User reviews

Under-appreciated British crime thriller with antisocial characters and an antisocial plot: a convict finds out his wife is pregnant by another man, so he busts out of prison to hunt her down with every intention of killing her. No time wasted on "redeeming" characters. No goofy humor or chase scenes through clubs playing bad, dated music. Just a spare, tense study of two vicious men (Oliver Reed, Ian McShane) hot on the trail of a treacherous moll (Jill St. John). A nemesis detective (Edward Woodward) tries to intervene, but never fouls the nihilistic tone. Solid performances and one of Reed's best as an uber-thug who does push-ups on the ceiling of his jail cell, is sitting on a volcano, and only lets on what he has to, even to his partner. The script does the same thing, imparting information on a need-to-know basis, doing so smoothly as it races toward Hell. All in the back-lots and stygian prisons of a cold, drab London, with a musical score by Stanley Myers that perfectly enhances the story and mood. A must for fans of seventies crime thrillers, British or otherwise, that take no prisoners.

To this day SITTING TARGET is one of the most bleak and disturbingly violent thrillers Britain has ever produced . I remember watching this one TV in the early 1980s and being slightly shocked as to how nihilistic it all was . If there's any type of message in this film it's that there's no honour amongst thieves and that it's bad news to drive a motorcycle while the petrol tank explodes . It's also one of the few British films to show the mind numbing living death of long term imprisonment and this alone makes it worth watching . It's also interesting to note that Ian McShane is playing a villain . It might not be surprising casting with hindsight since we'll all remember McShane for his scene stealing role in DEADWOOD but before that HBO series he was always cast as likable good guys

Incarcerated thug Oliver Reed breaks himself, his crime partner, and another cell mate out of a maximum security prison in England; he's after his wayward wife, who has announced her desire to divorce Reed to be with another man and have his child. Occasionally confusing or confounding drama with indecipherable dialogue (at least to the untrained ear) and a twist finish that is more ridiculous than clever. After an obtuse start, director Douglas Hickox keeps the pace bristling with violence or the threat of violence, while brooding Reed and buddy Ian McShane are a fine tough-guy pair. The cinematography, art direction, and editing are all quite stylish, and fans of the crime genre will enjoy it, but the female characters are batted about like useless playthings and Edward Woodward has a thankless role as an inspector who's never around when needed. ** from ****

Two hardened cons try and break out of the can to get revenge on an unfaithful wife.

I always say that when you have solid pros at work you almost don't need a script. Whoever wrote this (two people actually) had to have employed a pencil and the back of a cigarette packet, because it was unworthy of A4 paper and a typewriter. Talk about clichés and stock situations. For example, are gun sellers so stupid in real life?

I digress. Reed has a set of shoulders and deep set set staring eyes that frighten people. Even at his peak Sean Connery looked like if he did, really, hit a villain they would hardly notice, but Oliver Reed is a different kettle of fish. Maybe he was acting mad-and-bad rather than being mad-and-bad, but can you tell the difference? Ian McShane has never acted in his life. Always plays himself. People like him in a wouldn't-have-in-my-house kind of way. Streetwise, but totally unschooled. Given he is pointing the gun in the poster I suppose he is supposed to be the star! No idea why he would go on someone else's crusade though.

The problem with contemplation of this piece is that any thought makes the film seem worse than it is. It is - at the end of the day - watchable. Hiding from people in movies is like trying to walk on water in real life - you are bound to fail so why bother even trying? This movie wouldn't get made today unless it featured comedy actors going over the top and wisecracking over other people's grave.

At least in the 1970's cold blooded murder wasn't seen as a joke.

The grimness of some of these 70s films is quite different from that of modern ones. A lot of the 70s films that are a bit dark in nature make me empathize more with anyone who we don't see in the movie because we are horrified for them to be living along with these kinds of people rather than feeling anything for anyone in the film itself. That's not a bad thing per se, but a lot of times it tends to be boring. Here, they make it interesting more with the way this film is shot. The cinematography and editing really carry this movie. The tension of the jailbreak scene, in the beginning, was so well done with such minimal dialogues and full use of the props they had. Even though the story is lackluster and the antihero portrayal is dated, the craft in the filmmaking itself really makes this worthwhile. Ian McShane in the supporting role as a jolly conniving crook was pretty great and fits more into what psychopaths are according to modern studies rather than the gloomy depressed silent types the movies sell us.

The main character in "Sitting Target" is Harry Lomart, a convict serving a lengthy jail term, who learns that his attractive young wife Pat has not only cheated on him with another man but is also expecting that man's baby. Lomart, infuriated, swears revenge; together with another inmate, Birdy, he breaks out of jail with the intention of killing Pat and her lover before fleeing the country.

