Rough Cut (1980 film)

1980 film by Don Siegel

Rough Cut is a 1980 American heist film written by Larry Gelbart, and starring Burt Reynolds, Lesley Anne Down and David Niven. It was based on the novel Touch the Lion's Paw (1975) by Derek Lambert. In 1977 it was announced Burt Reynolds would star in a film of the book called Rough Cut based on a script by Larry Gelbart, produced by David Merrick and directed by Blake Edwards. Reynolds and Merrick had worked together on Semi Tough and Merrick asked the actor what sort of film he would like to do; Reynolds wanted to do a "homage" to Cary Grant. "Even if it didnt turn out well I'd get to throw away my Levis and cowboy hat and wear some decent clothes for a change," the actor said. Then Edwards left the project. Gelbart says Reynolds wanted to push back production of the film to do Starting Over and Merrick agreed provided Reynolds give up writer and director approval. This was done. "I hope it was worth it," said Reynolds, "but I knew Starting Over would be important for me." Merrick hired four other writers to work on the film. Then, at Reynolds' behest, Gelbart was rehired in June 1979. He did three more drafts in collaboration with Reynolds and new director Don Siegel. Siegel agreed to do the film because he was afraid of being typecast as an action director. "I thought I'd have a ball," he said.

Filming began in London in August 1979. Siegel said at the time, "If I'd known Escape from Alcatraz was going to be such a success, I don't think I'd have done this picture. But because I love England I thought I'd have a go. But it's been a disaster since day one." Siegel said the original book was "poor" and "we've had at least seven writers on it It's not nearly as good as it should be and a great deal of work is needed to shore it up." "This is the worst prepared movie I've been involved with," said Siegel. "It'll take a miracle to bring it off. And unless Merrick helps us, that miracle will be an impossibility." Lesley Anne Down called it "an interesting time." Anthony Shaffer was brought in to work on the script. The new ending was shot. However the filmmakers were still dissatisfied. Gelbart suggested another ending after seeing the film which Siegel agreed with. Merrick did not want this but Siegel insisted and he had final cut. According to Siegel's wife Carol, who also worked on the film, Merrick would agree to shoot sequences, then change his mind, then go back and agree to put them back in, annoying cast and crew. Merrick used a rough cut of the film as collateral to raise money for his famed Broadway production of 42nd Street.

David Niven later sued Merrick for $1,791,000 claiming his likeness was not used in advertisements and publicity. He also said Merrick owed him $91,000. "In my 46 years as an actor in more than 80 films," said Niven, "this is the first time I have ever been involved in a lawsuit. I have always lived up to my contractual obligations and have always paid my debts. David Merrick and Paramount have neither lived up to their contract with me nor honored their debt to me."

Gelbart quipped, "as someone once said, all you've got to do with a Burt Reynolds picture is keep it in focus and it's bound to make you $50 million. Variety declared, "Miraculously, all of the [production] difficulty does not result in a disjointed feeling in the picture. Problem instead seems to lie in much of the dialog, which comes across as wooden and contrived. Reynolds and Down do what they can to keep things going but their attempts at witty banter never appear natural." Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote, "Once the movie gets into the caper itself, which occupies the last quarter of the picture, 'Rough Cut' suddenly acquires its identity as an action film, but it's nearly too late. By then we're on the point of losing interest. It's all that dreadful dialogue." Charles Champlin of the Los Angeles Times stated, "At its least, 'Rough Cut' is a sleek and featherweight care lifter. At its best, it almost works as a caper to compare with the best of a genre." Larry Kart of the Chicago Tribune gave the film three stars out of four and called it "one of the most quirkily fascinating films to come along in some time." Gary Arnold of The Washington Post called the film "all too aptly titled," explaining that its "principal flaws are Don Siegel's stiff jointed direction and a lackluster plot." "I felt the picture was meant to be a parody, but I don't think it's broad enough," said Reynolds. "It went for something subtle that might have been too subtle. I really don't think it's clear enough, and it could have been a lot better. Compared to At Long Last Love it's just a masterpiece. You have to look at these things in perspective, after all."