[Theepistle] Saintly rankings (was FW: www.lesliecharteris.comupdates)

[Dick Lochte]

The Clarke pilot, "The Saint in Manhattan," is pretty bad. Clarke is ok, a
sort of "Great Land" version of Tom Selleck, without the warmth. The actor
who played Templar's butler, George Rose, a Broadway theater veteran, was
never one of my favorites, mainly because he overacted, something not that
pleasant to see on the small screen. The director, James Frawley, is good
and the show looks okay. But that script. That's where everything fell
apart. Cute and coy where it should have been light and clever. Very soft
and silly at times.
 
The Kilmer movie, which I loathed on the big screen, I didn't mind at all
when I watched it recently on TV. Why they felt the orphanage origin was
necessary, I have no idea. I gather they're referencing that in the new
pilot for some odd reason. But the base story -- the Saint taking down the
father-son villains -- was entertaining and at least vaguely resembled a
Charteris-like plot, something I can't say about the Clarke. As for Kilmer,
well, James Galdofini would have been worse. Still, I'd call the contest in
favor of the movie.
 
Dick Lochte 

  _____  

From: theepistle-bounces+dlochte=gmail.com at fascicle.org
[mailto:theepistle-bounces+dlochte=gmail.com at fascicle.org] On Behalf Of Ian
Dickerson
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:18 PM
To: theepistle at fascicle.org
Subject: [Theepistle] Saintly rankings (was FW:
www.lesliecharteris.comupdates)



I thought this might prompt some discussion on the list.

 

As you can see below Saint Ian Golledge wrote to me recently, in his own
witty way, taking umbrage at a comment I'd made on the news page of
www.lesliecharteris.com <http://www.lesliecharteris.com/>  implying that the
worst portrayal of the Saint wasn't down to Val Kilmer but in the hands of
Andrew Clarke.

 

So with his permission I'm forwarding his mail to the list because I'd like
to open this up for discussion. I appreciate that many folks have been saved
the pain of seeing Mr Clarke in all his glory but for those who have, what
do you think?

 

My logic stems from the fact that the Kilmer film wasn't a bad film, just
was quite simply not at all to do with the Saint, whereas the Clarke pilot
suffered all the indignities of a 1980s TV production combined with a lousy
script.

 

Ian

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Golledge [mailto:i.golledge at qut.edu.au] 
Sent: 02 July 2008 05:27
To: ian.dickerson at gmail.com
Subject: RE: [Theepistle] www.lesliecharteris.com updates

 

Hi, Ian.

 

Long time no email.

 

Just had a squiz at the updates.  My eye was apprehended by what I can only
assume was an inopportune juxtaposition of words resulting in an unfortunate
reversal of your true meaning.  On the news page appear the words, to the
effect of, "if you think Kilmer was bad, get a load of Andrew Clarke.."
Now, as the sophisticated Saintly fan of immaculate appearance and steely
sang froid that I am, I, of course, realize that calamities far more
devastating to the global zeitgiest have sprouted and flourished from far
slighter incidents of neural collapse.  Indeed, I am confident that the
magnitude of this titvillian spasticity of expression could accurately be
measure in pints.  Indeed, allow me to assure you that I am not offended out
of some parochial sense of the coincidental fortune of both Mr Clarke and
myself being born the same Great Land where beer is a civilized and cold
temperature, and where cricket is game of some pride.  I merely extend the
sanguine and ever-ready hand of Saintly brotherhood to flick aside, into
oblivion, the unsightly speck of fluff that despoils the elegant shoulder of
your site's usual, superlative appearance and veracity.

 

Clarke worse than Kilmer?  Get a grip!

 

IAN GOLLEDGE

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.fascicle.org/pipermail/theepistle/attachments/20080703/908eb8da/attachment.html