Steve Baker Oh, to be a film critic.To be able to make pompous, uninformed statements about anything created by Michael Winner.Critic I am not, neither am I a blinkered devotee of Mr. Winner, but I loved this movie.Lots of fun from beginning to end, with Chris Rea as an understatedly bewildered and reluctant serial killer and with Felicity Kendal as his less than innocent accomplice.Unfavourable comparisons have been made with 'Kind Hearts & Coronets' but those of us who love the Ealing comedies are by no means uncomfortable with 'Parting Shots'; it maintains a ruthless tradition.Mr. Winner also borrows freely from his own greatest movie, 'The Jokers' (1967) in certain scenes, and the presence of Oliver Reed reinforces that sense of history.'Parting Shots' is a very funny movie with a great cast, all of whom do their stuff excellently.

FlashCallahan Harry Sterndale, a failed photographer, is told that he has only three months to live due to him getting cancer.After thinking things over he decides that since he is dying anyway that he will kill or destroy all the people that has ever crossed or hurt him during his entire life.So Parting Shots becomes literally the shots fired by Harry when he knows he is parting this earth. After all, he will be dead anyway long before he can come to trial and get his just desserts from society.Harry even falls in love with Jill and hires an assassin to kill him in style.....Yes the film is bad. The acting is crude, and Chris Rea should stick to singing. But it's Michael Winner, and any film by him has to be worth a punt.He did female death Wish in 1993 with Dirty weekend, now he's doing it for laughs, and gets a really impressive cast of characters. They all put Rea to shame, who contributes the soundtrack too, but who cannot help but love a film with Cleese laughing like an idiot, Reed playing the poshest hit-man in the world, and Joanna Lumleys hair.the story isn't too bad, it has a bit of charm to it, and i'm sure if Winner could have convinced Caine and Moore, they would have been in it too.Give it a chance, it's a guilty pleasure of the highest order.

arnulfg I thought that actors like John Cleese, Oliver Reed, Diana Rigg would be a recommendation for this piece. Unfortunately it's not. Only Rigg (perhaps better known as Emma Peel) is shown longer than some others. And her performance is stifled at best. It's a pity. Chris Rea is not an actor and judging from this he should refrain from an actor career. But maybe it is the sole fault of the director why this thing fails so miserably. While the story shows promise, the implementation is so shoddy that it actually hurts seeing this. Best summarized at the end of the scene where John Cleese's character closes the door after he had a painful talk with Rea. He bends over, holds his head with his hands and cries out loud: "Oh my God!" Apparently with great pain. That was really convincing and the best performance throughout the whole movie. Apart from that John Cleese is just John Cleese -- nothing more, which is good enough. The man can just withdraw himself and don't act at all and still makes himself at least bearable. The same goes for Oliver Reed. His character is a stoic killer. Reed did not even have to draw a face to deliver his part, which is good, because you can study him in one of his last roles. This movie only has these good points: you can watch the actors while they don't act at all or only give excuses for acting and see the people behind the masks. My conclusion: never watch a movie by Winner again.

leeh-2 More power to the genius that is Michael Winner. He is so far ahead of the game it is incredible. In `Shots' he has managed to create the first cult film of the next millennium. No one likes this film at all, but there is a huge enjoyment to be had by anyone who views it with an open mind. I for one look forward to his next movie.