Bullseye! (1990) User Reviews (27)

Much criticised comedy that is actually rather funnier than people give it credit for.

[barnabyrudge · 5/10 · 22 June 2006]

Michael Winner's career as a director has been plagued with some bad movies, with the likes of Death Wish 2, Death Wish 3, The Nightcomers and Parting Shots notable for their awfulness. However, there is one film that frequently makes it onto the Michael Winner "crap-list" that I feel is rather better than its reputation suggests. That film is "Bullseye!" While not a forgotten masterpiece, "Bullseye!" is certainly amusing enough and harmless enough to pass a little time. It also finds real-life buddies Roger Moore and Michael Caine bouncing off each other and demonstrating a nice chemistry in their comical dual roles. Caine's American accent might be one of the worst attempts at an accent since Dick Van Dyke crucified Cockney speech in "Mary Poppins", but he and Moore look like they're having a wonderful time and some of their enjoyment inevitably transmits across to the audience.

Corrupt physicists Dr Daniel Hicklar (Caine) and Sir John Bavistock (Moore) have invented a cheap form of nuclear fusion with British and American financial backing. However, the dirty duo plan to sell their formula to the highest bidder in an effort to make themselves filthy rich…. even though they should really be giving the formula back to the governments that funded them. A down payment of diamonds is handed over by the potential bidders in order to secure their place at this clandestine "auction". Meanwhile, it becomes apparent that Hicklar and Bavistock have, completely unbeknown to them, a pair of identical doubles. Enter failed con-men Sidney Lipton (Caine again) and Gerald Bradley-Scott (Moore). Sidney and Gerald are contacted by their old partner in crime Willie (Sally Kirkland), who has found out about the diamonds and plans to use their incredible likeness to the swindling scientists as a means of stealing the priceless stones. Gerald and Sidney pull off their audacious heist and get the diamonds, but just as they prepare to retire to paradise they are apprehended by the CIA and MI5. These two secret agencies are keen to bust Hicklar and Bavistock, who have used their government's funding to create the fusion formula but have tried to gain personal wealth from the project. Gerald and Sidney are "persuaded" to continue their deceptive ruse so that the CIA and MI5 can deliberately sabotage the greedy plans of the two scientists by having their doubles mess up the illegal auction!

Some severe words have been levelled at "Bullseye!" – Halliwell said it was a "tedious comedy with few laughs"; Maltin called it "deadly nonsense"; and the Radio Times were fiercely unkind to the film, stating that it was "a hideously unfunny comedy of errors that must rank as a career low for nearly all involved". These criticisms are terribly harsh for a film that seeks merely to provide a little light entertainment. Yes, the film has an over-used and rather silly plot. Yes, Caine's American accent is dreadful. And yes, a lot of the jokes poke fun at racial and sexual stereotypes. But what about the fact that some of the jokes are genuinely funny? What about the evident fun that Caine and Moore are having with their imbecilic characters? What about the way that the film is fast paced and rather entertaining in its simple-minded way? I just can't see why the film was greeted with such critical derision. It is not a film that I would ever award high marks – the 5 I've given it is plenty high enough – but for the film to be completely ignored and dismissed like it has is just as misleading. "Bullseye!" is silly but enjoyable entertainment…. it might not be Some Like It Hot, but it's still a damn sight better than much of the politically correct garbage that we're subjected to nowadays.

"At last luck has come our way".

[lost-in-limbo · 5/10 · 3 August 2011]

Not quite the bullseye, but nonetheless director Michael Winner would get enough amusement out of the pairing of English actors Michael Caine and Roger Moore in this riotously goof-ball and crude comedy caper that sees the pair playing dual roles. Two small time conman take on a job which sees them impersonating two look-alike nuclear scientists to use their identities to get into the scientific safety deposit box which is filled with millions of dollars worth of diamonds. However they are found out by the authorities, where they learn that these scientists happen to be crooked and they get caught up in the country's national security ("We're thieves, not spies").

