After Roger Moore, this was my very first SAINT film with George Sanders. Over the years, he's become one of my favorite actors, and there's quite a few other decent actors in this film. However, this gets my vote for the WORST Saint film ever made-- and let me tell you why.I sat thru this thing at least 3 times and could not make heads or tails of the plot at all. And then, not long after seeing Louis Hayward in THE SAINT IN NEW YORK, I started reading Leslie Chartis' books. Imagine my surprise and shock when I got to "ANGELS OF DOOM", on which this is VERY loosely based, and not only was it was straight-forward, easy to understand, exciting, entertaining and in places downright hilarious, it also became my favorite novel of all time. It also "explained" to me exactly what was WRONG with this movie!!!They took a story that by rights should have been done as a 3-hour film (2 at the absolute minimum) and crammed it into just about 60 minutes. Is it any wonder it makes almost no sense at all? Never mind that they also decided to set it in the WRONG country (San Francisco instead of London), they gutted the plot so much that in order to get even the basics across, about 95% of the film is just people standing around talk talk talking. So the plot structure is awful, the directing is appallingly bad, and half the acting in the film is stiff and lifeless, even from normally very talented actors. And then of course there's George Sanders, who's COMPLETELY miscast as Simon Templar. I never even really understood the whole aura of "The Saint" until I saw Louis Hayward in action; to date, NOBODY else has ever brought the character to accurate life before (NOT EVEN Roger Moore!! --who usually plays it too SERIOUS, which is mind-boggling when you consider he never took James Bond seriously). The dialog Templar spouts in much of this film would be impossible for ANY actor to deliver credibly, EXCEPT for Louis Hayward, and I doubt even he could have made the story in this one fly. Maybe it wasn't just RKO's low low budget that caused him to depart after only one picture-- maybe he read the script, too.In all fairness, and despite himself, the next 4 SAINT films all had the dialog tailored specifically to fit Sanders' personality. How else could he have done such an INCREDIBLE job in THE SAINT IN London, or THE SAINT TAKES OVER (the latter of which, an "original" story, is actually a thinly-disguised-- and BETTER-told-- remake of THIS mess! --and with the same 3 actors in the leads!).Half the actors in this I've seen in other "B" movies from this period, and most of them do far better jobs elsewhere. Truthfully, the only one who comes off unscathed is Jonathan Hale, and you can't help but feel sorry for his Inspector Fernack, for the dizzying way Templar leads him on a confused merry chase, on his way to becoming a "hero" at the end.As if everything else wasn't so bad, at the end of the film, the "big reveal" as to the true identity of the main villain ALSO is told entirely thru confused dialog, and we find that the baddie got KILLED-- off-screen! I just watched this again today, and the whole time, I wanted to throttle the person who wrote the screenplay! It's no wonder after 6 RKO films, series creator Leslie Charteris PULLED the plug and took back the rights. Ironically, RKO distributed the 2 British-made films that followed, and simultaneously did THE FALCON series, initially also with Sanders, which was based on a novel that was the subject of a plagiarism lawsuit brought against it by Leslie Charteris! I guess that didn't bother RKO any...Finally, allow me to recommend much better Simon Templar films...THE SAINT IN NEW YORK THE SAINT IN London THE SAINT TAKES OVER THE SAINT'S VACATION

THE SAINT STRIKES BACK, an early adaptation of a Leslie Charteris novel starring George Sanders, is a real chore to sit through. The problem with it is the script, which opts for talky and dull mystery shenanigans when instead it could have included some serial-style thrills and pulp adventures. Most of the film is set in a few rooms with a number of criminal characters double-crossing each other which is neither here nor there. As for the "striking" done by the Saint, we see him gun down a would-be assassin in an early scene and trap another with a thrown knife at the climax, but that's the extent of his heroism. Much of the film just sees him playing different criminal elements off each other.This RKO picture is stagy and static, and the print I saw had muffled sound. The film has about as much artistic inspiration as a typical Monogram programmer. Sanders is stiff as the titular secret agent, with only an occasional twinkle in his eye reminding us that he was once a popular actor. The rest of the performances aren't worth boring with. The most interesting part of the film is the comedy; the highlight a surreal dream sequence in which a man is haunted by lobsters. If only the rest of the film's imagination had been on par with this.

Saint Strikes Back, The (1939) ** (out of 4) The second film in RKO's series has George Sanders taking over the role of The Saint. This time out The Saint helps a young woman who is trying to clear her father, a cop who was kicked off the force for apparently having connections to the mob. As The Saint gets deeper into the case it appears that the father might have more to hide or perhaps a cover up was done. I must say that this second film comes off very disappointing and is extremely watered down compared to the original, which I found very entertaining. The biggest problem is that the story is rather weak and instead of the ruthless killer in the first film here we are greeted to Sanders doing his womanizing. The film is mostly dialogue driven with only a few action pieces that stand out. Another problem is I think Sanders, a great actor, is too dry for the role and this eventually turns the character pretty boring. It's always fun to watch the actor but I really didn't buy him in this role. Several years after this film Sanders would make The Falcon series and I think he did a better job there, although looking at this film and those Falcon movies it's hard to tell which is which because Sanders plays the role the same way. Perhaps I wouldn't have been so hard on this film if I hadn't watched it so closely with The Saint in New York but where that film is original and entertaining, this one here just comes off rather bland.

George Sanders makes his first appearance as the Saint in this film and all I can think is: "Hey, It's Addison DeWitt, private eye!" Because this Saint is nothing but snide, more prone to shoot off a cutting remark than a gun. Did Sanders ever make a movie where you didn't get the feeling he was slumming? Where you didn't get the feeling it pained him to be surrounded by such fools? (Making one wonder, then, why the hell he married Zsa Zsa Gabor.) Playing opposite as the romantic interest is Wendy Barrie, who comes off as more hard-boiled than a two-hour egg. Then, of course, Barrie was a pretty tough broad, having been Bugsy Siegel's girl before Virginia "I'll put my mouth where the money is!" Hill came along. This was also the first of Barrie's three appearances in the Saint series, although she played a different character each time.But what of the film itself? Well, there's not much to say--the plot is confusing the minor characters difficult to tell apart and the visuals not particularly interesting. The real enjoyment in this picture comes from Sander's deadly wit and Barrie's remarkable aura of toughness.