The Saint (2017) Online

Absolute rubbish.

I endured 20 minutes of this tripe before I wanted to wash my eyes and brain with bleach.

Poor acting combined with cheap looking sets and filming doth make a bad rehash. This film (and I use the term lightly) is a huge GAPING blemish on the name The Saint.

It's like someone thought it would be a great idea to do Carry On The Saint, bad lines / stupid 'jokes' delivered in abysmal style means I couldn't take this effort even vaguely serious. So much so I just HAD to come comment on just how bad it was and I don't post often. Generally only when something has affected me right to the core with just how bad it actually is.

Avoid if you even saw one episode of the original as it will ruin it for you, forever (as it actually has Roger Moore (who hasn't aged well) in it, I presume to try and add some validity to it). If you have no idea what the original The Saint is and are looking for a crappy action film with juvenile one liners then, well, maybe still avoid unless it was free and you having nothing better to do. Although even watching dry paint would be preferable in my opinion.

It is The Saint by name only, sadly.

The Saint was intended to be a relaunched television series starring Adam Rayner as Simon Templar. A few years after the initial pilot, there were some additional footage shot to turn it into a feature length direct to pay TV release.

Simon Templar also known as The Saint is called on by a man who has robbed billions for the shadowy organisation he works from a poor African nation. The man works for the Fixer (Ian Ogilvy) who is most unhappy that his right hand man has grown a conscious, he wants the money back and so he has kidnapped his daughter.

Templar has to find his daughter as well as evading an FBI agent who is determined to track him down. However when Templar sees a certain ring, it brings back memories of the past and a betrayal by someone he was once close to.

Ever since the interminably dull Simon Dutton television movies from 1989, the reputation of The Saint on screen has suffered. The viewer wants something more than just a posh gentleman but slightly shady adventurer who comes to the rescue of a damsel in distress in some exotic location.

This film has extensive location shooting and still at times looks cheap with green screen. Rayner seems to get there as Templar at the end, it helps that he seems comfortable with some of the action footage. However the story is just workmanlike and generic.

The film has the gimmick of actually having the Three Saints. Ogilvy plays the villain with some links to the Knights Templar and he certainly seems to be enjoying himself. The late Sir Roger Moore pops up as well giving his successor, Ogilvy a telling off.

First of all let me start by saying i think the really bad reviews on this are a little uncalled for. I actually enjoyed it and it was good to see Roger Moore the original saint in it if only for 1 minute, and Ian Ogilvie who played the return of the Saint in a more substantial role' Give it a try and judge the movie for yourselves, don't take my word or anyone else's word.

To know The Saint one must be truthful to the source material. The Saint as a character is brash, abrasive, annoyingly intelligent, and driven by a set a principals to do the right thing, even if "right" in any given instance is stealing, murder, or any other action that on the outside is technically a crime. "The ends justifies the means" is a kind of MO for The Saint, which creates a sort of dilemma - especially in the west - where we tend to regard all individuals - good and bad - to be subject to the same rules. But, is it really a crime if the subject had it coming to them? Such is life of The Saint - getting rich while sticking it to the bad guy. Or saving the girl. Or righting the wrong. Or insert cliché' here. Fun stuff all around.

Unfortunately, most of the texture of The Saint is lost in attempts to portray him just as a lovable, quip-flinging, thief. A sort of James Bond type who always has something witty to say at the right moment. Anyone who has read any of the Charteris novels would strongly disagree.

Which brings us to this latest attempt to put Saint on film. All the elements are there but watered down and cliché'd to the point of atrophy. Although this is the most lovingly adaptation attempt since the Roger Moore days. In short, I like this Saint, but the film won't get out of it's own way. There's been a strong push in Hollywood in recent decades to use technology as a panacea to whatever problem the antagonist might come across. Sixteen-inch steel vault door? No problem - just hack that sucker and in you go.

It gets real old real fast.

We want to see our heroes solve problems, not have them solved for them by inexplicable (and non-existent) technology. In the days of the original Saint - the 1920's and 1930's - you still had to do real detective work to solve mysteries. Now all one needs is a tablet and a wifi connection and you can tell everything about anything anytime anywhere.

Where's the fun in that?

So far as this film is concerned, this Simon Templar is more like the real Saint since Roger Moore - so watch it for that. Otherwise - or in addition to - go find a copy of Meet the Tiger and enjoy the real Saint.

This movie had potential to be good, but fell short.

It tried in numerous occasions to lift its game but with low budget looking sets, questionable dialog, sketchy editing, accompanied with generic background music, sees this movie dragged back down.