Bumbling, cartoon-like slapstick of the lowest dominator, but I liked it a little more than its monstrous reputation. The performances are all over the shop, as an animated Caine shamelessly bellows out his lines while Moore goes about things in a dry manner. Sally Kirkland is a bright spark and Deborah Moore is a complete delight. The cast look like they are having a good time together. Then there's a clever little cameo by John Cleese along with Jenny Seagrove. The episodic plot is filled with twists and turns, as the characters bicker, find themselves being outsmarted, double-crossed and in some sort of dangerous predicament. While the board script is wittily madcap, if downright low-brow. Director Winner's arrant handling (odd camera angles) perfectly paints a local flavour to the surroundings, but the snappy comic timing can be messy and tiredly relying on the on-going gags ("What did they say?"). "Bullseye!" maybe lame, but joyfully crazy and loud comedy hokum.

"They say everybody in the world has someone somewhere who looks like they do".

Good comedy, for 11 year old's everywhere

[ill_behavior · 3/10 · 13 May 2003]

I think I laughed once at this film, watched it when I was ten or eleven, because it has a scene where one dog humps another.

Other than that, I'd rather stab my eyes out with a biro than be forced to sit through it again. Go watch Monty Python instead, hell, even Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is better than this.

'hit' rather than 'eye' in the title would be better...

[hugh1971 · 30 October 2002]

Oh dear. I'm a big fan of Mr Caine and Mr Moore, and to be honest those two in the lead roles are the only reason to watch the film. Anyone lesser would have made it an utter waste of time.

The film is hackneyed with an incomprehensible plot. Films based on 'doubles' are always dodgy, so much so that even in the 30s it was considered bad plotting to use them in detective stories. At some points in the film I just didn't know who was meant to be whom, and by the time of the second 'double cross' I just lost interest.

While Caine and Moore were at times hilarious ('I come from a broken home...')a lot of the jokes and effects made me cringe. The scene where the train porter gets his head blown off had me rewinding to see if my eyes had not deceived me. That has to be the worst special effect for many years!

I also found the very obvious pitching of the film to the American audience patronising in the extreme. Tourist shots of London, Highland Games, stately homes, stuffy clubs, 'punk' taxi drivers and an unconvincing portrayal of the Queen - all this type of thing was being done far better and with greater irony by the Comic Strip team years before.

So don't expect a great plot or gags but if you like Caine and Moore, it's worth watching - just.

A Loser For Michael Winner

[boblipton · 2/10 · 23 October 2019]

Michael Caine and Roger Moore are two small-time crooks. They also look exactly like a pair of scientists who have perfected fusion power plants, are about to auction the plans to the highest bidder. They break into the scientists' safety deposit vaults and steal the money they've collected so far... and then are conscripted by British and American intelligence to steal the plans.

It's long been my opinion that if there's an exclamation point in the title, there's nothing that requires it in the movie. Director Michael Winner directs a frantic, unfunny movie from a script by Leslie Bricuse that does no credit to anyone involved. The editing pace is so fast that it cuts into laughs that aren't there, the staging is so cheap it would have made Jules White blush; when Caine is in the same scene as his lookalike, they shoot his double from the rear or cut to a separate shot, and the same for Moore. Neither Winner nor Bricuse had a writing credit after this, and if this is the best they could do at this stage of their careers, it's no coincidence.

Caine does an American accent that's flat and annoying. Moore doesn't change his delivery at all. Two actors capable of charm and comedy exhibit neither!

A Log Up The Kilt.

[PathetiCinema · 1/10 · 15 August 2008]

This movie is supremely inventive in the humour stakes. Roger Moore and Michael Caine wearing kilts! Wearing kilts in the vicinity of log tossers. Naturally, they are going to receive a log up the kilt at some point.

Sure enough, the moment arrives as someone lifts a log as they both straddle it. The log goes up the kilts. The audience roll about in floods of tears, each receiving their own personal log up the kilt agony.

A few minutes pass and we are treated to another log up the kilt victim. The humour then progresses to another person receiving a log up the kilt.

