards the end of the film when Harrison's character makes some thoughtful reflections about time. As others have pointed out, the plot involves a lot of talking and takes its time to unfold, but this is part of the charm of the story. It is perhaps less about the mystery itself than the amusing interactions among a set of opportunistic and sly characters plotting against each-other. Performances are all around superb. Rex Harrison is exquisite as the cunning and charming orchestrator of the intrigue. Cliff Robertston is flawless as the quick-witted McFly/Mosca, executing his master's plan with intelligence and humorous servility. Just as delightful are Maggie Smith as the not-so-innocent nurse bringing a moral conscience to the story, Susan Hayward as a brash and aging American millionairess and Edie Adams as a rather crude Monroesque movie star. Perhaps a little too slow and not exciting enough for most audiences, The Honey Pot is neverthess worth the time of those interested in sophisticated and humourous dialogue, unusually creative mystery, and engaging performances.
Skin Game
(1971)
A forgotten exceptional comedy
6 June 2020
American film critic Leonard Maltin describes Skin Game as an exceptional comedy...and I agree with him. To make a comedy focussing on two con men ripping off slave owners without regard to any-thing but making money, while at the same time satirizing American slavery is itself bold and original, especially considering the film was made in 1971. However, to make such a comedy work so smoothly and inoffensively as it does is indeed exceptional. Skin Game manages to work for a number of reasons, including because it is serious when it needs to be, complementing the humour with well-crafted dramatic moments that are firmly anchored in the plot and effectively convey the injustice and tragedy of slavery. It does this without attempting to make any grand moralizing statements that would detract from the main thrust of the story and lure the viewer into obvious sentimentalism. Furthermore, while Skin Game is first and foremost a comedy, after its two main characters end up face-to-face with the brutality of slavery, it becomes clear that the gig is up and the comedy is over. Ultimately, slavery is too horrible a business to be taken lightly and the two smart-ass cons have learned their lesson by the end of the movie. In these ways, the film can manage to be satirical and funny, while not appearing to make light of a very serious topic. It should also be mentioned that the humour is of course never directed at slavery or the slaves, but at the slave owners and their stupidly racist attitudes.
Another reason why Skin Game works so well is because of the wonderful performances by its two main stars, James Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. Garner is of course an expert at playing the charming and witty fast-talking rascal, and in Skin Game, he gives one of his very best performances in a comedy film (along with Support Your Local Sheriff and The Americanization of Emily). However, the film also revealed Lou Gossett Jr.'s considerable talent. In his first important role in a major film, Gossett easily holds his own against Garner. The two have strong chemistry together, constantly trying to outcon each-other and delivering their humorous lines with ease, charm and spontaneity. The humour itself is maybe not highly sophisticated or extremely funny, but it's a smart tongue-in-cheek kind of comedy that makes you regularly grin and never feels forced.
Overall, Skin Game is not only an exceptional film, but an excellent one that intelligently balances comedy and drama, and develops its unusual premise in an amusing, sensitive, and unpredictable manner. It's a shame this movie is not more appreciated, though it did lead to a TV remake (Sidekicks with Gossett reprising his role and Larry Hagman replacing Garner), and other reviewers have pointed out its possible influence on Django Unchained.
