This really wouldn't look out of place as a student film. Leaden script, poor acting and a plot that never really gets going are just a few of the things that can be said. Caine is OK, but you get the feeling that the rest of the cast just don't care. In fact with better production values and a little more believable action this film could have been at least half-way decent. In the mid- to late-sixties there may have been a call for this type of film but not now. Then, it would have been slightly dangerous and risque, perhaps even exciting (then again perhaps not). Now it collects dust as it sits on the shelves of the local video outlet (really - it does!). The film is just a shadow of what could have been.
23 Reviews
Ominous thriller
HotToastyRag1 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
While the man plot line of Shadow Run is Michael Caine's assignment from James Fox to steal a security van, the side-plot is much more interesting. Matthew Pochin, a young boy in a Catholic school, comes across a dead body in the beginning of the movie. Michael Caine approaches the boy and tells him to keep his mouth shut, but even though he was wearing a ski mask, there's no mistaking his accent. When Matthew sees him in town later, he recognizes him instantly.
Even though the second lead in the film is a child, this is far from a family-friendly film. Michael Caine is pretty ruthless and the bodies start piling up pretty quickly. This wasn't my favorite of his performances, though, because he's written out as a pretty one-dimensional, cold killer. There's no underlying emotions that he shows the audience, as he does in Shiner, so if you're looking for a great Michael Caine performance, this isn't the movie to watch. Matthew Pochin is very likable, though, especially because he gets picked on at school so he's all alone except for the audience's support. All in all, it's a very tense movie, with the threat of violence as evident as the violence itself. If you like creepy movies, or crime films set in Catholic schools like Absolution or The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, you might like this better than I did.
Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.
Even though the second lead in the film is a child, this is far from a family-friendly film. Michael Caine is pretty ruthless and the bodies start piling up pretty quickly. This wasn't my favorite of his performances, though, because he's written out as a pretty one-dimensional, cold killer. There's no underlying emotions that he shows the audience, as he does in Shiner, so if you're looking for a great Michael Caine performance, this isn't the movie to watch. Matthew Pochin is very likable, though, especially because he gets picked on at school so he's all alone except for the audience's support. All in all, it's a very tense movie, with the threat of violence as evident as the violence itself. If you like creepy movies, or crime films set in Catholic schools like Absolution or The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, you might like this better than I did.
Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.
Shadow Crawl
MartynGryphon8 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Sir Michael Caine, gives us another fine enthralling performance in a movie that is anything but. Caine is a ruthless gangster thief, with a particular habit of killing people for the slightest discrepancy. The plot is quite clever in as much as it is a 'how to' guide of how to rob an armoured car when your mobile phone has no signal. (thanks for the tips guys). However, the movie is let down by an appalling script, awful support cast and probably the most annoying ensemble of child actors since OLIVER. The film does not gel well either as one scene sees Caine kill an old friend for embezzling some money from him, and another of him killing a single mum hooker simply because she talks too much, yet in Caine's final scene he is with a little boy who can now attach him to a couple of armoured car robberies, but does he kill him? NO. in fact he gives him his gold cigar clipper. There is nothing in the script to show that Caine holds any particular bond with the lad, or any affection for anyone but himself, so why the inconsistency?. It is also a crime that James Fox is grossly underused with his fart-and-you'll-miss-him screen time. great lead role acting by Caine, but put this movie on the ever growing 'bad Michael Caine movie' pile
Dreadful caper film
jhs3925 July 2002
Dull and frequently inept caper film is never suspenseful and often seems to make little sense. Caine is a veteran criminal who kills numerous people, seemingly for no other reason than to show what a dangerous bastard he is and to make the audience fear for the life of a chubby kid that the movie keeps cutting to. Film stars out with said chubby little boy stumbling across a van with blood dripping out of the back. Caine pops up. warns the boy menacingly that he didn't see a thing, gives him a twenty pound note and sends him on his way. The boy promptly goes to school and tells everyone he comes into contact with what he saw, but since he's prone to exaggeration and tall tales nobody believes him. Of course, since there's no indication that Caine cleaned up the crime scene and since the film takes place not in a big city but in a more remote part of England, you would think something would turn up to corroborate the boy's story. Things just get worse from there. Initially the scenes in Shadow Run seem so disconnected I thought the director was filming out of order ala Pulp Fiction. Nope. Michael Caine's character is at the heart of what's wrong with the movie: he's a vet thief that who seems to kill someone in cold blood every twenty minutes or so. At one point he admonishes a confederate in the next job for trying to figure out a way to pull off the robbery without killing any innocent people. What kind of thief wants to kill if it isn't necessary? If Caine were some twenty year old hothead you might be able to buy it, but a man in his late sixties? It hardly seems likely that Caine's character would live as long as he has or that anyone would want to work with or hire such a psycho. His character isn't believable and neither is this boring and dreadful film.