The final scene involves several people straddling a log only to have someone lift up the log, giving the victims a log up the kilt.

Missed target

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 14 October 2013]

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.

It's as if the script writers also wrote for the Three Stooges or "Three's Company"....no, on second thought, they aren't THAT good!

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 27 November 2022]

"Bullseye!" is a movie that SHOULD have worked well. After all, it stars Michael Caine and Roger Moore AND the story idea, though unbelievable, is fun and original. But somehow the film still doesn't work...mostly because of the writing. It lacked cleverness and instead chose to be kooky and silly....making the film rather trivial instead of a must-see.

Michael Caine and Roger Moore play dual roles. They play both career criminals AND folks who are working on a power source like cold fusion. But these well respected men are also crooks....just white collar ones who live respectable lives.

Here comes a HUGE problem with the film...the notion of nearly identical strangers. And when the crooks learn they are identicals, they plan on impersonating them and raiding their safety deposit boxes, since the researchers are rich...very rich.

After successfully raiding the boxes, the pair are surprised when the government captures them and offers them an unexpected bargain. They'll be allowed to keep the stolen contents of the boxes IF they continue to impersonate the nuclear researchers. Why? Because the rich guys are ALSO crooks. They have falsely reported that their research is a failure and instead of giving the secret of cheap energy to the Americans and Brits (as per their agreement), the plan to auction it off to ANYONE who has the money...anyone.

At first, I thought that the bad thing about the movie would be having the actors play dual roles. However, this is just a small problem compared to the serious problems...the film is just dopey. It's like the writers were the same ones who wrote the "Get Smart" reunion movies and the folks who wrote Roger Moore's double-entendres when he played James Bond. I simply cannot imagine anyone liking the results....and the film is a total waste of two fine actors.

According to my wife, she thinks the actors must have been high when they signed on to make these films. While this might not be the case, it would explain a lot.

Ugh

[BandSAboutMovies · 2/10 · 11 September 2022]

In the divorce of Golan and Globus, it seems as if Menahem got not only Charles Bronson - 21st Century FIlms released Death Wish 5: The Face of Death - but also Michael Winner, who directed, co-wrote*, produced and edited this film. This would be the final collaboration between Golan and Winner.

Michael Caine and Roger Moore are Dr. Daniel Hicklar and Sir John Bavistock, nuclear physicists who believe they have invented a limitless supply of cold fusion energy. They are also con men Sidney Lipton and Gerald Bradley-Smith, who want to use their resemblance to those two men and steal their formula and get rich.

This movie has more dog sex than a Linda Lovelace loop, which should tell you the level of humor you're about to get. At least it has a cast that you can be excited seeing when they show up, like Sally Kirkland as a former lover of both men, a closing cameo by John Cleese, Deborah Barrymore (the daughter of Moore and Italian actress Luisa Mattioli) playing a British agent named Flo Fleming, Patsy Kensit, Alexandra Pigg (star of British soap opera Brookside), Nicholas Courtney (Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart on Dr. Who) and Jim Bowen, who hosted the ITV game show Bullseye.

The final scenes for this film have one of the smallest crews ever on a major movie. Winner operated the camera, cameraman David Wynn-Jones held the reflector and Cleese moonlighted as the sound man as the sound recorder was concealed in a book he carried.

Caine's agent told him not to do this movie, but he had always wanted to work with his friend Moore. His agent was probably right; he did a much better version of this movie two years earlier with Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

*The other writers were Leslie Bricusse (Doctor Dolittle, Scrooged), Nick Mead, Laurence Marks and Maurice Gran (Marks and Gran worked on the TV shows Goodnight Sweetheart and Birds of a Feather together).

