Given the ongoing onslaught of remakes of films, both classic and trashy, that Hollywood has been overdosing on in recent years, there is an obvious impulse to label this new version of "Sleuth" a remake of one of the few films in history in which the entire cast was nominated for acting Oscars ("Give Em Hell, Harry!" would be the other; "Who's Afraid of the Virginia Woolf?" would be on the list too if they had not undone the inherent claustrophobia of Edward Albee's play with the unnecessary road trip). However, usually when you are "remaking" a play, you stick to the play. Such is the case with the various versions of classics like "A Streetcar Named Desire," where the changes between the Brando-Leigh) version and the one with Baldwin-Lange are relatively minute. However, what we have here is a reconcpetualization, courtesy of Harold Pinter. The key change is not simply updating Wyke's toys from games and puzzles to technology, but rather the way Pinter comes up with a totally new "third" act.
The point of reference for this movie should not be all of the remakes that Hollywood is infatuated with, but those rare reconceputaliations that are done for artistic rather than commercial reasons (the one that came to my mind the most while watching "Sleuth" was Akira Kurosawa's transformation of "King Lear" into "Ran"). In that regard the key member of the production is not director Kenneth Brannagh but screenwriter Harold Pinter. Getting Pinter to do this script was pivotal, because it is difficult to fault a Nobel Laureate when he wants to reimagine a script like this. Plus, Pinter has a track record of transforming the works of others, proven once and for all time by his script for "The French Lieutenant's Woman.Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
26 of 29 people found the following review helpful
Worth seeing after the 1972 versionApril 2 2008
- Published on Amazon.com
I loved the 1972 version of "Sleuth" where Sir Laurence Olivier played the cuckolded Andrew Wyck and Michael Caine played cocky young Milo Tindle who'd stolen Wyck's wife of 14 years. When I heard the film had been remade with Caine now in the role of the elderly Wyck, I had to see how he'd handle himself. While Caine was interesting in the reprised role, if you can see only one version of "Sleuth," see the original with Olivier and Caine.
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
The cozy, traditional English exterior still stands but the inside has been gutted and replaced with a cold, sterile design. The plot still works until it degenerates in the Pinterian excess of the final third. These scenes play like a revival of The Collection and may feel more dated than the original version of Sleuth. Certainly, no demerits on the acting front, though. Both stars are superb.
There's an entertaining commentary with Branagh and Michael Caine that's at it's best when Ken quizzes him on the original film. (We also learn, remarkably, that when Jude asks him in the film "What's it all about?" this wasn't an inside joke and wasn't even spotted until the film was finished. I assumed that and Milo's new job as a part time chauffeur were throwaway Alfie asides.)
27 of 33 people found the following review helpful
It's No Mystery Why This Remake Pales in ComparisonJan. 23 2008
- Published on Amazon.com
I don't know if I would go so far as to call the original film version of "Sleuth" a classic, but it is a darn good film and features virtuoso performances from Sir Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine.
Approximately a year ago, I heard of the plans to remake "Sleuth". Groan. Can't they at least try to come up with a new idea in Hollywood? Change the character's names and the title and call something it new? Why mess with a classic? Then, I remembered the original is a very good film, but not a classic. Michael Caine and Jude Law were signed to play the roles Olivier and Caine originated. This could be interesting. Michael Caine appearing in both versions? My interest was piqued. When I heard Kenneth Branagh was directing from a Harold Pinter screenplay, I was hooked.
The new version has some good things going for it, but the bad things far outweigh the good making "Sleuth (2007)" a disappointment.
Milo Tindle (Law), an out-of-work actor, arrives at the estate of Andrew Wyke (Caine), a hugely successful mystery novelist. Wyke has summoned the young man to discuss the affair he is having with his wife. Milo insists Wyke's wife is leaving him and Wyke is only too glad to let her go, he has a mistress of his own. But he wants the separation and divorce to be permanent; he doesn't want his ex-wife running back to him when Milo's money runs out. Wyke suggests Milo `break' into the house and steal some jewels worth One Million Pounds. Wyke has the name of a fence who will give Milo 800,000 pounds for the jewels and that should last them a while. Andrew has thought of everything. Milo agrees and Wyke uses his home's elaborate electronics and surveillance system to guide him through the process, to make it seem real. But it wouldn't seem real unless Wyke found the robber and defended his home would it?
"Sleuth" originated as a play and it showcases two characters who play a game of verbal and psychological cat and mouse, sparring with one another, trying to gain the upper hand. In the new version, there are many changes, many of which benefit the overall film.
As Milo drives up to Wyke's house, Branagh introduces us to the elaborate security system the multi-millionaire has installed in his country estate. Milo's car triggers an alarm at the gate and his every move is caught on surveillance camera - there doesn't seem to be a centimeter of the expansive grounds he wouldn't be able to see on one of the system's surveillance screens.
As Milo attempts the `break-in', Wyke watches him every step of the way, directing him as he watches his adversary's every move. And Tindle gets caught up in the game, using his acting skills to become a `burglar'.
The new version of this film is about half as long as the original was. And this benefits the new film. Because of the length, the original version seems even more stagey; to watch two actors facing off against one another for the entire length of a film running about two and a half hours doesn't help the film escape its stage roots. The new version is about 90 minutes long allowing it to move at a faster clip, giving us less time to think about the fact we are simply watching two actors on screen the whole time.
It is also interesting to watch Caine take on the other role in the story. Michael Caine is one of the best actors of our time, but to see him play the other side of the coin provides for an interesting look at his career. He portrays Andrew Wyke in a suitably devious way. As the story progresses, we see shades of his anger, his relief, his amusement, all qualities we would expect to see in a famous mystery novelist.