Rider on the Rain
(1970)
Unique psychological French thriller
6 June 2020
Considering its huge success in France and much of Europe at the time of its release, René Clément's Le Passager de la Pluie/Rider on the Rain (which also won the golden globe award for best foreign film) has been relatively forgotten. Yet, after 50 years, the film remains a highly original, captivating thriller, filled with peculiar imagery, symbolism and suspenseful mystery. Though it has some Hitchcockian influences and makes some homages to the great master of suspense, it is really a unique mystery, unlike anything made before or after it. From its moody opening sequence in the rain, to a chilling rape scene, the film develops into an idiosyncratic intrigue, that entices the viewer largely thanks to the interactions between its two magnetic main characters, played by Marlene Jobert and Charles Bronson, both on their way to become two of the most popular stars in France at the time. The two enjoy amazing chemistry, as Bronson tries by any means to get Jobert to admit that she has killed the man who raped her and Jobert does her best to outmaneuver him. Though this cat and mouse game goes on for most of the film, the viewer's attention is maintained through some interesting plot twists and imaginative dialogue that has some amusing recurring themes. The beautifully melancholic musical score by Francis Lai greatly contributes to the strangeness of it all. What makes the story particularly meaningful, however, is that the central plot is clearly an allegory for Jobert's character's subconscious and conscious struggle as a fragile, repressed and dominated young woman, who through traumatic events, manages to eventually confront her demons and assert herself. In this sense, despite the abusive treatment of her character (interestingly named Melancholy), the film is arguably well in tune with the rising feminism of the period. Marlene Jobert's superb performance is key to the film's success. She is very convincing and charming in her girlish portrayal of this modern Alice in Wonderland, effectively conveying innocence, confusion, fright, hysteria, sadness, and a range of other emotions. Meanwhile, Charles Bronson is excellent as her enigmatic pursuer and saviour, whose real motives are not clear until more than halfway through the film. Bronson, who had recently become an international star with Once Upon a Time in the West, plays his usual tough guy persona, but with more depth and intelligence than most of the roles that would follow. Ultimately, Le Passager de la Pluie works thanks to the performances of this duo, which is maybe why it is not more remembered. Unfortunately, Jobert became much less active in films from the 1980s, while Bronson became increasingly associated with a vengeful, violent persona, rather removed from the more interesting character he plays here. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the French version of the film is more satisfying that the English one, where every-one except Bronson is dubbed, mainly because the dialogue works better in its original language.
Duel at Diablo
(1966)
A unusual western that is both modern and old-fashioned
19 May 2020
Caught between Hollywood's traditional western genre and the revisionist western styles of the late 1960s and 1970s, Duel at Diablo seems both a little behind and ahead of its time. As an old-fashioned western, Duel at Diablo has traditional cavalry vs. Indian story line and well-executed, exciting battle scenes. Beyond this, the film also addresses racism and oppression towards native Americans in a complex and non-sentimental manner, through various inter-linked sub-plots. While the Apaches may be cruel and the instigators of attacks, it is clear that this is only because they have been oppressed to the point where they have no other resort. This is not a battle between "good guys" and "bad guys" and in the end nobody wins. Perhaps, the film could have delved a little deeper into the social and ethical issues it raises. At times, it appears that the movie itself is unsure whether it is primarily an action film or a message film. However, this is also the movie's strength as its messages do not detract from the story and action, and never appear simplistic or preachy as is often the case in westerns that take a sympathetic perspective on the plight of native Americans.
Meanwhile, the excellent, rhythmic and moody musical score by Neil Hefti, while unusual for a western, is well suited to accompanying the unrelenting action sequences and conveying the tragedy and doom of a society and individuals caught in a vicious cycle of conflict and racism. The casting of the film further contributes to making Duel a Diablo a strong, atypical western. James Garner, who up to then had always played amiable leading men, sheds his typical persona to effectively portray a tough and rugged frontier scout, bent on avenging the murder of his Indian wife. Equally effective and very cool-looking in a 3-piece suit, Sidney Poitier is an army sergeant turned businessman, whose color is on the surface only incidental to the story beyond a couple of subtle inuendos (that said, it is really left to the viewer's interpretation whether his race is significant to the story, and it is somewhat ironic to see a black man taking charge among a regiment of white soldiers in shoot-outs against Indians). Europeans Bibi Anderson and Bill Travers also seem strangely out of place, respectively portraying what could be a Scandinivian emigrant and a Scottish-born American officer. And Dennis Weaver, who up to that time was mainly known as a simple good guy in TV's Gunsmoke plays the part of a nuanced villain. Add to this the beautiful cinematography of wide desert landscapes, and Duel at Diablo is a superior, exciting, and socially-conscious western, not a great one, but certainly unique.
A virus that makes you feel good? Just what the world needs right now!
16 May 2020
With the coronavirus pandemic still creating havoc around the world, I thought it was timely to talk a little bit about What's So Bad About Feeling Good?, a light-hearted comedy about a very different type of virus, one that makes you happy and kind. A little known film, which unfortunately bombed upon its release and was quickly forgotten, it's now a perfect diversion for those feeling down and heavy because of Covid-19. When seen against the backdrop of the current outbreak, there are some surprising parallels between how the authorities react to deal with this 'feel-good' virus and the present situation, especially as the story is set in New York City, which has been particularly hard hit by the coronavirus.