Does not hit the bullseye, but does not miss completely either

[gridoon2024 · 6/10 · 20 April 2013]

As a fan of both Michael Caine and Roger Moore, I felt obliged to include this movie in my collection, despite its poor reputation and straight-to-video status. The two stars play dual roles, but otherwise their talents are not really stretched in this undemanding project; they do seem to be having a good time, and so you will you if you are similarly undemanding. This is an energetic, fast-paced comedy, though crude at times (there is an embarrassing scene of a wax dummy getting shot in the head), and it does get a little tiresome near the end. Roger Moore's own daughter has a fairly big role, and she's pretty cute and appealing. And I do appreciate the tour through many different locations that the movie takes us on. I do have one question, though: how can one of the Michael Caine characters narrate what happened in scenes he was never a part of? **1/2 out of 4.

Baffling for its constant misfiring comedy

[shakercoola · 3/10 · 7 May 2018]

A British-American action comedy. A story about spies who force two British con men to pose as look-alike scientists peddling cheap-energy fusion. This is a hectic caper with farcical overtones. The job of the two leads was to convince us that their characters had con-artist identical doubles but, alas, it is not at all convincing. It plays out like an overlong misbegotten stage farce with its numerous costume changes, props, corny jokes, poor pacing, and cut-price musical score. Nonetheless, there is a vicarious pleasure of watching pals Roger Moore and Michael Caine having fun because they have a good chemistry. One can believe the press reports that there was a stagehand at the ready popping the cork every time director Michael Winner shouted "cut".

A rather unusual Roger Moore and Michael Caine comedy

[The-Sarkologist · 8/10 · 5 November 2011]

Well, this is a Michael Caine and Roger Moore Comedy. Leonard Martin didn't like it but I did. I thought that it was quite witty, and though I probably wouldn't watch it again, I did quite enjoy it the first time round.

Basically Caine and Moore both play two characters, a pair of crooks and a pair of crooked scientists. As Caine says at the beginning of the movie, everybody is said to have a double, and Caine's double just happens to be a nuclear scientist who is attempting to rip off the American and British governments by leaching research money off them and then selling their discovery to others. After a successful jewel heist, the CIA then approach Caine and Moore and blackmail them into posing as the scientists to get the plans.

There is really little else to the movie other than the personality clashes and the comedy of errors. Caine's character seriously wants to get laid and finds out that the character that he is posing as is Jewish and shuns all of the luxuries that he desires, while Moore's character seems to get everything that he wants. Moore is far more charming than Caine, who in reality is a bad-luck magnet.

The cameo by John Cleese at the end is also rather cool, and goes to show just how much bad luck these two criminals seem to attract to themselves.

Good, cheesy fun! - "We're Thieves, not spies"

[mattjames1978 · 7/10 · 7 July 2006]

Yes, this film has been put together really badly It also has some terrible editing (1967...(moore mouths eight! Look closely, you will see!) Make-up is bad Directing is amateurish However, the film did entertain me. Caine and Moore must cringe when they ever stumble on this! But the tackiness was what made it great. The film tries so hard to be American in parts and it does fall flat on its face, but if someone like Quentin Tarantino had done it, it would have tied your brain in knots...In summary, this is a film for simpletons everywhere. Give it a try, yes It will probably make you cringe, but in one way or another, it will make you smile...Rather like Portugal getting knocked out of world cup. This film is Marmite...You either love it or hate it

Not A Winner for Moore & Caine

[TheFearmakers · 4/10 · 27 June 2022]

By 1990 how the 1970's mighty-British had fallen, three-fold, as Michael Winner directs Michael Caine and Roger Moore in the buddy con-comedy BULLSEYE!, more confusing than unfunny, and extremely farfetched as Caine (collecting a paycheck) and Moore (constantly widening his eyes) just happen to be dead-ringers for two scientists that are also a team-up, and even more crooked...

Providing Caine a chance to reprise his popular DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS con-artist cadence but in more of the Steve Martin goofball role, and failing, getting no help from Sally Kirkland as the straight-man-lady partner gluing both together, along with Moore's real life daughter as a CIA Agent in what's more a collection of silly scenes than one collective spy spoof, which is hardly even attempted here in the first, second, or third place.

So awful it's fantastic. 1 or 10 out of ten, depending on how you look at it.