Worst British film ever???
gpshovlin30 January 2007
This film is dreadful. It could have been so good....Caine, Tim Healy, James Fox, Lesie Grantham, but it sucks to high heaven.
Did Caine have a big bill to pay the year he made this? It looks like an episode of Wycliffe or as if it was made exclusively for Channel 5, but even these are too much like compliments foe what is a truly dreadful film.
The credits look like they were done on an Amiga 500.
In terms of the scenery, they seem to be going for the 'Inspector Morse' look, but it fails miserably. The child actors are hilariously bad....do private schools still exist like this?
Total and utter dross...I know Caine likes to keep busy but maybe it is time he started taking some pride in his output.
Did Caine have a big bill to pay the year he made this? It looks like an episode of Wycliffe or as if it was made exclusively for Channel 5, but even these are too much like compliments foe what is a truly dreadful film.
The credits look like they were done on an Amiga 500.
In terms of the scenery, they seem to be going for the 'Inspector Morse' look, but it fails miserably. The child actors are hilariously bad....do private schools still exist like this?
Total and utter dross...I know Caine likes to keep busy but maybe it is time he started taking some pride in his output.
Worst Michael Caine movie ever
Koberstein9 March 2002
Being a devoted Michael Caine fan I was horrified after watching "Shadow Run" that I indeed had spent money on the DVD. Usually even if Michael Caine stars in a bad movie he himself is still a pleasure to watch. Somehow this doesn´t seem to be the case here. I don´t know who to blame first.
Dreadful and a complete embarrassment to the cast - even Leslie Grantham
paul_myland7 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Possibly the worst movie I have ever made myself watch. The supermarket near my office recently had a stack of DVD's for 97p and the cast list caught my eye and parted me with my money. Tim Healey has the sense to get despatched early into proceedings but this woeful vehicle for Michael Caine and Edward Fox doesn't let them off so soon. I note that the director's children appear in this and that none of them have found a great deal of movie work since. Although this only cost me a very small sum of money, I will never get back the almost-2 hours it took me to watch this rubbish. I'd send it to the local church jumble sale but some other poor sap would have an equally unfulfilling afternoon, even if they only pay 10p for it.
I had to pinch myself that watching this film was not a bad dream
paulgfry11 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Having just finished watching this film and staring at the TV screen in bewilderment, I wondered whether it had been made as some sort of sick joke. I immediately checked this brilliant website out to see if there had been any comments posted, and was so relieved to see so many others shocked, dismayed, depressed and utterly gobsmacked at the appalling plot and well known actors performances. I, like most other contributors, had bought this film for 99p merely because Michael Caine was in it, and then I read that someone else paid only 97 pence, I was indeed robbed! Most of the screen and script blunders have been covered, especially about the unconvincing 'security' van, but the scene where James Fox fires his shotgun at Caine's Mercedes back window, leaving a neat hole and managing to hit Caine's head???? Excuse me, have they redesigned shotguns, then, the back window would have been blown clean out or shattered, most of the shot would have lodged in the glass, surely? A cellphone signal blocked by one sheet of metal suspended from a crane, ummmhh, who was their technical consultant? The opening scenes feature a radio shack(what was Tandy in Europe)microphone dangling from an amusingly long piece of connecting cable. If this high security load was as important as it was made out to be, why use a radio shack microphone? Professional communications equipment would have been used like Motorola, Yaesu, Icom, etc. The screen readout supposedly showing them which routes to use was just a few coloured lines on a plain screen, no background grid, and utterly amateurish. Come to think of it, where did all the plug and jack equipment come from, why was it there, it was clearly obsolete, even for 1998 when the film is said to have been made. Mine is dated 2006, which hurts even more. All the equipment necessary for communications between the van and its base would have been an encrypted duplex fm transceiver, or a small microprocessor controlled cell phone. The strangulation of the equally unconvincing escort girl took place in his car, with her almost looking at him. Now I am no strangulation expert, but I thought the general idea was to be behind the victim so as to make it almost impossible for the victim to stop being strangled, the death occurring by compressing the Adam's apple into the throat - anyway, it just did not look convincing to me. I am utterly, no, totally bemused as to why Michael Caine, (is it Sir Michael now?) allowed himself to be duped into making this. Its his name that is selling the movie (or was it just a very long trailer?)Was he that short of money? One of my favourite films of his is Fourth Protocol, where he acts superbly, but of course The Italian Job takes some beating. I guess actors like this don't get much work these days, so they have to accept what they are offered, in fear of it being their last, its a great pity. I believe in years to come this film will be very valuable and rare because so many people would have thrown it away in disgust, and it will reach record prices on ebay, I am keeping mine just in case.