And that is where the benefits of "Sleuth (2007)" end.
When Milo drives up to the large country estate, we expect the two actors to face off in a huge, expansive maze. The original film provided a huge country house for the two actors to chase each other through. Of course, this provides an advantage to Andrew (played by Olivier in the original) because he knows the various secrets of his expansive home. When Milo (Law) drives up to the estate in this new version, I had high hopes. It appears to be the exact same type of home. Then, he enters the house and we immediately see the hand of Andrew's wife in the ridiculous modern furniture and design. Initially, the house seems unusual and interesting. We soon realize the two actors are moving through a series of four rooms. What happened to the rest of the estate? This setting appears to be little more than a luxury apartment in some swank new building. It seems very small and claustrophobic. And very `play-like'.
For a while, the shorter length seems to benefit the film. But as Law's Milo Tindle becomes more engrossed in the story, the actor becomes less and less convincing. Law seems to think he needs to scream, shout and act like an actor in a horror film in order to get his character across, almost as though he is rushing through all of his character's emotions. You could put some orange glaze on Law and serve him at Easter dinner. His hammy performance is even more egregious when you watch him act with Caine. Caine is an accomplished actor and can make even the most over the top performance seem more natural. Andrew is an interesting character and Caine imbues him with calmness, making him more believable. Law, on the other hand, seems possessed by the devil as he grins maniacally and chews the scenery.
In the original, Tindle is a hairdresser, in this new version, an out-of-work actor. Yet, oddly, Wyke refers to the younger man as a hairdresser a few times. Is this a mistake? Did Pinter simply forget to replace all of the references to `hairdresser' when he copied the original script? Is this meant to be a put down?
If you are going to remake a well-known film, and rework the story, make sure it works. The beauty of the original is it is basically two stories and the two characters change their roles. In the first half, one man has the upper hand. In the second, the other does. In Pinter's version, one man has the upper hand. Then the other. Then later, the other regains the advantage. Oh, wait, maybe not. It goes back and forth, almost on a whim, and the game of cat and mouse loses focus and doesn't make sense. There is also a ludicrous plot development late in the story which does nothing to help Law's performance, only exaggerating all of the bad elements of his style.
"Sleuth (2007)" is a big disappointment. Rent the original and watch two actors at the top of their game spar against one another.
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful
It Is What It Is...March 14 2008
- Published on Amazon.com
. I just saw this film on DVD, having missed it last Fall: even in Los Angeles it was at the theater for only a brief time. I had been waiting in eager anticipation for the DVD. Am I disappointed? No. Did I like it? Absolutely. Is it a perfect film? Not quite. Is it flawed? Marginally.
Only a very ill-informed person would not know of the 1972 film of the same title. Sleuth And this is part of the problem, for the plot turns on a surprise twist which will be no surprise if one has seen the earlier film. In other words, if you already know what's going to happen, well, let's just say the fictive required suspension of disbelief becomes a much bigger hurdle.
And then again, there's something about the pace and choreography of the film: it seems a little off beat, meaning it's either too fast, or misses the beat--but this too may be due to my excessive familiarly with the earlier masterpiece. I saw it at the theater when it débuted, and I've owned the original DVD issue for years: in fact, I watch it at least every six months. Sleuth
The original film has much more humour: it floats lighter on the wing. The original film was a much "richer" film; this one is very sleek and minimalistic. And this film of course has a much harder edge--as one would expect in the 21st Century. Both films have exquisite set design--no doubt about that: there's plenty to look at always. The sound track is okay; but the sound track for the original was excellent. Harold Pinter is one of our finest playwrights of the English language--(along with David Mamet The Spanish Prisoner Heist The Winslow Boy ). Pinter's dialogue is like the original Anthony Schaffer play run through a sieve: all the parts are there, but much of the ornate sparkle is lost--again, 21st Century minimalism, etc.
I've always loved Michael Caine and of course he was superb in the original. Here he's pretty good--and gets better in the later-half of the film. Nevertheless, there's something about the pacing and the dialogue which compares unfavorably with the original.
Jude Law is one of our finest actors, full stop. (He was especially perfect as Bosie Douglas in Wilde Wilde (Special Edition). He was excellent in the first half of The Talented Mr. Ripley The Talented Mr. Ripley. He was pretty good in Cold Mountain Cold Mountain (Two-Disc Collector's Edition).) He is the star here: uniformly excellent throughout, but especially good in the second half.
If a viewer can see this film as an independent work of art s/he may enjoy it more. If the viewer is too familiar with the original, he may be marginally disappointed.
By the way, I didn't find anything exceptional about Branagh's directing (cf. Shackleton - The Greatest Survival Story of All Time (3-Disc Collector's Edition) Conspiracy ), the cinematography, nor the editing. Still, the set design is outstanding in a creepy, minimalistic, sterile sort of way.
5-stars for some kind of artistic/intellectual effort .
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful
The original is a CLASSIC ....this is a Klunker...and a disgrace....ZERO stars.May 17 2008
- Published on Amazon.com
I didn't think it was possible for me to like the original version of SLEUTH (1972 with Olivier and Caine) more than I already do...but after watching this wretched mess of a fraud...er film..I appreciate its greatness even more. While the stars all fawn over Harold Pinters script in the self congratulatory "making of"..I was left dumbfounded by their arrogance and stupidity. Fortunately the film going public stayed away in droves and the critical lambasting this film received was correct. I must admit I couldn't resist due to my love of the material and the original but it was a horrendous waste of time and I urge you to not make the same mistake.