After Roger Moore, this was my very first SAINT film with George Sanders. Over the years, he's become one of my favorite actors, and there's quite a few other decent actors in this film. However, this gets my vote for the WORST Saint film ever made-- and let me tell you why.
I sat thru this thing at least 3 times and could not make heads or tails of the plot at all. And then, not long after seeing Louis Hayward in THE SAINT IN NEW YORK, I started reading Leslie Chartis' books. Imagine my surprise and shock when I got to "ANGELS OF DOOM", on which this is VERY loosely based, and not only was it was straight-forward, easy to understand, exciting, entertaining and in places downright hilarious, it also became my favorite novel of all time. It also "explained" to me exactly what was WRONG with this movie!!!
They took a story that by rights should have been done as a 3-hour film (2 at the absolute minimum) and crammed it into just about 60 minutes. Is it any wonder it makes almost no sense at all? Never mind that they also decided to set it in the WRONG country (San Francisco instead of London), they gutted the plot so much that in order to get even the basics across, about 95% of the film is just people standing around talk talk talking.
So the plot structure is awful, the directing is appallingly bad, and half the acting in the film is stiff and lifeless, even from normally very talented actors.
And then of course there's George Sanders, who's COMPLETELY miscast as Simon Templar. I never even really understood the whole aura of "The Saint" until I saw Louis Hayward in action; to date, NOBODY else has ever brought the character to accurate life before (NOT EVEN Roger Moore!! --who usually plays it too SERIOUS, which is mind-boggling when you consider he never took James Bond seriously). The dialog Templar spouts in much of this film would be impossible for ANY actor to deliver credibly, EXCEPT for Louis Hayward, and I doubt even he could have made the story in this one fly. Maybe it wasn't just RKO's low low budget that caused him to depart after only one picture-- maybe he read the script, too.
In all fairness, and despite himself, the next 4 SAINT films all had the dialog tailored specifically to fit Sanders' personality. How else could he have done such an INCREDIBLE job in THE SAINT IN London, or THE SAINT TAKES OVER (the latter of which, an "original" story, is actually a thinly-disguised-- and BETTER-told-- remake of THIS mess! --and with the same 3 actors in the leads!).
Half the actors in this I've seen in other "B" movies from this period, and most of them do far better jobs elsewhere. Truthfully, the only one who comes off unscathed is Jonathan Hale, and you can't help but feel sorry for his Inspector Fernack, for the dizzying way Templar leads him on a confused merry chase, on his way to becoming a "hero" at the end.
As if everything else wasn't so bad, at the end of the film, the "big reveal" as to the true identity of the main villain ALSO is told entirely thru confused dialog, and we find that the baddie got KILLED-- off-screen! I just watched this again today, and the whole time, I wanted to throttle the person who wrote the screenplay!
It's no wonder after 6 RKO films, series creator Leslie Charteris PULLED the plug and took back the rights. Ironically, RKO distributed the 2 British-made films that followed, and simultaneously did THE FALCON series, initially also with Sanders, which was based on a novel that was the subject of a plagiarism lawsuit brought against it by Leslie Charteris! I guess that didn't bother RKO any...
Finally, allow me to recommend much better Simon Templar films...
THE SAINT IN NEW YORK
THE SAINT IN London
THE SAINT TAKES OVER
THE SAINT'S VACATION
I sat thru this thing at least 3 times and could not make heads or tails of the plot at all. And then, not long after seeing Louis Hayward in THE SAINT IN NEW YORK, I started reading Leslie Chartis' books. Imagine my surprise and shock when I got to "ANGELS OF DOOM", on which this is VERY loosely based, and not only was it was straight-forward, easy to understand, exciting, entertaining and in places downright hilarious, it also became my favorite novel of all time. It also "explained" to me exactly what was WRONG with this movie!!!
They took a story that by rights should have been done as a 3-hour film (2 at the absolute minimum) and crammed it into just about 60 minutes. Is it any wonder it makes almost no sense at all? Never mind that they also decided to set it in the WRONG country (San Francisco instead of London), they gutted the plot so much that in order to get even the basics across, about 95% of the film is just people standing around talk talk talking.
So the plot structure is awful, the directing is appallingly bad, and half the acting in the film is stiff and lifeless, even from normally very talented actors.
And then of course there's George Sanders, who's COMPLETELY miscast as Simon Templar. I never even really understood the whole aura of "The Saint" until I saw Louis Hayward in action; to date, NOBODY else has ever brought the character to accurate life before (NOT EVEN Roger Moore!! --who usually plays it too SERIOUS, which is mind-boggling when you consider he never took James Bond seriously). The dialog Templar spouts in much of this film would be impossible for ANY actor to deliver credibly, EXCEPT for Louis Hayward, and I doubt even he could have made the story in this one fly. Maybe it wasn't just RKO's low low budget that caused him to depart after only one picture-- maybe he read the script, too.
In all fairness, and despite himself, the next 4 SAINT films all had the dialog tailored specifically to fit Sanders' personality. How else could he have done such an INCREDIBLE job in THE SAINT IN London, or THE SAINT TAKES OVER (the latter of which, an "original" story, is actually a thinly-disguised-- and BETTER-told-- remake of THIS mess! --and with the same 3 actors in the leads!).
Half the actors in this I've seen in other "B" movies from this period, and most of them do far better jobs elsewhere. Truthfully, the only one who comes off unscathed is Jonathan Hale, and you can't help but feel sorry for his Inspector Fernack, for the dizzying way Templar leads him on a confused merry chase, on his way to becoming a "hero" at the end.
As if everything else wasn't so bad, at the end of the film, the "big reveal" as to the true identity of the main villain ALSO is told entirely thru confused dialog, and we find that the baddie got KILLED-- off-screen! I just watched this again today, and the whole time, I wanted to throttle the person who wrote the screenplay!
It's no wonder after 6 RKO films, series creator Leslie Charteris PULLED the plug and took back the rights. Ironically, RKO distributed the 2 British-made films that followed, and simultaneously did THE FALCON series, initially also with Sanders, which was based on a novel that was the subject of a plagiarism lawsuit brought against it by Leslie Charteris! I guess that didn't bother RKO any...
Finally, allow me to recommend much better Simon Templar films...
THE SAINT IN NEW YORK
THE SAINT IN London
THE SAINT TAKES OVER
THE SAINT'S VACATION