[TheBrothersCarruthers · 22 July 2005]

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.

Stay out of the black & in the red nothing in this game for two in a bed!

[General Urko · 7/10 · 8 November 2001]

No, this isn't the biopic of Jim Bowen & Tony Green but a good comedy with dual roles for Caine & Moore. Sometimes its good because its funny, sometimes its so bad its good. The pairing of the two British acting giants is worth 90 minutes of anyones time. This movie tries to hark back to the classic British comedies of old & succeeds in parts. If you take this film in the spirit it was made then you should be laughing & groaning in equal measures!

A Funny comedy

[filmbuff69007 · 8/10 · 30 August 2001]

OK its not a oscar winner.its a Michael Winner.but this comedy has a great double act in Caine and Moore infact this is the first time i seen Moore do a comedy and he is quite excellent.a good supporting cast the script is more carry on than anything else and whats wrong with that.id sooner watch this than Trainspotting.

Got siller and sillier

[Marlburian · 6/10 · 26 September 2018]

I go along with the negative reviews. I had thought that Winner, Moore and Caine would provide a good film. This one started off well enough but it got sillier and sillier, and the last 25 minutes or so were farcical - I nearly gave up viewing it on YouTube.

Enough said.

A real dud

[Marco_Trevisiol · 25 October 1998]

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.

Double fun!

[jbgeorges · 7/10 · 10 January 2021]

This film is neither the worst nor the best comedy in the world. But I had a good moment each time I watched it! Some scenes are really funny. But the main interest for me is to see two actors that I love, Caine and Moore, just having fun together and gently making fun of the characters they've played in other movies. This spirit of derision is a treat. At no time do they take themselves seriously and I thank them for that! Such a difference with today's actors... Without being a masterpiece, this film is funny, light and entertaining. It is well worth the detour and deserves a little more lenient reviews I think. I give a 7

Brilliant

[philbingham · 10/10 · 21 June 2018]

This film is a masterpiece - putting two of Britain's best and best loved actors together. Great comical storyline, typical Roger Moore charm and comedy with Caine bouncing off him contributing as much humour and quips throughout. Loaded all the way through and a must watch.

The best worst film ever made...

[fletchfanone · 10/10 · 26 January 2008]

A lot of people who have seen this film will wonder why 10 out of 10.

However, having watched this film almost 12 times I never tire of it. Ridiculous quotes and incredibly bad acting from all involved make it so much fun. And this is what movies are about right? Simple setup - Roger Moore and Michael Caine's ex-partner conman characters are almost identical to two partnered scientists - HOW CONVENIENT! And so they set up a plan to steal the scientists secret diamond stash all the time bumbling through some goofy moments in order to set up the crime.

Written by the creative team behind the dire TV sitcom "Birds Of A Feather" I was surprised the film has some quick witty one-liners. It also has some cringe inducing scenes including what I believe is Roger Moore trying it on with his own daughter. Michael Caine is the first to point out some of the terrible films he's made so you can't really have a go but his accents are hideous.

All in all I recommend this film to anyone who just wants a laugh even if it is at the expense of two fine actors.

"Has anyone ever said you look like Mel Gibson?" Baddie shakes head. "I'm not surprised."

Bullseye vs Large

[rmtheatre · 18 September 2006]

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.

One of the best 'so bad it's good' movies ever

[renaissancememe · 10/10 · 19 March 2019]

Welcome to the world of Bullseye. A movie were Michael Caine's unnecessary narration comes cascading in at all the wrong moments. A movie were nearly every single character clunkily justifies their actions and explains themselves. A movie with a seemingly simple story, yet is actually almost incomprehensible.