The film has some similarities with another British crime drama from the early seventies, "Get Carter", which came out the previous year. Both are gritty gangster dramas with a revenge theme, concentrating on the criminals themselves rather than on the police's fight against crime. In films like this there is no honour among thieves; one gangster's worst enemy is often another gangster rather than a policemen. In keeping with the permissive ethos of the era both films treat violence graphically, far more graphically than would have been permitted only a decade earlier. Both were shot on location ("Get Carter" in the North-East, "Sitting Target" in South London) and have a strong sense of place. And yet, unlike another reviewer, I cannot but find myself in agreement with those who have characterised "Sitting Target"as a poor man's "Get Carter".

Not all the acting is particularly good, especially from the former Bond girl Jill St John who seems miscast as Pat. (This was her first film after "Diamonds are Forever"; presumably the producers felt they needed a big-name American star to help with overseas sales). Like a number of foreign, especially American, actors, she makes the mistake of assuming that all British people speak with the same "posh" accent and that mastering this accent is all one needs to do in order to portray a British character convincingly, regardless of social background. (Others who have fallen into the same trap include Natalie Portman in "V for Vendetta" and even Meryl Streep in "The French Lieutenant's Woman"). Jill might have done better to drop the accent altogether; it is far more conceivable that a South London villain might have married an American girl than that he might have married a Roedean-educated débutante, which is what she sounds like here.

Oliver Reed is better; although his Lomart may lack the depth of some of his other performances from this period, such as his Grandier in Ken Russell's "The Devils", he does at least make the character convincingly thuggish, a man whose every move is driven by anger and resentment. Unlike Michael Caine's Jack Carter, who hides his violent nature beneath a veneer of stylish sophistication, with Lomart what you see is what you get. There is nothing stylish or sophisticated about him.

The film moves along at a swift pace, although it does perhaps get over-complicated in the second half, as it becomes progressively more violent and moves towards an explosive finale. It never, however, achieves the depth or significance of "Get Carter", a sort of anti-"Godfather" which demythologises the criminal lifestyle. "Sitting Target", by contrast is a brutal and nasty crime thriller, if occasionally an effective one, exploiting the violence it purports to condemn. 5/10

With a gossamer wing-span, this curiosity from the early 70's is a quirky hybrid of Demetrius and the Gladiators versus Darker than Amer. Flight of fancy aside, the determination of this director JUST TO GET THIS RELEASED must have been mind-boggling. Without Jill St. John as his muse, Mr. O. Reed would have canoed upstream without his proverbial paddle.

Shocking one instant, lovingly discerning the next, this mild upgrade of post-War alienation seems to say escape is all there is for this Bluto-type force of nature with plenty of rope on hand. He just won't give up his sense of "Come and get me, (warden, coppers)"! He's there when he needs to be or so it seems. Justice is a foreign word when bad haircuts and razor-thin wit run the terrain. References to St. Matthew would hardly seem out of order. Tough and grinding like a Mac Truck. A relentless 8 out of 10 for a special "action" flick. Reminiscent of Get Carter, but a bit more brutal on the senses. Highly recommended

This is one rather odd but also yet somewhat enjoyable '70's flick.

Main problem I had with this movie was it's incredibly simplistic story about an escaped convict (Oliver Reed) getting revenge on his wife (Jill St. John) after she cheated on him with another man and got herself pregnant while he was in jail. It's an unlikely as well as an uninteresting main story-line that just never really gets of the ground, also since the movie at times suffer from some pacing problems. Some sequences in the movie just last too long, for instance such as the escape sequences that could had been wrapped up in 5-10 minutes but instead they really take their time for it and it last about twice as long.

The movie gets filled with some unlikely elements and silly plot twists in the end. It doesn't really help to make this movie a better watch and even makes this a totally bad and embarrassing movie to watch at times.

But it's a typical '70's flick, with typical '70's elements in it, which means that it has some redeeming qualities. '70's movies are always just something more special to watch. This movie does feature some good experimental camera-work at times and has a gritty straight-forward kind of approach and atmosphere, which is also real typical for a British '70's gangster-flick. The movie is at its best when it features some action in it. Not that it's anything too big and spectacular but it gets simply brought well to the screen.

Somethings it feels like watching the movie as if like halve of the scripted sequences didn't got filmed, which is also probably true, due to most likely budgeting reasons. This is an obviously cheaply made movie and it also shouldn't had cost too much money to make it. Some scenes don't always flow well because you have the sense that there simply was not enough editing material to work with. This also causes the movie to make some sudden jumps at times.

But oh well, at least it still has Oliver Reed in it, which also somewhat uplifts the movie. Not that he plays the best role out of his career or anything but it's enough to still keep this a still somewhat enjoyable watch. The movie also features Jill St. John right after her Bond girl role in the movie "Diamonds Are Forever". She never really has been my favorite Bond girl though...

Odd little '70's flick that is still somewhat watchable, thanks to its redeeming, typical '70's, qualities.

5/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Excellent old revenge movie from a time when Britain still made movies that didn't involve period costumes or floppy haired smiles!

Ian "Lovejoy" McShane and the Late Oliver Reed bust out of prison, with the sole purpose of killing Reeds Wife (Jill St John) who wants a divorce. The film is relentless in its portrayal of Reed as a cold blooded man with a single deadly purpose, yet still shows him simmering with a pent up violent rage that cant wait to explode into violence at any time.