Good acting, decent thriller, little disappointing
rjc739422 January 2007
It took quite a while before I could figure out all of the pieces of this scheme and the people involved which I enjoy. I don't like to know everything within the first ten minutes. Caine plays a crook and somehow manages to get a local schoolboy involved in his scheme. Or the schoolboy decides to help Caine with his crime. Caine is a great actor. He is very believable as always. Good dialogue and other actors were very good (Caine's callgirl, School Headmaster and Professor). There aren't any hum-drum moments in this film. The excitement/suspense slowly keeps building up scene after scene. The gigantic church on the outskirts of town becomes the focal point of the heist becoming a success and at the last minute they have to shake it down so their plan won't fail. There's a lot of suspense and tense moments. Caine winds up being too ruthless for my tastes and the ending kind of fell short for me. But it's worth a look.
Not Good Enough
delfranklin196930 January 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Oh dear. No wonder most reviewers are agreed this really is a bad film. One can only assume Sir Michael was in need of a fast buck. Although can't imagine he was too well paid for his efforts. For one of the finest actors of his generation he's done an awful lot of turkeys. This sure as hell is one of them.
The plot is messy. The inclusion of a bunch of seemingly untrained kids adds nothing to the story. Well the fat kid who gets bullied inexplicably gets involved in the story of hardened gangster Haskell (Caine) putting together a team of unconvincing criminals (two of whom seem unable to talk) together for a security van hijack job.
Haskell murders for the flimsiest of reasons, two characters are discarded by what must be his favourite method - strangulation. Though it wouldn't be exactly politically correct to murder the fat kid who knows all, it's somewhat surprising Haskell lets him go, chucking in a gift in the bargain.
I rented this out because I like a good British thriller and the cast were, on paper at least, appealing. There is some good interplay between Caine and Leslie Grantham (playing Dirty Den yet again but he does it pretty well) but everyone is just going through the motions.
There's not really a lot to recommend this, it just ploughs on and is mind numbingly boring. The sub plots completely unnecessary and whilst the acting bearable, the script is a complete let down. As for the hijacking itself, well let's just say it isn't convincing.
Some nice shots of middle England but all in all a disappointing mess of epic proportion.
The plot is messy. The inclusion of a bunch of seemingly untrained kids adds nothing to the story. Well the fat kid who gets bullied inexplicably gets involved in the story of hardened gangster Haskell (Caine) putting together a team of unconvincing criminals (two of whom seem unable to talk) together for a security van hijack job.
Haskell murders for the flimsiest of reasons, two characters are discarded by what must be his favourite method - strangulation. Though it wouldn't be exactly politically correct to murder the fat kid who knows all, it's somewhat surprising Haskell lets him go, chucking in a gift in the bargain.
I rented this out because I like a good British thriller and the cast were, on paper at least, appealing. There is some good interplay between Caine and Leslie Grantham (playing Dirty Den yet again but he does it pretty well) but everyone is just going through the motions.
There's not really a lot to recommend this, it just ploughs on and is mind numbingly boring. The sub plots completely unnecessary and whilst the acting bearable, the script is a complete let down. As for the hijacking itself, well let's just say it isn't convincing.
Some nice shots of middle England but all in all a disappointing mess of epic proportion.
Quality English crime drama
nzpedals6 April 2015
The English do it so well. No thousand-bullet shoot outs (that almost all miss the target), no silly car chase, no pseudo- moralistic theme that the bad guys suffer and righteousness will prevail. Just a plausible story, superb acting, and great directing and production.
