I'll watch anything with Roger Moore in it, and if you add David Niven, Trevor Howard and Ken Griffiths you can't go wrong.
However there are some serious problems with this film.
Mainly, the god-awful hair and clothes! These were PURE 1970s - one or two characters even wear safari suits with flared trousers for God's sake. I mean, I'm used to seeing actors in the seventies who had long hair in period films, but there's no excuse for out of period costuming. They wouldn't use an out of period car, so why costumes?
Also, some plot problems: why did the old boat have to be stolen from so far away from Goa? And why did the men have to board any of the ships - why did they not just put the limpet mines on the hulls and escape?
I think they probably had a tight budget on this one. The car that David Niven drives doesn't look like a period car either - it looks like a 1970s kit car or replica.
The movie is on air from time to time on a channel here, and I alway enjoy watching it. There are far better movies, that's for sure. But it's not a bad one. The "team" spirit is finely played, I'd say.
emm "to tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men"
They could have paid more attention to the period details, that's certain. Too many of the men did sport long '70s hairstyles, and in several early scenes you can plainly see 1970s automobiles all over the place. There wasn't much of a "feel" of 1940s India, despite the location filming. But overall, I still enjoy this movie, while wishing aspects of it had been done with greater care.
I agree the Matt Munro (not Tom Jones) song at the end is a little out of place, although its lyrics are appropriately melancholy, or at least wistful -- old men reliving one last dream. But the film could have used a more rousing musical score instead of the tinny, forgettable music that punctuates the action at irregular intervals, to no effect.
Noticed that nearly all the men wear 1970s plain front, belted hipster slacks. Men of that time would have worn pleated front trousers, high rise trousers with either braces or side adjusters. The Germans and the Indian agent working for the Germans wear 1970s polyester leisure suits with flared trousers!
Many of the extras didn't even bother having period clothes or hair. In the opening scene, where Mr Niven is driving Mr Howard to the club, the extras are clearly dressed in 70s tanktops etc and have long hair, sideburns etc. Same for the extras in the casino. Mr Peck and Mr Moore have hair far too long for serving officers in the army, and they don't even do the 'Dad's Army' trick of using brilliantine and side partings to at least make it look a little like the period.
I guess in those days they just didn't pay that much attention to period detail...but if you look at something like 'The Jewel in the Crown', made only three or four years later, the period detail is stunning.
"In those days"! Hey, please, hugh1971, as one Hugh to another, I saw this movie in the theater and am not THAT old!!
But your point is spot on, they took no real care in those crowd scenes, so long-haired Indians and Brits and 1970s dress were rampant throughout, much of it simply because they just filmed scenes without making the effort to make the people and things in the shot appear period-correct...something which many films before, at the time, and since do right -- and many others still get wrong.
So it wasn't merely a question of "those days" (here, 1980). Hundreds of films, going back to the earliest days of cinema a century ago, made major efforts, very often very successfully, to "look" genuine, in clothes, hairstyles, cars, whatever. But of course many failed, though sometimes only in small ways. I often wondered why some filmmakers think the audience won't notice background things that may be inappropriate to a particular movie, like modern cars, TV antennas in the 1860s, dress and above all hairstyles. (Your catching the incorrect style of these guys' pants was amazingly sharp!) And this is apart from many films whose dialogue uses modern expressions instead of something from the era depicted.
No, not only the "look", but the "feel" of THE SEA WOLVES just didn't do much to make you think it was 1943, and this is a big problem. But still an enjoyable movie, maybe in part because of these flaws. "A geriatric 'Guns of Navarone'", as it was often called upon its release.
This film looked like a mixed reunion of 'Guns of Navarone' and 'The Wild Geese' alumni. I think 1/2 way through the film, with Moore in a tuxedo, the director tried to make this a mini Bond film. The horrible song at the end is also reminiscent of Bond.
Any resemblance to The Wild Geese is hardly coincidental. Both films were written, produced and directed by the same people, with many of the same crew, barely two years apart. And there were five people from The Guns of Navarone who also appeared in The Sea Wolves: Peck and Niven of course, but also Percy Herbert, Allan Cuthbertson and George Mikell. But otherwise, and despite some very broad thematic similarities, there is no connection between those two films, made 19 years apart.
All true. They should and could have taken more care, even granted the difficulties of filming a period piece on location. (At least they really shot in India.) Why not submit the goofs you mentioned to the "goof" section for this film? I don't think any, or many, of the ones you pointed out are listed there.
Gregory Peck was unsure about his ability to bring off an English accent (in truth, great an actor as he was, he was never very good at foreign accents or languages). But David Niven and Roger Moore reassured him, one of them saying that if Laurence Olivier could try an American accent in Inchon, Peck could do a English one for The Sea Wolves. Perhaps the fact that audiences had known the all-American Peck for so many decades made it harder for them to swallow his new-found Britishness.
Unclear. In the book, Captain Mallory was a New Zealander. It's never stated just what Mallory's (Peck's) nationality in the film version of Guns is supposed to be. He's working for the British, but that's as much because the eastern Mediterranean theater of war was under British command as because of the character's nationality. Since it's never mentioned, and no effort has been made to explicitly call Mallory British in the film, or have Peck portray him with an English accent, I've always assumed the movie Mallory is just an American.
Peck did, however, play an Englishman in Captain Horatio Hornblower (1951), and he made very little effort there at any sort of British accent -- at most maybe a very slight inflection. It was not uncommon in that era for American actors to play Brits or other foreigners and often not assume any accent at all, particularly if it was a period piece and not something contemporary.
I think he went with the accent in The Sea Wolves because by 1980 such "realism" was expected, and because he was playing an actual person whose family, if not the man himself, was still around.
Yes, I tend to agree with you about the way Trevor Howard's character ends up in this film. I think he meets his demise in part because the filmmakers believed we needed to feel as much hatred for "Mrs. Cromwell" as possible, by making her as cold, ruthless and murderous as possible, to justify her bad end. But it isn't so much Howard's death as such that bothered me, as the fact that Moore simply buries him on the beach in Goa -- not only not making any effort to get his body back home, but digging a grave in a place where sooner or later it's bound to be found. This seemed downright preposterous, as well as utterly unfeeling. Very bad scripting there.
(Per Navarone, while the presence of Robert Shaw as an obviously British Mallory in Force 10 may not have helped matters, I think the confusion about Peck's nationality in Guns long predated the later film, which was, after all, released 17 years after the first.)
I bought the book but haven't gotten around to reading it yet. Very interesting info. But, are you telling me that a movie allegedly depicting a real event took liberties with the facts??! Oh, the humanity!
I meant in 'Wolves'...although I see no reason why he couldn't be a Briton who had spent a lot of time in Canada then moved to India - but perhaps the book gives his backstory.
I wasn't aware that he was trying an English accent. I suspect he was using a pipe for added effect. But then I'm not very observant - I didn't give a second thought to the 70s fashions.