alexanderdavies-99382 "Play Dirty" has been one of many films in which Michael Caine's career hasn't exactly benefitted. The film wasn't particularly successful at the box office and I'm hardly surprised. The story tends to resemble something out of "The Dirty Dozen" film - except that one is ten times better. Michael Caine merely sleepwalks his way through the film as he usually does (no doubt thinking how much money he was being paid). Nigel Davenport as the soldier who accompanies Caine on their suicide mission is somewhat better. A highly skilled actor by the name of Nigel Green is wasted in his brief on-screen appearance at the film's beginning. Why on earth wasn't he written into the screenplay properly?? Admittedly, there are a few fairly good action scenes but they can't possibly atone for all the tedium that takes precedence in between. The downbeat ending doesn't help either.

fedor8 The underlying idiocy here is to rip off the premise from "The Dirty Dozen ", which had had huge success just 2 years earlier, but to give the movie some half-baked bleedin'-obvious message about dirty war always being waged on both sides of any conflict. The trouble is, you just can't have it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't f*rt and keep it inside too. You either make a fairly unrealistic but fun semi-comedy about a bunch of criminals going on a suicide mission OR you use the movie to make some "grand" statement about the inherent ugliness of the decision-making process in the upper army tiers, i.e. some tired old morality tale.For people who consider this movie to be "realistic", I have these five words: "Alice In Wonderland" and "Fantasia" i.e. you have seen them far too often. The LOOK of PD may be realistic; there is no denying the visual quality. The story, however, is anything but.For example, Leach's baffling decision to sabotage Caine's attempt to bring the jeep over the hill. Leach – for whatever unexplained reason – decides to not unload the supplies off the vehicle as Caine had ordered, thereby allowing a perfectly good jeep to be destroyed, plus much of the supplies on it. What the hell was the point of that? Motives, anyone? I'd truly like to hear whatever theories, i.e. any fanciful (desperate) spins, which fans of PD can give me here to justify that dumb nonsensical act. Leach was portrayed as the ultimate survivalist, always looking out for himself first (and Caine second, due to the reward), so it made zero sense for him to diminish the chances of the mission succeeding, thereby also increasing the risks to his own life. This is moronic writing, and has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged "realities of war" that PD supposedly stands for. It was a childish act, perhaps, but that would totally out-of-synch with Leach's rather clear-cut character.Worse yet, that entire sequence lasted for an eternity. Why does the viewer have to watch the boring details that are entailed in transporting a jeep over a hill? That seemed like the kind of padding that is usually found in cheesy 50s/60s B-movies and "arty" Euro-trash films with a thin or non-existent story. (Like those endless climbing sequences in "Lost Continent" or "The Mole People".) PD could have been cut by at least 15-20 minutes - that's how much it drags at times. It's as though the director was so keen on making the most of shooting on location, that he couldn't bring himself to slash some scenes that show the desert in all its cinematic glory. He basically sacrificed the movie's pace in favour of the scenery. But this is isn't supposed to be some slow, meditative flick about existentialism or any other such pretentious twaddle. It's a bloody war film.Caine and Leach, who had been clever up to the point of blowing up the German supplies base, are suddenly reduced to utter retards when they walk straight into an ongoing military operation (Monty's invasion), waving a white flag that is smaller than a hamster's bum. Of course they could get killed by friendly fire! Even a person who knows nothing about the military, wars, or surrender would have figured that it's safer to wait out the invasion, to hide until the invading army is done with their invading, which would have taken no more than another hour (or hours at the most), and THEN "surrender". At the very least they could have taken off their German uniforms: it wasn't anyway as though they were going to freeze in Northern Africa, in the middle of the day, without these clothes. Dumb.

glomax-149-262318 What stands out in this film is its noir-like qualities; in so many war-related historical fiction films of the 60s and 70s there are "good guys" and they conquer against amazing odds. Where Eagles Dare, Operation Crossbow and Guns of Navarone are examples. Trobruk is a good exception blurring the lines a bit and bringing a "grit" factor.Play Dirty goes even further showing extreme ruthless and deceit in all directions -- VERY GRITTY. If there was an official War Film Noir genera, this would top my list. The action scenes are fairly limited. This film trades action for plot and character development. It also brings the classic dry dialogue we expect from British made WWII films. Finally, the desert landscape in Panavision is a visual pleasure.I generally like to do historical fiction with the kids but this film has a couple of really tough scenes that you might avoid with younger ones, screen the scenes first.

Roger Burke Not the best of war movies, and the type of story line that's been done before...However, I was fascinated to note that the screenplay was written by Melvyn Bragg who, in the 1990s, went on to produce a great documentary about the English language. How the world turns...Anyway – this effort does have some great and witty lines delivered by Caine and Davenport as the two rival captains on a mission to blow up a German petrol dump in the Libyan desert during the second world war's African campaign. On that basis, it's somewhat pedestrian – many scenes of travelling through desert areas, naturally; getting bogged down in the sand, naturally; meeting and killing Arabs at an oasis, naturally; and generally verbally fighting with each other, as each tries to assert their individuality.Where the narrative is different, however, is first, the twists in the story that produce some worthwhile surprises; second, the grittiness of the situations that serve to highlight the totally amoral attitudes of all concerned; third, the irony of the true nature of the German dump; and finally, the tongue-in-cheek chutzpah of the ending which, for me, almost turned the whole movie into a very long shaggy-dog story. I could imagine Bragg having a real giggle about it as he wrote it – and that's not maligning him at all.All of the main characters provide suitably professional performances, Caine once again with that disdainful and bored attitude reminiscent of his role in Zulu (1964) as Lt. Gonville Bromhead; Nigel Davenport gives a terrific performance (he outshines Caine, in my opinion) as Caine's rival; while the likes of Harry Andrews and Nigel Green exemplify the vacuous and glory-seeking nature of all military top brass. The standout performance, however, goes to Vivian Pickles as the German nurse who shows all the British soldiers what it means to stand up for your rights – not to be missed.As war movies go – perhaps anti-war – it's well done, but not without its faults, particularly some of the gaps in the narrative, sloppy editing and inexplicable jump cuts. Maybe, on TV, I saw a badly edited version to allow for too many commercial breaks? I'll assume so.Recommended for those who like war action.