A corrupt security official (Fox) knows when the truck will leave and who else knows the codes. He also knows Haskell (Caine), an evil and unscrupulous career crook. They scheme to hijack the truck that has tons of special bank-note paper.
Enter an unlovely schoolboy (in his one and only movie credit). He hinders but strangely also helps the heist. There are other awful schoolboys who are part of the twists and turns of the story.
A radio black-out is organised, they divert the truck to a lonely road. There are a few casualties along the way, and eventually just one bullet, and one car explosion. Fitting!
There are good performances from support cast including Tim Healy and Rupert Frazer. OK, so it's not perfect, there is a strange, unexplained scene where the boy controls a cage on a construction site and Haskell conveniently goes inside it. A minor detail.
A corrupt security official (Fox) knows when the truck will leave and who else knows the codes. He also knows Haskell (Caine), an evil and unscrupulous career crook. They scheme to hijack the truck that has tons of special bank-note paper.
Enter an unlovely schoolboy (in his one and only movie credit). He hinders but strangely also helps the heist. There are other awful schoolboys who are part of the twists and turns of the story.
A radio black-out is organised, they divert the truck to a lonely road. There are a few casualties along the way, and eventually just one bullet, and one car explosion. Fitting!
There are good performances from support cast including Tim Healy and Rupert Frazer. OK, so it's not perfect, there is a strange, unexplained scene where the boy controls a cage on a construction site and Haskell conveniently goes inside it. A minor detail.
"You and me have an arrangement, son"
Bezenby4 June 2013
Let's face it, Shadow Run isn't action packed. It's a kind of slow burner that kind of flickers slightly for a while. That said, if you're in the right mood it's okay. Caine is gangster who finds out, via James Fox, that he can get his hands on the paper the Royal Mint use to make bank notes, and starts getting a crew together for a heist. However, he's also having to deal with an unpopular public school boy who witnesses his last heist. The story jumps between Caine getting the heist together, and this boy's bullying at the school. That's, err, basically it. You've got Tim Healy here too, and Leslie Grantham (thankfully nowhere near a webcam!). Things run along smoothly, but there's not real action in it. It's not a bad movie, just a bit bland. Hence the short review.
One of the worst I've ever seen
fcasanova11 October 2007
We know why Michael Caine would take a roll in a piece of trash like this... This master actor has at least one huge folly. He is panic stricken whenever he is out of work, thinking that he'll never work again...so, he takes anything that comes along when he's finished with his last film. Sometimes it is shear garbage that comes along. It was fun watching the crew's reflections in Sir Michael's sunglasses. Didn't look like there were too many of them either. You sure this wasn't a student film. It sure looked like it. And I don't think they got a passing grade either! Bizarre production financing company too (maybe that's a clue to the cluelessness of it all). Some Industrial company. My guess is they supplied all the construction sites for free.
Decent Crime Yarn
georgewilliamnoble9 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Like another reviewer i found this film at a charity shop and paid a few pence. Now Michael Caine, for me has always had star quality though i admit his choice of work has been suspect rather to often, but then to the working class hard work is a reward in its self and a virtue.Here Caine plays a hardened criminal who knows all the ropes and will casually commit murder as a simply necessity but is undone by his unwillingness to exterminate a young put a pone public school boy bullied at his highbrow posh Oxford like school.While i admit this film has a very average TV look to its visuals and a cast of TV faces, Caine a part, the basic crime plot has strength though the pace is lethargic and the characters a little card board the plight of the young lad at the posh school who finds a role life model in the frame of Caine's career criminal has its interesting points. In the end, this a TV movie that entertains more than not on the personality of its star Michael Caine, who can do gangster very well.Remember "Get Carter" from 1971, the director of that Brit classic is the only movie industry personality i have every actually met. By the way he was a very nice man indeed, a gentleman in fact.As for "Shadow Run" no classic but far better than most of its revues would have you believe.
Shadow Run's redeeming features
mjh_uk-18 September 2006
I think the film has great atmosphere, with its contrasting seediness of the gangsters and the magnificence of the cathedral and its music. Joffrey's character, too, is interestingly developed, and gives credibility as to why he should be drawn to character like that of Haskell. I do not see Haskell's failure to kill Joffrey as inconsistent. Rather, it suggests that Haskell has some redeeming qualities and, like the rest of us, is not all bad. One can understand why he would hesitate to kill a child, not least because he senses the boy's admiration for him. Kenneth Colley provides an excellent supporting role . His willingness to die without further treatment in order to help his ex-wife financially suggests a certain nobility of character. I certainly do not agree with the reviewer's dismissal of the film as second rate. It has a style and quality of its own which makes it enjoyable to watch and provokes thought.