I think the two main actors - Adam Rayner & Eliza Dushku - did a reasonable enough job, but some of the supporting cast are left wanting.

I would love to see a modern take of The Saint that befits the original, but sadly this movie isn't it. Having said that, they classed this as a TV Movie which is appropriate since this feels like a two TV episodes in one.

I love The Saint and often watch several episodes at a time. From the 1962 black & white and into the colour versions finishing 1969. I enjoy them all but there is no way you could make a new version of this show because it was of it's time. Today you can't go around saving ladies from danger and being a Gentleman Adventurer, it is just not believable in today's world so he required a purpose. It is stylishly shot but does lack the glamour of the original, probably down to the fact it started as a TV show then made into a movie.. They even sort of had a slight update on the theme tune occasionally playing in scenes. One of the reviewers said the years haven't been kind to Roger Moore, he was 89 and I would like to know if any of us are going to weather that many years as well.

As a stand alone 2017 update it is OK and I will leave it at that.

RIP Roger and thanks for all the marvellous entertainment you have given me and my Dad over the years.

With the FBI hot on his heels international thief Simon Templar goes about helping a man get his kidnapped daughter back.

Sadly this incarnation of Leslie Charteris The Saint has all the trappings of feeling like a TV pilot made in the 90s despite being made in 2013 (with extra shots filmed in 2015) and left on the shelf until 2017. Even though directed by Hollywood director Simon West (Expendables 2, The Mechanic) it's a shame The Saint wasn't given the same film treatment that was given to The Man from U.N.C.L.E (2015) or the budget of the poorly received 1997 film.

For fans Ian Ogilvy returns in a main role but not as Templar and also former Templar Roger Moore cameos. We also have reworked snippets of Edwin Astley's theme pop up. The cast is full of talented movie actors including Eliza Dushku, James Remar and Thomas Kretschmann. With some action littered throughout there's also interestingly flashbacks (an origin-like story of sorts) of Simons youth. With some good one liners Adam Rayner has a good stab at the main role Simon Templar. Rayner has the voice, look and suaveness especially after he loses his beard in the first act but like the whole production feels constrained.

As a TV film or pilot, even with some good actors and talent on board with a budget that appears to be less than an episode of 1980's Miami Vice West just can't pull the rabbit out of the hat. In a TV sea with Lethal Weapon, West World, White Collar to name a few it's watchable but feels clunky when compared to the slickness of TV shows in recent years and lacks the nostalgic charm given its present day setting.

It's a pity that makers didn't make it stand out by placing it in the 1960s original or 70s Return of the Saint time period akin to a Life on Mars or the aforementioned Man from U.N.C.L.E film.

It was with some reservation that I decided to view the latest version of The Saint, having watched the original TV version as a young person. Remakes often cannot live up to the original.

And that is true here too.

After a few minutes it was clear that this movie is but a series of tropes (e.g., Russian bad guys, rogue nuclear bomb, Arab terrorists, FBI good guys, etc.) strung together with an unimaginative plot. Moreso, I got the feeling that this was intended to be a pilot for a series, or at least the first installment in an arc. This production did not deliver, though, and no more should be made.

Good looking actors do not make a great, or even good, movie. And that summarizes this effort well, as the actors, the sets, the accessories, all *look* like what they are supposed to be for their designed roles in this story. Yet there is no there there. No engaging dialogue. No emotion. No real intrigue.

In the end, it all comes off as one exercise for people with nothing better to do.

I believe this is the pilot episode filmed 4 years ago and farmed out to networks in the hope of being picked up to series. All i can say it that the networks made a good decision this time and steered well clear of this poor attempt at reviving the classic Roger Moore show. It clearly has 'made for TV' written all over it with cardboard sets & panto villains. It's a shame that the lovely Eliza Dushku got involved with this rubbish, this is one to be avoided at all costs.

Simon Templar, known by the moniker "The Saint", first appeared in the 1928 novel "Meet the Tiger". It wasn't a great book but it was an entertaining read featuring an intelligent and disheveled thief who liked to help out where he could. Starting with the next three novellas the author Leslie Charteris, who wrote The Saint, morphed him into a suave, well-dressed, flippant, and usually an on-top-of-things criminal who robbed the "ungodly" and gave away all but a fraction of what he stole to charity. To this character life was a game. He lived for excitement and loved nothing more then to befuddle the police (which is more where his charitable offerings stemmed from rather than a desire to do good). But the thing that stood out the most about him was that while he was a great fighter he preferred to use his intellect to bring down his opponents.