PLOT (SPOILERS)

Okay, so, I'll do my best. Sidney Lipton is a small time crook - and darts whiz - who bears a resemblance to nuclear scientist Daniel Hickler, who is currently working for the British government with Sir John Bavistock on cheap, clean, fusion energy. At the beginning of the film, the two scientists (or maybe Sir John is just a PR guy, it's hard to tell) perfect (or so they think) the formula to cheap, clean, fusion energy. However, they plan to sell it on the black market, as to make MONEY! Meanwhile, Sidney is released from prison and is reunited with his old crime buddies: Winnie/Willie and Gerald Smith/Scott (it varies). Along with them is Inspector Grousse. They hatch a plan to steal diamonds from Hickler and Bavistock, which are from prospective buyers of their fusion plans as a deposit. It is revealed later on in the movie that W and G are both secret agents (though it's a bit vague) who work for the CIA and MI5, respectively. Anyway, the plan is that Sidney and Gerald will impersonate Daniel and John, as to steal the diamonds. After they steal the diamonds, they get brought to Darryl Hyde and Nigel Hawthorn, the heads of CIA and MI5, though later they are seen basically doing field work. They tell Gerald and Sidney to continue impersonating the two scientists (who have been arrested) at the auctions, which will be taking place in Scotland. They do so, while Winnie and Flo (another CIA agent, who is later revealed to be Winnie and Sidney's daughter) try to work out where the real plans are, which they of course do. This is pretty much Act 2, and follows a simple formula: one of the two crooks goes to an auction, one of the two scientists escapes (or is let out by the CIA, for some still unknowable reason) and causes some trouble for the gang. Ultimately, they all end up at the final auction at an unglamourous highland gathering. There's a bit more cat and mouse between the main four, but in the end the two scientists are arrested, and Flo has the real plans. She is about to leave with Darryl and Nigel, when she overhears talking about some plan to kill Gerald, Sidney, John and Daniel (as to avoid the embarrassment of putting two famous scientists on trial), thus cementing their power status as my favourite evil power couple. She gives the plans to Gerald and Sidney, who is it as a bargaining chip to get lots of money from the British government, and they move to Barbados (a recurring motif in the film). John and Daniel go to jail, the fusion plans don't work, and Sidney and Gerald give all of their money to a John Cleese lookalike. I know I have missed out loads, but I've tried to keep this as concise as possible, and I didn't want to ruin too much.

REVIEW

This movie is incredible and has infinite depth, but it's hard to say why. I guess it's a combination of a lot of things. You see, Bullseye is undeniably a comedy par excellence, but it is ALSO a nuanced commentary on the nature of human relationships. Perhaps the artistic height of this theme is conveyed through the tragic deterioration of the Old Couple's marriage (it is a sign of Michael Winner's insight that the two characters are unnamed, they signify a universal condition). The marriage began as a fairy-tale, the pair of them running through the park by the river, laughing joyously at comedic misfortunes. But then something changed, the old man's jibes became steely; no longer did they share the same jokes. It was as if their two hearts were living in two separate worlds. Eventually, their thoughts turned to murder. Yes, the numb embrace of death had become preferable to the pain of living with the memory of lost love. Now that is a far deeper message than anything that can be gleaned from the paper thin drivel served up in the much overhyped "breakfast farce" in Citizen Kane.

It's also the film's awful cinematography. Awkward close-ups, awkward "artistic" shots, misplaced zooms and pans.

I know I've done a bad job at explaining it; and I know it's not for everyone. But trust me, if you're the kind of person who enjoys these kinds of bad movies (hacky director old actors just their for a paycheck), then Bullseye is for you, and it definitely needs more recognition. I know there are others, The Room, Love On A Leash, Cold Zone, but they all pale in comparison to Bullseye, with such classics as "are you qualified to SAVE UP young lady?" but the real question is, what will the Bullseye sequel be called. Son of Bullseye or Double Top? And who will play Gerald Bradley Scott and Sir John? I think that guy from Speed 2 would do well, but perhaps he is not self aware enough to bring out the sublime idiocy of the film. Maybe they can get Lil' John to stand in for Michael Caine during the "shouting on the train" scene (you know, the "hey, HEYYYY" bit).

Missed the bullseye!

[Rakesh Kumar · 5 May 2002]

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.