Shadow Run's indelible legacy are all of its sublimely plentiful peccadilloes!
Weirdling_Wolf22 June 2022
According to Adam Ant 'Ridicule is nothing to be scared of...'so I'm unapologetically bigging up the fallaciously forgotten, unfairly misbegotten Michael Caine 90s heist flick 'Shadow Run' (1998). While this competently made crime potboiler has a serviceable plot, and attractive scenery, 'Shadow Run' is manifestly all about Sir Michael Caine's renowned prowess for creating indelibly fascinating rogues, and alongside the inimitable 'Caine', there's an equally 'able' cast!!!!??? Namely, James Fox, Kenneth Colley, Christopher Casenove, Tim Healey, and some especially enjoyable work from TV hero Leslie Grantham who has a palpable screen chemistry with the iconic Caine.
Happily, 'Shadow Run' proved to be far more eccentric in its execution than I could ever have hoped for, and while an aloof James Fox never fully engages with the pulpy material, a stern, darkly energized Michael Caine is magisterially menacing as the sadistic strangler Haskell, and 'Shadow Run' arguably contains the finest 'Thematically apropos pointing with a mustard-tipped sausage' acting that I have ever seen! Meaty stuff indeed!!!! While many seem overly hung up on the modest budget and formulaic text, I relished the wonderfully unexpected whimsicality therein, with Geoffrey Reeve's 'Shadow Run' frequently playing out like a glossier, feature-length episode of 'Dempsey and Makepeace', incongruently intertwined with a bizarrely retrograde Billy Bunter-esque subplot!!!!?? Another major plus being the scintillatingly perky presence of Rae Baker, who makes for some salaciously snackable screen candy! While this agreeably bucolic, visibly low budget B-thriller is appropriately pacey, Shadow Run's indelible legacy are all of its sublimely plentiful peccadilloes!
Happily, 'Shadow Run' proved to be far more eccentric in its execution than I could ever have hoped for, and while an aloof James Fox never fully engages with the pulpy material, a stern, darkly energized Michael Caine is magisterially menacing as the sadistic strangler Haskell, and 'Shadow Run' arguably contains the finest 'Thematically apropos pointing with a mustard-tipped sausage' acting that I have ever seen! Meaty stuff indeed!!!! While many seem overly hung up on the modest budget and formulaic text, I relished the wonderfully unexpected whimsicality therein, with Geoffrey Reeve's 'Shadow Run' frequently playing out like a glossier, feature-length episode of 'Dempsey and Makepeace', incongruently intertwined with a bizarrely retrograde Billy Bunter-esque subplot!!!!?? Another major plus being the scintillatingly perky presence of Rae Baker, who makes for some salaciously snackable screen candy! While this agreeably bucolic, visibly low budget B-thriller is appropriately pacey, Shadow Run's indelible legacy are all of its sublimely plentiful peccadilloes!
Dear oh dear.....
jmupton200322 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
CONTAINS SPOILERS - NOT THAT YOU ARE MISSING MUCH MIND! There are good bad movies and there are bad bad movies. Then there are British made totally unintelligible straight to video vehicles such as this codswallop.
The plot - for want of a much better word and assuming you can find it that is - basically concerns Michael Caine's dodgy violent armed robber working for an equally dodgy but well connected gentleman (played with slimy smoothness by Edward Fox) in order to lift a van load of banknote paper which we later see, appears to be transported around in the most insecure high security van I have ever seen!! The instrument by which the plot circulates around is something to do with hitting the van when it is in a radio black spot that has been amplified by some steel scaffolding on the nearby cathedral any science student will tell you this plot device is a load of cobblers for a starter.
Along the way as the film plod very slowly onwards we meet some paper thin cardboard cut out henchman including Leslie Grantham who plays the angry cockney wide boy from the east end of London who provides the muscle for the robbery in other words exactly the same role he plays in pretty much everything he has ever appeared in so no typecasting there then ..
