MovieChat Forums > The Saint (1997) Discussion > The Saint-- What Went Wrong?

The Saint-- What Went Wrong?

posted 20 years ago by drzom
8 replies | jump to latest

And to think I'd been blaming Robert Evans for screwing this up...

Turns out it was Kilmer.

First things first--I'm a Saint fan. As a kid I read all the books and watched the Roger Moore TV series in reruns and would even catch the original George Sanders movies on late night. I like the character. The Happy Highwayman, the Brighter Buccaneer himself.

And then came the Saint movie. I was excited. I like Kilmer, Robert Evans is a legend, Elisabeth Shue is talented, it all sounds good. Unfortunately, it wasn't. I realize there are many defenders of this film on this board but frankly I have no idea why. Aside from serving as a mildly entertaining diversion this film is failure.

First of all, Simon Templar is a Robin Hood character--he'd never work for people like Tretiak. The Saint works for himself and steals from the rich and gives to the poor. I'm not sure who Val Kilmer is playing, but he's not the Saint. Oh, his name may be Simon Templar (Hell, they barely even use that), but he's not the Saint.

I recently found out, thanks to an old Premiere magazine article, that Kilmer himself was responsible for two of the most egregious mistakes of the film--the idea of Templar as a master of disguise and the incredibly unbelievable romance. How Kilmer had the clout to insist on these script changes is beyond me. As far as I know he is not a writer with over fifty books published, as was Charteris.

Templar is not a master of disguise. He is not a spy. He does not fall in love. To understand this, imagine that I want to make a James Bond movie, but I decide that Bond should be a married private detective in San Francisco. Doesn't seem right does it?

I'm watching it right now and folks,it's just not good. Lame script that relies on coincidences, ridiculous plot twists, sappy romance, and the worst Australian accent committed to celluloid. A heart condition? Puh-lease. At least Val got to trot out his Doc Holliday accent for one scene.

Unfortunately, it's all the worse due to the damage they've done to the source material.

I have my doubts about the Saint being the financial success the studio had hoped for. The studio had big plans on turning the Saint into a franchise and probably would have green lit a sequel if the first one had performed up to expectations (Kilmer was already signed). Premiere reported the initial budget at $60 million. Throw in advertising (another 15-20) and you're looking at an almost $80 million investment on a film that according to Box Office Mojo only brought in $118 million in total. Not a good enough return on their investment to pursue a sequel.

"I am the Saint - you may have heard of me. Just a twentieth-century privateer. In my small way I try to put right a few of the things that are wrong with this cock-eyed world, and clean up some of the excrescences I come across."

[–] Reverie3 20 years ago

Although I have never read the books, I enjoyed the television series and the movie. I have The Saint on DVD and Philip Noyce relays during the commentary that the movie is a prequel, his interpretation of the circumstances that lead up to Simon becoming The Saint.

Everyone views things in a different manner. Eventhough this movie doesn't have the best screenplay, I somehow was able to get into the psyche of the characters. Simon being an orphan void of identity becomes a man who can take on as many as he wants. Emma, an orphan of sorts, who lost her mother then her father, submerged her identity in her scientific studies. Their paths cross and their love brings healing to them both. I think if you come at this movie totally from an action-adventure mentality instead of a character aspect, you will miss out on certain things. To me, this is a nice combination of romance, espionage, and action-adventure...the emphasis moreso on the romance.

[–] funkyspanishmonkey 20 years ago

1 thing: Are you australian? I am. The director was too. And considering how *badly* americans try to mimick our accent - and i mean they are awful - kilmer's was one of the better ones. At least he didn't sound like steve erwin.

[–] Reverie3 20 years ago

I have a friend who is from Russia and she enjoyed this movie.

[–] irishrose1980 20 years ago

I am Australian too and the use of the accent was an in joke between Kilmer and the director. I thought it was pretty good too and didn't sound like the stereotype of Paul Hogan and Steve Irwin which sounds little like the adverage person in the city.
As someone who never saw the origional series I very much enjoy this movie. I think it needs to be looked at in the same way as Mission:Impossible, not as a remake on the series, but as a film in it's own right for a new generation. I think the alterations made the film more appealing to a new audience and was proberbly the motervation behind it.

[–] mrcheminee 15 years ago

I have to agree with you on every point (though I have to disagree half about the disguises, I remember him being the Count of Monte Cristo, a homeles guy, a reporter and some other disguises). I've collected most of Charteris' Saint books and I loved how true to the character Roger Moore was in the series.

So it saddens me how Val Kilmer killed Simon Templar and that even on this imdb forum almost no attention is given to the original books/ the Roger Moore series. It's like no one cares about original material anymore and only wants to use successes from the past for their own commercial reasons, making total rubbish with no heart. It's like the audience loves this kind of rubbish and doesn't even notice that in modern cinema Indiana Jones, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, Batman, Dr. Who, The Saint and many other legendary characters have all become exactly the same personage: An empty shell filled with hot hollywood air.

Val Kilmer is also responsable for one of the worst Batmans ever and I hate the fact that the directors lack of backbone offered Kilmer the opportunity to mess with this character even more. Eventually some day a movie will be made about Val. I hope that the actor playing him insists that his character loves to paint portraits of famous clowns with his own feces and has sexual relations with a snail.

[–] duffrageous 15 years ago

No one watching this movie cares about the books or TV series. The movie was made for present-day viewers, so how great the originals were is inconsequential. I figured this was a movie done in the style of James Bond 007. Go back and watch how terrible and campy some of those movies were. I didn't find the awful jokes in this movie seen in most 007 movies, and that's what sets it apart although I did enjoy Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace more than the older Bond films. Goldfinger would be straight to video in today's market.

Looking over this movie, I'm reminded of Catch Me if You Can to a lesser degree. The second half of the movie had more action than story, but the suspense was well-maintained throughout. If you like love stories, this movie has that element too. I'm surprised more women haven't posted here. Batman & Robin was atrocious. I don't see how you could rate that above Batman Forever, which had entertainment value and a story.

[–] mrcheminee 15 years ago

Well apparently you're right, nobody cares anymore. Except for the people watching a movie about Simon Templar expecting it to be a movie about Simon Templar.
There was no reason to use this character for this movie.

The cheesy James Bond movies had their charme, they felt alive, they felt real (in their own special way of course). The newer James Bond movies missed that spot and 'adventure' and 'plot development' had to make place for really really really big explosions and much longer boring love scenes.

I didn't rate Batman & Robin above Batman Forever. Batman Forever had as you mentioned an entertainment value, though the story was not that good. I rated it a 5 for a totally unbelievable Batman and a mediocre story (they had lots of material to choose from, and this is what they came up with? Please!). Batman & Robin got a 2, it really sucked.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]