Shadow Run (1998)

What makes it different from others?

Strictly average movie

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

While the man plot line of Shadow Run is Michael Caine's assignment from James Fox to steal a security van, the side-plot is much more interesting. Matthew Pochin, a young boy in a Catholic school, comes across a dead body in the beginning of the movie. Michael Caine approaches the boy and tells him to keep his mouth shut, but even though he was wearing a ski mask, there's no mistaking his accent. When Matthew sees him in town later, he recognizes him instantly.Even though the second lead in the film is a child, this is far from a family-friendly film. Michael Caine is pretty ruthless and the bodies start piling up pretty quickly. This wasn't my favorite of his performances, though, because he's written out as a pretty one-dimensional, cold killer. There's no underlying emotions that he shows the audience, as he does in Shiner, so if you're looking for a great Michael Caine performance, this isn't the movie to watch. Matthew Pochin is very likable, though, especially because he gets picked on at school so he's all alone except for the audience's support. All in all, it's a very tense movie, with the threat of violence as evident as the violence itself. If you like creepy movies, or crime films set in Catholic schools like Absolution or The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, you might like this better than I did.Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Oh dear. No wonder most reviewers are agreed this really is a bad film. One can only assume Sir Michael was in need of a fast buck. Although can't imagine he was too well paid for his efforts. For one of the finest actors of his generation he's done an awful lot of turkeys. This sure as hell is one of them.The plot is messy. The inclusion of a bunch of seemingly untrained kids adds nothing to the story. Well the fat kid who gets bullied inexplicably gets involved in the story of hardened gangster Haskell (Caine) putting together a team of unconvincing criminals (two of whom seem unable to talk) together for a security van hijack job. Haskell murders for the flimsiest of reasons, two characters are discarded by what must be his favourite method - strangulation. Though it wouldn't be exactly politically correct to murder the fat kid who knows all, it's somewhat surprising Haskell lets him go, chucking in a gift in the bargain.I rented this out because I like a good British thriller and the cast were, on paper at least, appealing. There is some good interplay between Caine and Leslie Grantham (playing Dirty Den yet again but he does it pretty well) but everyone is just going through the motions.There's not really a lot to recommend this, it just ploughs on and is mind numbingly boring. The sub plots completely unnecessary and whilst the acting bearable, the script is a complete let down. As for the hijacking itself, well let's just say it isn't convincing.Some nice shots of middle England but all in all a disappointing mess of epic proportion.

i picked this up in a charity shop, one of them freebie CD's that you occasionally find - this one was part of the 'Michael Caine Collection' given away with some British newspaper once. Anyway i have spent all week watching the 1988 adaptation of 'Jack The Ripper' starring MC, so thought i would follow it up with this...in defence of this movie, the plot is a bit daft, i agree, but it is a great experience to see Leslie Grantham and Caine acting for large periods of time in the same scenes. I also thought that the addition of that guy who plays the General in the Star Wars movies IV-VI was good too, as he is a largely underused actor, in my opinion.so whilst i possibly agree the film is weak, the chance to see a few quality British actors together on camera is worth it. I also find it quite surprising that a big time actor like Caine would get caught up in such a trivial movie filmed in the UK. There was a reason for the Ripper TV movie, as it was a semi-investigative journalist type film to 'commemorate' (not sure if that is the best phrase to use) the 100 years since Jack The Ripper.Read earlier here that someone wanted to know whether public schools like that exist. Well i studied music at a pre-1992 UK university and believe me - staff like that depicted in this film DO exist.

This really wouldn't look out of place as a student film. Leaden script, poor acting and a plot that never really gets going are just a few of the things that can be said. Caine is OK, but you get the feeling that the rest of the cast just don't care. In fact with better production values and a little more believable action this film could have been at least half-way decent. In the mid- to late-sixties there may have been a call for this type of film but not now. Then, it would have been slightly dangerous and risque, perhaps even exciting (then again perhaps not). Now it collects dust as it sits on the shelves of the local video outlet (really - it does!). The film is just a shadow of what could have been.