While none of the adaptions of "The Saint" come close to capturing the epic qualities of the character found in the novel series (and this is epic in the most literal sense), at least the Roger Moore adaptation and a couple of the others managed to reflect it well enough. This one is an entirely different story. This Saint is far too serious about everything. Where his novel counterpart would have made up a limerick to annoy his enemies this "Saint" stares them down and spits out a generic one-liner every now and then. Which leads us to the biggest problem of the entire movie. It is generic. There is not a plot twist or characterization that has not been seen a dozen or so times before. The hero is generic. The action is generic. The Villains are generic. And the love interest is especially generic.

The novels weren't perfect, and anyone who read them knew how they would all turn out, but they were fun. This wasn't. While the first book "Meet the Tiger" has been out-of-print since the 80s. All the other books can be found in nice new trade paperbacks or even on kindle. This reviewer recommends that one reads either "Enter the Saint" or "The Saint Closes the Case", or watch the 1960s TV series with Roger Moore, but forget about this adaptation which features a "Saint" less three-dimensional than his iconic stick-figure logo.

To all those people that may dismiss this film please give it a go. It is a good film for the whole family, especially if you remember the original series. I know there a few comments against but we no longer live in the 1960/70's so things change. And to be fair its a far better adaptation than that thing in the 90's starring Val Kilmer. All I will say is just give it a go and don't be swayed by comments for or against, and lets face it Sir Roger Moore agreed to do a cameo so he obviously thought it was worth it. Also there's another James Bond in there lets see who can spot him without looking at the cast list

and if you can give them a giant leeway- perhaps they'd get better over the next year, you could enjoy this. But my God, the last scene, him hiding behind a tree just makes you groan! Can anything scream stupid more than that? I've only seen a few of the original TV show, listened to every dang old radio show- starring Vincent Price, but this is not the Saint. It's some spy dude. And it falls into the same traps every other US (and who knows maybe the world) TV show does, for example, you have a female computer expert, who is not the Saint hence not the star, and when the expert is flummoxed, you have to have the Saint, the star, give a suggestion that even a computer novice like me would know, and the computer expert says something like "Good idea, I didn't think of that." I mean it's really something stupid like "Did you turn it off then on again?" But then, every mystery show does that. They're filled with idiot "experts" that the star has to suggest things to. Plus, some of the dialog is just so stupid. It treats the viewer as an idiot. But who knows, if you can ignore the books, the radio shows, the original TV show and it got non-insulting intelligent writers then maybe this could have been a show worth wasting an hour on. Not a whole-hearted endorsement.

IMHO, no one can ever replace The Saint himself, Roger Moore in the title role, and the series. But this incarnation has its own charm and fun. Adam Rayner brings his own style and interpretation, giving a fresh take on the classic. Watch it without attachment to the original series, then you can enjoy it for what it is. I most certainly did and so glad I watched it.

It seems to me the real main problem with those foolishly giving this a bad review is their inability to distinguish reality from fiction. While of course dear Roger Moore was really incomparable as Simon Templar, though more so in the first two seasons than later where he sadly more abandoned the character's really fine ethos for the world's corruption, Rayner's version is far better than his detractors give him credit for and I suspect this is at least part of Moore being involved in it, though not as much as I wish he'd been. Sadly we'll not likely see Rayner again, much as I wish we could. I was too shocked to find who Ogilvy was, not prepared for the aging, a sign of my own inability to deal with reality! I do wish they'd not altered Patricia's marital status from the original, but was glad they vastly improved on and avoided the perverse nature of the relationship in the 1997 version. Ogilvy was good and I really liked and watched all his episodes, but to me Rayner has the edge on him in terms of finesse and flair. Those who didn't watch this all the way through by definition literally don't know what they're talking about so you shouldn't let them decide for you. If only someone had enough sense to give Rayner another shot at this; of course I won't hold my breath for that considering how badly they ruined the last Star Wars, as well as the laughable PC misandry of the latest Dr. Who!

Well, I take that back. I wasn't crazy about Val Kilmer.

I loved George Sanders, Louis Hayward, Ian Ogilvy and Roger Moore as The Saint. Since this version featured two ex-saints, Ogilvy and Moore, I wanted to see it.

Yikes.

This is a TV movie, and if you've been having trouble sleeping, this is just the thing. What a slow-moving bore replete with flashbacks of little Simon and the past life of his assistant (Eliza Dushku). And next to no plot.

Ian Ogilvy looked awful -- someone said here Moore looked awful - give the man a break - he was in his mid-'80s (this was made in 2013 as a TV pilot and was not picked up - what a shock). No one is dazzling forever.

Lots of karate-type moves. That's about it. At an hour and a half, it felt like Birth of a Nation.