The script is woeful, the plot almost non existent and the supposedly inter-weaved storyline about the large choirboy, his rather unpleasant mates and the girl he fancies is completely pointless and irrelevant, making up a large part of the film that should have been jettisoned at the first script read through as it would never have been missed.
The clichés are free flowing pretty much throughout. Be it the hilarious meeting of Michael Caine and his employer around a picnic table in the middle of what looks suspiciously like a disused cement works in deepest darkest Surrey or Grantham's stereotype cockney villain.
Along the way we also encounter an escort girl who adds nothing to the story whatsoever except she is nice to look at, some quite nice scenery and actually some decent camera work.
However the heist itself which supposedly is meant to be at the centre of the story takes ages to eventually turn up, is handled badly, has huge plot holes you could drive a bus through and quite frankly the tarted up cheap and cheerful ex British Gas van is not fooling anyone! Also for such a high security cargo, you would expect at least to find a) an armed Police escort and b) a much sturdier van than the second hand rust bucket that this film's budget seemingly only just managed to stretch to.
I can only assume the quite stellar cast were in desperate need of the cash, they certainly would not have done this film to win any awards except maybe a golden raspberry.
And for their efforts, this rubbish that was already old and dated when it was made, lurked on a shelf unreleased for years and then went straight to a £1 DVD release in the 'Cheap Tat' section of my local supermarket!!
The plot - for want of a much better word and assuming you can find it that is - basically concerns Michael Caine's dodgy violent armed robber working for an equally dodgy but well connected gentleman (played with slimy smoothness by Edward Fox) in order to lift a van load of banknote paper which we later see, appears to be transported around in the most insecure high security van I have ever seen!! The instrument by which the plot circulates around is something to do with hitting the van when it is in a radio black spot that has been amplified by some steel scaffolding on the nearby cathedral any science student will tell you this plot device is a load of cobblers for a starter.
Along the way as the film plod very slowly onwards we meet some paper thin cardboard cut out henchman including Leslie Grantham who plays the angry cockney wide boy from the east end of London who provides the muscle for the robbery in other words exactly the same role he plays in pretty much everything he has ever appeared in so no typecasting there then ..
The script is woeful, the plot almost non existent and the supposedly inter-weaved storyline about the large choirboy, his rather unpleasant mates and the girl he fancies is completely pointless and irrelevant, making up a large part of the film that should have been jettisoned at the first script read through as it would never have been missed.
The clichés are free flowing pretty much throughout. Be it the hilarious meeting of Michael Caine and his employer around a picnic table in the middle of what looks suspiciously like a disused cement works in deepest darkest Surrey or Grantham's stereotype cockney villain.
Along the way we also encounter an escort girl who adds nothing to the story whatsoever except she is nice to look at, some quite nice scenery and actually some decent camera work.
However the heist itself which supposedly is meant to be at the centre of the story takes ages to eventually turn up, is handled badly, has huge plot holes you could drive a bus through and quite frankly the tarted up cheap and cheerful ex British Gas van is not fooling anyone! Also for such a high security cargo, you would expect at least to find a) an armed Police escort and b) a much sturdier van than the second hand rust bucket that this film's budget seemingly only just managed to stretch to.
I can only assume the quite stellar cast were in desperate need of the cash, they certainly would not have done this film to win any awards except maybe a golden raspberry.
And for their efforts, this rubbish that was already old and dated when it was made, lurked on a shelf unreleased for years and then went straight to a £1 DVD release in the 'Cheap Tat' section of my local supermarket!!
Not As Bad As Reviewers Here Seem to Think
atomicis6 June 2021
Wow, I guess other reviewers here were expecting "Harry Brown" or some other superlative Caine movie, which this was not! However, this film held my attention all the way through and I'm happy I didn't listen to the wankers' whining. The only weak point for me was the end montage which looked a bit dated. I enjoyed this flick more than I expected to!
The boy who cried murder....and from one of the most cold-blooded murderers as well.
planktonrules14 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
When the story begins, a 12 year-old boy wanders upon a crime scene. While two vehicles have just sped away, there's a van in the road...and blood dripping out of the trunk (boot for all my British friends). Suddenly, Haskell (Michael Caine) appears wearing a ski mask (a balaclava for my British friends once again). His face is hidden and he tells the kid to forget what he's seen. Well, this admonition isn't really necessary, as when the boy does tell, no one believes him as he's a bullied and scapegoated boy at some nearby residential school.
