Simon Templar must be one of the most unlucky fellows in film industry. Since Roger Moore's super popular TV show from the 60s, the following screen incarnations of the character were real failures. It took almost a decade for the Adam Rayner project to take off, and he wasn't even producers' first choice for the role. Over the years many names have been attached to the planned reboot of the series, including actors Dougray Scott and James Purefoy, and directors Barry Levinson and Simon West. The Levinson-Purefoy duo left half way and launched their own project, The Philantropist, with a leading character looking suspiciously like the Saint. It managed to survive only for 8 episodes. A Saintly curse maybe?
The 2017 flick is also seems to be cursed alas by the god of boredom and uninventiveness. It'a mish-mash of cliche TV action in the worst 90s mode. Maybe it's because it was originally filmed in 2013 and then partly re-shot four years later with additional story quickly glued to the original teleplay (and a beard that Adam Rayner couldn't cut as he was waiting to be involved in another season of Tyrant). The premise of the story - Saint getting involved in the kidnapping of a rich man's daughter - lacks drama and gets lost in the midst of useless stuff like Simon Templar attempting MMA (WTF???!!!) or Patricia Holm spending tons of time behind computer trying to look like an IT expert.
Look, we've seen it all before. It's nothing more han a cliche of a cliche of a cliche. On many levels the film even borrows from the notorious Philip Noyce/Val Kilmer venture from 1997. And to be honest I proffered the latter. At least it had some visual quality, better acting and a much more solid story to tell even if it was miles from what we expected at that time. The producers of the 2017 film seem to be totally unaware of the great step that television shows made in the last decade (hello, has anyone seen True Detective?). And it hurts especially when you're a fan of the one and only Simon Templar.
As for the man himself. Sorry, but Adam Rayner just doesn't know what to do with the role. He tries imitate the Cary Grant formula but it's not enough to put a smile on your face and blurt out occasional one-liner. It just doesn't feel natural. Ian Ogilvy mastered the formula much better but that's not exactly what the audience wanted even then, in the late 70s, so why go back to it? I'm sorry to say that, but Rayner's not the man for the job. What the role needs is of course not so much acting but a personality of an actor, his voice, his looks and all hat's behind it. So, how to rate it not to hurt anyone involved? I guess it's best to leave it unsaid, pretend it never happened and wait for the next Saint to come, hopefully not in 20 years time.
The 2017 flick is also seems to be cursed alas by the god of boredom and uninventiveness. It'a mish-mash of cliche TV action in the worst 90s mode. Maybe it's because it was originally filmed in 2013 and then partly re-shot four years later with additional story quickly glued to the original teleplay (and a beard that Adam Rayner couldn't cut as he was waiting to be involved in another season of Tyrant). The premise of the story - Saint getting involved in the kidnapping of a rich man's daughter - lacks drama and gets lost in the midst of useless stuff like Simon Templar attempting MMA (WTF???!!!) or Patricia Holm spending tons of time behind computer trying to look like an IT expert.
Look, we've seen it all before. It's nothing more han a cliche of a cliche of a cliche. On many levels the film even borrows from the notorious Philip Noyce/Val Kilmer venture from 1997. And to be honest I proffered the latter. At least it had some visual quality, better acting and a much more solid story to tell even if it was miles from what we expected at that time. The producers of the 2017 film seem to be totally unaware of the great step that television shows made in the last decade (hello, has anyone seen True Detective?). And it hurts especially when you're a fan of the one and only Simon Templar.
As for the man himself. Sorry, but Adam Rayner just doesn't know what to do with the role. He tries imitate the Cary Grant formula but it's not enough to put a smile on your face and blurt out occasional one-liner. It just doesn't feel natural. Ian Ogilvy mastered the formula much better but that's not exactly what the audience wanted even then, in the late 70s, so why go back to it? I'm sorry to say that, but Rayner's not the man for the job. What the role needs is of course not so much acting but a personality of an actor, his voice, his looks and all hat's behind it. So, how to rate it not to hurt anyone involved? I guess it's best to leave it unsaid, pretend it never happened and wait for the next Saint to come, hopefully not in 20 years time.