Simon Rayner didn't excite me, although I'm sure he's very good in other films. But what could one expect from him, no doubt trying to stay awake.

I must confess. I couldn't finish watching it. I turned it off. It was such garbage that every raccoon in the neighbourhood was clamouring at my door to rifle through the putrefied scraps of regurgitated defecation. Other comments have mentioned the low production value, the awful "acting", and the thoroughly hackneyed dialogue. All true. That being said, an average human can stomach such things for extended periods of time. Kevin Sorbo's career is testimony to this fact. The second- most annoying thing about the film is the ignorance of physics. If one were to scoop four or five gold bricks into a knapsack, not only would it be ridiculously hard to carry, but it would rip any fabric of which that knapsack was made. Each gold bar weighs approximately 68 pounds, so five of them would be 340 pounds. Most people would find it difficult to bench press that, let alone stealthily toss it over one's shoulder. But the deal-breaker for me - the absolute show-stopper - was the impractical villains. Bad guys do bad things. They sell arms, traffic humans, kick puppies, etc. When a "good guy" shows up and does something nasty to the boss and all of his henchmen, what does the last remaining henchman do? Burble out some kind of dialogue along the lines of: "Say your prayers. Because I am about to shoot you. Those words that you say will be the last to escape your lips. After you say those words, I will shoot you with this gun that I am holding. I shall squeeze the trigger, and then the bullet shall become a projectile with a trajectory..." (cue some sort of intervention that allows the hero to survive) Maybe one henchman is verbose or stupid - but ALL of them are, and none of them even shoots at anyone unless they are attempting to out do Star Wars storm troopers in terms of inaccuracy. If you value your sanity, avoid this odorous sack of yak vomit.

This film is filled with action, and not many many well known actors and actresses. We like the fairly clean language, and Adam Rayner's portrayal of Simon Templar. The thing about this film is that there are some scenes that are rather funny. Mixed in with the action, it does a good mix. At least the males are not portrayed as know-nothings, while the women are still seen as far too aggressive. - Daniel J. Tyler

After the truly awful 1997 rendition of The Saint, it was entertaining to watch something that actually hearkened back to the early Charteris novels with Patricia Holm, and mention of a various police entities across America and Europe who want Simon Templar arrested. The banter between Rayner and Dushku is pretty good; and (spoiler alert) it's all the more amusing to have two former "Saints"—Ogilvy and Moore—as villains aligned against him. But it feels like a pilot episode for a series where Templar will forever be chasing after "The Brotherhood", and that really wasn't him at all. That's the trouble with all of these reboots: they can't just let Simon Templar be Simon Templar, the thief who steals from thieves.

I grew up watching a lot of the original shows when they were new. The Saint with Roger Moore was a favorite. I enjoyed this modern take on an old classic I didn't watch it to compare it with the original. I watched because I liked it and it left me wanting to see more so I have tried to see if there was more but alas doesn't look like it is picked up as a TV series. Just another book with unfinished chapters. Val Kilmers take on the Saint was vomit worthy. For those who didn't enjoy it there is a lot worse you could have watched before this adaption of the Saint Cheers and thanks for reading

I thought the acting superb and the appearance of so many well known actors only added to the fun of this time honored title. Fun for the entire family. Only an old war horse that has serious detail hangups will not like this installment in "The Saint" family of entertainment. Well done.

It's a good movie because the storyline didn't give me a heart attack. The characters were very carefully chosen but one thing how the heck He got his beard back in the last scene.the movie didn't explain it not even with a single dialogue. The girl was so bad ass giving me the "Girl Power" vibes throughout.

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.

This movie is pretty good for a TV movie. The low rating given by people is probably because they were expecting it to be a large scale movie as the commercial movie in the lats 1990's. If one sees the movie with low expectations, they will find it pretty fast paced and having twists frequently. Overall a good movie to kill time.

I absolutely loved this Movie ! I enjoyed it so much that I had to go see it a second time. I would love this movie to become a series with the original actors from this movie . I would gladly watch this series weekly and recommend it to all my friends and family if this should happen . I will be keeping fingers crossed that this movie becomes a TV Series !!!

If you are a Saint Fan, this is a must See, its not as good as the Saint Movie with Val Kilmer, but it had a descent plot. I have seen a lot of valid complaints about it, and YES they could have done better, but if you are a SAINT fan this is a must see. The only problem I had with the movie is a Spoiler. If you want to know then keep reading.

Spoiler Alert

You have been warned.

Spoiler: In this version of the Saint he has a mother and father, and his real name is Simon Templar. I really could have done without this. He still ends up an Orphan but this goes against all his backstory and takes away all the mystery of the character.