The premise is as original as it is ridiculous: good feeling is being spread by a toucan on the loose, and can be further transmitted upon contact (in much the same way as the coronavirus). It first hits a down beaten hippie community that has adopted lethargic depression as an existential philosophy and spreads throughout NY from there. While there does not seem to be any negative sides to the contamination (after all, what's so bad about feeling good?), the powers that be, led by a neurotic buffoon (delightfully played by Dom DeLuise), are bent on eradicating both virus and toucan, as you just can't have New-Yorkers running around feeling happy and polite, and not caring a damn about competing in the rat race...plus it's obviously a commie scheme to undermine the USA. In that respect, the film uses the spread of the so-called virus to make some fairly smart comments and mild criticism of modern society. There are also some amusing takes on hippie and beatnik culture of the time that contribute to the good-natured fun. Much of humor is silly, but George Peppard, Mary Tyler Moore and DeLuise manage to make the whole thing mildly entertaining. Unfortunately, the plot does not develop its premise in particularly inventive directions, ultimately focusing more on the efforts of the authorities to combat the infection than depicting its actual spread within the society writ large and the potentially crazy and amusing repercussions and situations that could have resulted. While Peppard and Tyler Moore are an engaging starring duo, there is limited development of their characters or their relationship. I was left with the feeling that this was a great idea that should have led to more entertaining possibilities. Still I found the overall result somewhat above average considering the originality of its starting point, some good jokes and satirical observations, and satisfying performances.
Robin and Marian
(1976)
A great revisionist adventure and love story
16 May 2020
Robin and Marian deserves recognition as one of the greatest revisionist adventures and love stories put on film. Mysteriously, its appreciation by critics and audiences alike has been rather mixed, but this may be in part because fans of the Robin Hood legend find it difficult to see their hero aged and demystified to such an extent. The idea of a middle-aged Robin returning to Sherwood forest after the crusades and death of King Richard, and taking up arms against the renewed injustice instigated under Prince John, is itself consistent with the final chapter of some of the Robin Hood legends. However, under the able direction of Richard Lester and intelligent script of James Golding, the story interestingly deconstructs and reconstructs the legend, while focusing on the relationship between Robin and Maid Marian reuniting after 20 years. In the process, it creates an exciting yet realistic adventure and a mature love story with an infinitely touching ending. Here, Robin is not a one-dimensional hero of noble Saxon origin, but essentially an ordinary peasant in shabby clothing who happens to have a strong sense of pride and moral fiber. The exploits of his merry men, while there were some, were greatly exaggerated by local folklore. When Will Scarlet tells Robin that wherever they go, people want to hear about these exploits, Robin exclaims: "We didn't do them!", and Will responds ironically : "I know that!". Meanwhile, King Richard is or has become rather capricious and cruel, and his crusades are described by Robin as nothing but murderous plunders. The Sheriff of Nottingham, on the other hand, is no vicious tyrant bent on enriching himself, but a noble and wise adversary, who respects Robin more than the nobility he serves, and is seen with suspicion because unlike them, he can read and write.
The medieval atmosphere is realistically rendered through the unadorned sets and castles, clunky armors, and beautiful forest cinematography. This one really feels like the middle ages. The well-orchestrated action scenes are also refreshingly realistic. In one particular battle, Robin and Little John show remarkable strength and determination, but wear out quickly as middle aged men would. And like many middle-aged men who once enjoyed some glory, Robin has difficulty accepting that he is getting older, and still believes he is still the hero of yesteryear. Yet, despite this demystification, or perhaps because of it, the essential heroism of Robin shines through and appears more credible than before.
At its core though, Robin and Marian is a compelling love story, where the two protagonists rediscover themselves after 20 years, and find that their love has not only survived but grown stronger. Never has the relationship between Robin and Marian been rendered so meaningful and their moments together are beautifully accompanied by the touching and dignified musical theme of John Barry.
Sean Connery, balding and wearing a graying beard, is ideal as the aging Robin, wanting to relive it all again, infusing his character with humor and dignity. Audrey Hepburn, as Marian, brings a heart-wrenching depth to the romance. It was her last film performance and a great one. Robert Shaw delivers a mesmerizing portrayal of the sheriff, making him appear both menacing and strangely sympathetic. Also notable are Richard Harris as King Richard and Nicol Williamson as Little John.
Overall, this is an outstanding film that is both nostalgic and hopeful in its belief in the survival of love and noble virtues. I hope that many will discover or rediscover it for years to come.
Tell Your Friends