I have heard many call this movie a poor-mans version of "Get Carter", but that tag does it a serious injustice. Gritty, Dark, Bleak and Brutal (for its time) something about this movie keeps me watching it 30+ years after its release.

Stylish, Original, and highly recommended, especially if you are sick of "Feel Good" cliches.

Oliver Reed is the main reason to see this film. He has a role that suits him perfectly - a man almost obsessively bent on killing his wife - and he brings some real brute force into it. The film also has some stylishly directed scenes and good photography, but the plot is just the old "scummy characters rip each other off" routine. (**)

This was the typical movie which Oliver Reed shined in; remember HUNTING PARTY and THE DEVILS, among his forever best. He is outstanding here as a brutal, vicious inmate whose wife decides to divorce. The scene between the two of them, at the prison parlor, is terrific, with an awesome camera work thru the glass separating them. The novel is faithful to Larry Henderson's novel, so close that the book seems to be a romanisation from the screenplay, as Michael Winner's THE MECHANIC or SCORPIO were. It's also typical from the crime movies from UK made in the sixties and seventies: THE VILLAIN, ROBBERY, THE SQUEEZE, GET CARTER, LONG GOOD FRIDAY, movies far better than most crime films from after the 2000's, in UK, at least most of them. Rough, tough, gritty, this fast paced film noir is truly amazing for moviegoers as I am, especially in the crime genre. Oliver Reed with his face of a man who expects suffering and pain, to give and receive it. Watch out when; during the escape, he grabs barbed wire with his bare hands, just before he is attacked by a dog. His terrific agony in Ken Russel's THE DEVILS is not far...

This film – which has been showing repeatedly on TCM UK for years – is one of many tough action films which came out in the early 1970s dealing with the British underworld. The end result is certainly watchable enough but, in the long run, neither is it as classy as GET CARTER (1971) nor as nasty as VILLAIN (1971). Where it distinguishes itself over others in the same genre is in the excellent cast the production company managed to rope in for the project – Oliver Reed, Ian McShane (who also appeared in VILLAIN), Jill St. John, Edward Woodward, Frank Finlay, Freddie Jones (a small and mostly irrelevant role) and Robert Beatty; besides, a couple of decent action sequences - the elaborate rooftop prison break, Reed's fiery car chase, Finlay's staircase demise, etc. – are par for the course. However, the film founders through a very predictable plot (sharing several similarities with GET CARTER itself) which is further exacerbated by the fashionably muddled handling and a prevailing mood of genuine unpleasantness. Only Stanley Myers' moody score emerges with dignity as SITTING TARGET's most notable asset.

That ending. (eyes roll) But still a noir. All noir gets a 9. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Deliberately bad 2 I don't want to see it 3 I didn't finish and or FF'd through it 4 Bad 5 I don't get it 6 Good 7 Great but with a major flaw 8 Great 9 Noir with moral 10 Inspiring with moral.

Oliver Reed breaks out of prison intending to top his wife, Susan St. James, whom he suspects of cheating. A good cast can't redeem this trudge through the London underworld. Stanley Myer's outstanding score is the film's only redeeming value.

There were a number of brutal thrillers made in Britain in the early 70s ("Get Carter" and "Villain" were others) and this may be the nastiest of the lot. There are few likeable characters and a lot of unpleasant violence in the film, although it can boast a strong cast and stylish direction from the underrated Hickox, who made the excellent (if equally violent) "Theatre of Blood" the following year.

Harry (Oliver Reed) and partner, Birdy (Ian McShane), bust out of prison. Harry's got some money stashed away, but he has more pressing matters to attend to. He plans on killing his wife who left him while in prison and is now pregnant with another man's baby.

I'm amazed. Until last night, I'd never even heard of Sitting Target. What a film! It's a dark, dirty film filled with bad people. It's the kind of movie where none of the characters has much in the way of good qualities and no one comes out whole in the end. While there's plenty of violence, it's quick and sporadic. Occasionally, it catches you off-guard and, at these times, works to perfection. Throw Oliver Reed into the mix doing his best crazed, unstable, lunatic schtick (man could he play this kind of character) and add in one of my favorite actors of all time, Ian McShane - how have I not seen this?

If you break Sitting Target into three acts, the first is fantastic. The prison break is tension filled. The violence is sparse, but effective. The second act does drag a bit, but this is where we get a better indication of what Harry is capable of. Lastly, the third act is sublime. The twist is amazing and worked on me as well as any I can remember. And the violence here leads to an incredibly satisfactory conclusion.

The weakest part of the film has to be Jill St John as Harry's wife. I'm sure she was added to the cast as she was coming off Diamonds are Forever and she had a "name" American audiences would recognize. But, she's completely miscast. She looks and acts like she should be in a different movie. And that accent - what a disaster. Still, she's not bad enough to ruin the experience in its entirety. Well worth seeking out.

8/10