Sir John Locksley, the greatest jewel thief, decides his most prized possession, the Shalimar Ruby, should be passed on to a worthy successor. He invites the best rival jewel thieves to his ... Read allSir John Locksley, the greatest jewel thief, decides his most prized possession, the Shalimar Ruby, should be passed on to a worthy successor. He invites the best rival jewel thieves to his island estate to participate in a deadly contest.Sir John Locksley, the greatest jewel thief, decides his most prized possession, the Shalimar Ruby, should be passed on to a worthy successor. He invites the best rival jewel thieves to his island estate to participate in a deadly contest.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Shreeram Lagoo
- Tolaram
- (as Dr. Shriram Lagoo)
Jayamalini
- Tribal Dancer
- (as Jaya Malini)
Anita Advani
- Dancer in Chorus
- (uncredited)
Kader Khan
- Villain
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
i think that this film is a entertainer.It makes you cry.laugh and makes you think what will happen next.The great Mr Dharmendra was the best but i don't understand is that why did this film do so bad at the box office? and why Mr Dharmendra never signed for a western film again.The songs were also good like 'Hum Bewafaa' was good, the film was also made in English to but voices were dumbed over and the film opens with a good scene.I didn't not know that this film was produced by Hollywood and Bollywood and after this film they never did that again because it was a disaster at the box office but some people still think that they should make more films like this.The main credit for this film goes to both Dharamendra and Rex Harrison who both did a great so BRAVO!!!
The Entire movie there seemed to be only 1 actor with proper emotions & that happens to be of Dharmendra. Rex Harrison who is a Hollywood big wig was no where near Dharmendra's ability, even a "C" grade villain of Bollywood would have acted better, Deepak Shirke would have acted better. Poor Shammi Kapoor was wasted, Zeenat had not much role, John acted as a dumb man so his ability to express was cut off. The countess's role whoever played was the worst of all.
When Bollywood actors act in Hollywood movies they easily overshadow the famed Hollywood actors because the facial expressions are lot more & the ability to give dialogues is also better. Dharmendra has not won any filmfare award in India is because he is himself a 2nd grade hero, had it been the Mighty Amitabh Bachchan or Rajesh Khanna this movie would have been even more watchable & it would have been a big hit too. The entire movie would have been even one sided against the Hollywood stars.
When Bollywood actors act in Hollywood movies they easily overshadow the famed Hollywood actors because the facial expressions are lot more & the ability to give dialogues is also better. Dharmendra has not won any filmfare award in India is because he is himself a 2nd grade hero, had it been the Mighty Amitabh Bachchan or Rajesh Khanna this movie would have been even more watchable & it would have been a big hit too. The entire movie would have been even one sided against the Hollywood stars.
An interesting blend of Western and Indian filmmaking, "Shalimar" (a.k.a. "The Deadly Thief," the title under which I saw it) is a light, undemanding piece of entertainment. Director Krishna Shah demonstrates a great deal of visual flair (particularly during the final jewel-theft sequence, which I can't describe more fully for fear of giving it away). The entire cast is appealing, especially Rex Harrison as the suave, manipulative host, and John Saxon as a mute master thief. The movie's weak point, in terms of plausibility, is the miscasting of the gifted but ungainly Sylvia Miles as a tightrope walker/acrobat. (The cuts to her stunt double during the action sequences are among the most obvious, unconvincing substitutions I've ever seen.) However, the vivacious Miles has such fun with the role that this flaw can be overlooked.
I am so awfully sure that for anyone caring for the art of cinema in its qualities of western standards or the overall universal technical values, this movie is an example of "A guide of what NOT to do for a respectable movie"... But its charm (as one commenter puts: "..It's a bad movie but I can't help liking it...") lies somewhere else.
I must say I was surprised to find out that it didn't do well in India when it hit the theaters but that flopping may happen to any "big budget" movie anywhere anytime.. I also agree that Dharmendra and especially Zeenat Aman could have been performing much better or the Holly-Bolly partnership could be taken to a more qualified level. But this movie is like a showcase of what could be done within limits of a status-quotic cheesy-commercial cinema and utilising what's at hand in high quality. Despite its flaws, each and every moment is fun and as with all "bad but great" movies, technical or artistic flaws actually add rather than deduct from the film's value! It's one of my faves from 70s Bollywood and from many points, it really has its great moments. Never approach with cinematic excellency of Western values; nor it is too much typically Bollywood'ish either. Somewhere between the lines and hauntingly captivating and fuuuuun!
I must say I was surprised to find out that it didn't do well in India when it hit the theaters but that flopping may happen to any "big budget" movie anywhere anytime.. I also agree that Dharmendra and especially Zeenat Aman could have been performing much better or the Holly-Bolly partnership could be taken to a more qualified level. But this movie is like a showcase of what could be done within limits of a status-quotic cheesy-commercial cinema and utilising what's at hand in high quality. Despite its flaws, each and every moment is fun and as with all "bad but great" movies, technical or artistic flaws actually add rather than deduct from the film's value! It's one of my faves from 70s Bollywood and from many points, it really has its great moments. Never approach with cinematic excellency of Western values; nor it is too much typically Bollywood'ish either. Somewhere between the lines and hauntingly captivating and fuuuuun!
A movie which was ahead of its time and did not make sense to most of those who saw it. It seemed an ambitious project.
You cannot help but marvel at what was tried. In comparison the latest technology the film might seem shoddy but in the end you cannot help but admire the whole team for giving it a shot.
The Indian actors have done a a good job. At times the fact that the foreign actors dialogs are not in sync (because they are actually speaking in English) is a minor irritant.
The music by RD Burman is classic and can be played and hummed today and for years to come.
The action is also good but not typical Hindi film action which is nice change.
Recommended for one viewing.
You cannot help but marvel at what was tried. In comparison the latest technology the film might seem shoddy but in the end you cannot help but admire the whole team for giving it a shot.
The Indian actors have done a a good job. At times the fact that the foreign actors dialogs are not in sync (because they are actually speaking in English) is a minor irritant.
The music by RD Burman is classic and can be played and hummed today and for years to come.
The action is also good but not typical Hindi film action which is nice change.
Recommended for one viewing.
Did you know
- TriviaShammi Kapoor was impressed by the organisation of the Hollywood unit. He wished the Bombay film industry could also have that. He threw a big going away party for Rex Harrison. Shammi also mentioned that Rex had a very bad experience with the Indian customs.
- Alternate versionsThe English language (American version) was released as Raiders of the Sacred Stone on DVD. This 90 minute version cuts scenes. Cuts from the film include a longer introduction, more character back-story, and song numbers.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Shootout at Wadala (2013)
- How long is Shalimar?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Runtime2 hours 17 minutes
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content