Soon after this, you see how strange and inexplicable Haskell is. While he easily could have just killed the boy to shut him up but didn't, he soon brutally murders one of his compatriots who has wronged him. Surely Haskell is not a man to be trifled with and has little compunction for killing. The same goes with a relationship be develops with an escort. For a while, he treats her amazingly nice, like she's not just some prostitute, but later once she becomes involved in his scheme, he threatens her life if she doesn't follow his orders exactly!
So what is this scheme? Well, Haskell has gotten a rich scum-bag to bankroll a very risky heist--to steal the paper used by the Bank of England for it's money in order to then make the absolute highest quality counterfeits. And, to do so, he gets a man to join his gang who used to work as a driver transporting this paper...a man who is terminally ill and has nothing to lose by helping them. What's next? See the film.
This movie is not exactly for the faint of heart. Caine's character is brutal and you see him very viciously and vividly murder folks with his bare hands...so it's not exactly a film to show the kiddies or your mother! This isn't so much a complaint...more a warning so you know what you're in for if you see "Shadow Run".
So is it any good? I thought so. But you would assume it isn't, as it currently has an overall score of 4.3 on IMDB. And, as I read through some of the reviews I wondered if we all were watching the same movie! After all, some described it as a 'student film', 'dreadful and a complete embarrassment to the cast', 'dull and frequently inept', as well as like a 'tenth rate BBC-TV crime series'!! So, many absolutely hated it and only a few folks apparently think it is worth seeing. Why this strange disconnect? What is it about this movie that is so polarizing? I think much of it is because of just how vicious Caine's character is. He's MUCH colder and more brutal than I've already described...and I didn't want to say more because I didn't want to ruin the film if you decide to watch it. But he clearly is a vicious murderer and kills many during the course of the story...and perhaps this turned viewers off. Heck, I think his character could have killed his mother or a box of puppies if he felt the need to do so. Yet, oddly, despite all this, why didn't he kill this kid when repeatedly the kid seemed like a giant potential problem to his plans?! Plus the ending is VERY downbeat and brutal. But I thought it was very appropriate and interesting....and is a very good film. I also wonder if perhaps there just is something I am not seeing or am not aware of about the film.
Overall, this film is possibly the biggest example of a film mostly hated with a passion that I somehow liked...and liked very much. And, I wish I knew exactly why!
Soon after this, you see how strange and inexplicable Haskell is. While he easily could have just killed the boy to shut him up but didn't, he soon brutally murders one of his compatriots who has wronged him. Surely Haskell is not a man to be trifled with and has little compunction for killing. The same goes with a relationship be develops with an escort. For a while, he treats her amazingly nice, like she's not just some prostitute, but later once she becomes involved in his scheme, he threatens her life if she doesn't follow his orders exactly!
So what is this scheme? Well, Haskell has gotten a rich scum-bag to bankroll a very risky heist--to steal the paper used by the Bank of England for it's money in order to then make the absolute highest quality counterfeits. And, to do so, he gets a man to join his gang who used to work as a driver transporting this paper...a man who is terminally ill and has nothing to lose by helping them. What's next? See the film.
This movie is not exactly for the faint of heart. Caine's character is brutal and you see him very viciously and vividly murder folks with his bare hands...so it's not exactly a film to show the kiddies or your mother! This isn't so much a complaint...more a warning so you know what you're in for if you see "Shadow Run".
So is it any good? I thought so. But you would assume it isn't, as it currently has an overall score of 4.3 on IMDB. And, as I read through some of the reviews I wondered if we all were watching the same movie! After all, some described it as a 'student film', 'dreadful and a complete embarrassment to the cast', 'dull and frequently inept', as well as like a 'tenth rate BBC-TV crime series'!! So, many absolutely hated it and only a few folks apparently think it is worth seeing. Why this strange disconnect? What is it about this movie that is so polarizing? I think much of it is because of just how vicious Caine's character is. He's MUCH colder and more brutal than I've already described...and I didn't want to say more because I didn't want to ruin the film if you decide to watch it. But he clearly is a vicious murderer and kills many during the course of the story...and perhaps this turned viewers off. Heck, I think his character could have killed his mother or a box of puppies if he felt the need to do so. Yet, oddly, despite all this, why didn't he kill this kid when repeatedly the kid seemed like a giant potential problem to his plans?! Plus the ending is VERY downbeat and brutal. But I thought it was very appropriate and interesting....and is a very good film. I also wonder if perhaps there just is something I am not seeing or am not aware of about the film.
Overall, this film is possibly the biggest example of a film mostly hated with a passion that I somehow liked...and liked very much. And, I wish I knew exactly why!
in defence of this film...
chilla-black27 March 2009
i picked this up in a charity shop, one of them freebie CD's that you occasionally find - this one was part of the 'Michael Caine Collection' given away with some British newspaper once. Anyway i have spent all week watching the 1988 adaptation of 'Jack The Ripper' starring MC, so thought i would follow it up with this...
in defence of this movie, the plot is a bit daft, i agree, but it is a great experience to see Leslie Grantham and Caine acting for large periods of time in the same scenes. I also thought that the addition of that guy who plays the General in the Star Wars movies IV-VI was good too, as he is a largely underused actor, in my opinion.
so whilst i possibly agree the film is weak, the chance to see a few quality British actors together on camera is worth it. I also find it quite surprising that a big time actor like Caine would get caught up in such a trivial movie filmed in the UK. There was a reason for the Ripper TV movie, as it was a semi-investigative journalist type film to 'commemorate' (not sure if that is the best phrase to use) the 100 years since Jack The Ripper.
Read earlier here that someone wanted to know whether public schools like that exist. Well i studied music at a pre-1992 UK university and believe me - staff like that depicted in this film DO exist.
in defence of this movie, the plot is a bit daft, i agree, but it is a great experience to see Leslie Grantham and Caine acting for large periods of time in the same scenes. I also thought that the addition of that guy who plays the General in the Star Wars movies IV-VI was good too, as he is a largely underused actor, in my opinion.
so whilst i possibly agree the film is weak, the chance to see a few quality British actors together on camera is worth it. I also find it quite surprising that a big time actor like Caine would get caught up in such a trivial movie filmed in the UK. There was a reason for the Ripper TV movie, as it was a semi-investigative journalist type film to 'commemorate' (not sure if that is the best phrase to use) the 100 years since Jack The Ripper.
Read earlier here that someone wanted to know whether public schools like that exist. Well i studied music at a pre-1992 UK university and believe me - staff like that depicted in this film DO exist.
Robbed of £1
paul-bishop-112 October 2006
Like a previous poster, I availed of this film in Woolworths in Blackpool while on a trip and pretty flush for cash. I still feel aggrieved. Truly, the worst film I have ever witnessed. The plot is ridiculous, in particular the killing of the prostitute. Why?
It really is an embarrassment to film making. Unbelievably dire. What was Caine thinking? Indeed what was Leslie Grantham thinking. This was his worst decision prior to the web cam episode. The kid is only likable because he is fat and ugly, and you cant help but feel that he's the type to be bullied. The choir aspect is pointless, and I struggle to recall a worse film ever! Well maybe American Dreamz.
It really is an embarrassment to film making. Unbelievably dire. What was Caine thinking? Indeed what was Leslie Grantham thinking. This was his worst decision prior to the web cam episode. The kid is only likable because he is fat and ugly, and you cant help but feel that he's the type to be bullied. The choir aspect is pointless, and I struggle to recall a worse film ever! Well maybe American Dreamz.
Why???
jasesaun18 March 2004
This film is a poor example of how bad British Film-making can be. This was given to me free with my DVD player and it is the biggest waste of money I have never spent in my life. It looks like it was made in the 1980's and imagine my disbelief when I found out it was it was only filmed in 1998. I do despair that people willingly parted with their money to fund this dire waste of film stock. It is an embarrassment to all those people involved in the making, funding, acting and the viewing public.
The only good thing about this film is that the DVD does make a fantastic coaster.
Please, if I only do one right thing in my life, it should be to warn you. Do not watch this film.
The only good thing about this film is that the DVD does make a fantastic coaster.
Please, if I only do one right thing in my life, it should be to warn you. Do not watch this film.
A woefully inept attempt at intrigue and suspense
dougc-16 March 2002
Well, it's not surprising that this opus has hardly been seen by anyone. Leadenly directed, wretchedly scripted and with a visual appeal comparable to an episode of a tenth rate BBC-TV crime series, the movie is a complete misfire. Caine, however, is as watchable as ever, but genrally, Shadow Run is an embarrassment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
