Sleuth (1972)

It's really best if you know absolutely nothing about the plot before watching Sleuth. It's also really best if you watch the original before the remake, if you do decide to torture yourself with the remake. And most of all, it's best if you see Anthony Shaffer's play onstage before either of the films. My mom saw the play in San Francisco, and I'll never forget her story of how exciting it was. Seeing Sleuth onstage was an experience, she always said. The film just isn't the same.Both Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine were nominated for Best Actor at the 1973 Oscars, and while both are tour-de-force parts, they were beaten out by Marlon Brando in The Godfather, which was pretty ridiculous. I had a Sleuth marathon and watched both versions on back-to-back evenings, and it wasn't until I watched the 2007 version that I truly appreciated Laurence Olivier's performance. You really don't have to watch the remake, though; you can just appreciate all Larry does the first time around. He truly embodies the role as Anthony Shaffer wrote it. You can actually see the wheels turning in his head as he and others play out his games, and the more the games are played, the more he feels alive and virile. He's excited, and always in control, and more than perhaps any other of his performances I've seen, you can imagine that he actually lives in the mental state of his character even when the cameras are turned off. Without revealing any more of the plot, I'll move on to the other main performance.Michael Caine is the dumb to Larry's smarts, the youth to his age, and the emotion to his cunning. He does a very good job, and I guarantee there will be certain scenes of his that will stick with you decades after you watch them. I happen to like Michael Caine more than Laurence Olivier, but in my reviews I try not to let personal feelings interfere with objective talent. However, Michael Caine is the infinitely more likable character in the story, and if you're as partial to him as I am, you'll probably be very rattled by this version. As anxious as you'll be to watch the remake and see him in the larger role, once you do, you'll realize his place was best in the 1972 version. He's much more convincing as the low-class "Alfie" type than as the blue-blood who thinks quicker than he breathes.Joe Mankiewicz's direction was very odd, splicing in close-ups of objects around the house in the middle of long shots that were meant to immerse audiences in the tense dialogue. It was jarring and added nothing to the story. John Addison obviously got his wires crossed and believed he was scoring music for Murder by Death, Without a Clue, or some other spoof. His music had no place in an intense drama, and if I'm being kind, I'll say it was distracting.Fans of either of the main leads will probably want to rent this classic, and since you didn't grow up hearing my mom's story, you won't be nearly as disappointed in it as I was. At the very least you'll get to watch some good acting, but be forewarned: I had nightmares after I watched it! Kiddy warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to violence and some frightening images, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

"Sleuth" was the final film directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz and so far it is the only one that I've ever seen, and it's a complete and total masterpiece. the movie is based on the popular Broadway play of the same name by Anthony Shaffer who also wrote the screenplay of the film as well. The main character of the film is a middle aged British crime novelist named Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) who invites a young hairdresser to his huge mansion named Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) who happens to be in love with Wyke's wife and both men try to get revenge on each other by playing dangerous games on each other throughout the rest of the movie. The film was the second of four movies that Olivier and Caine made together and in this movie they give very impressive performances which are so good it surprises me that those two actually weren't the original actors for the original Broadway production, and as a result they both got well deserved best actor Oscar nominations for their profound work. Shaffer's script along with John Addison's Oscar nominated score and especially Mankiewicz's Oscar nominated direction kept me on the edge of my seat throughout most of the entire film. I wrote in my review of "Death on the Nile" that I felt like I was watching a clue game in the form of a movie, but with this movie I felt the same way but the only difference being that this movie only has a 2 person cast. It is very unfortunate to me that these days Hollywood is remaking a lot of the great masterpieces of the last century but this movie was remade in 2007, and this is a movie that should never have been remade. In an interview a few months before his death Paul Newman was looking back on his career as an actor and in that very same interview he said "No one should ever remake "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." This movie is a pure example of what mystery movies should be like and how they should be made, and is arguably one of the best mysteries I've seen that wasn't directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is one of 1972's ten best films

As you'll find out very quickly during the film, there are basically two characters in this whole entire 2:20 runtime. Needless to say considering the sort of very intricate dialog required for this film's atmosphere, the closer attention to cinematography, and just overall the very highly ambitious construction around such a basic plot...there is an enormous amount of work on display in this piece, and about half the film relies on both lead actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier who produce masterful performances, and whether too theatrical for the tastes of some, there's no denying the excellence manifested throughout this eerie comedy. So there's no questioning the cumulative quality of all those elements, from the acting to the cinematography, the fine structure, and the very well done job for such a limited setting. But the problem here is the film is arguably 30 minutes too long, not that the film even stretches its scenes but rather adds just too much in the end. There's just too much "Sleuth" in 'Sleuth'. The film feels like it's about a couple of mystery-thrillers in one, there are just too many elements in the story, too many full acts put together, it's just too heavy for one single motion picture and the whole point of it could've been delivered without some of its extra weight. As we're through a good 1hr30, there comes another full act to the play with its own tensions, events... it's a little bit of overkill really. But this doesn't take away the great cinema work besides that aspect. It's just that when past that point of smooth rhythm and a few good twists already, the viewer is left with the ending as a final impression as the conclusion of the whole piece; and one could very well feel the last chapter here is on the side of excess spoiling an otherwise grand coup of cinema.

You can tell this movie was based on a play because it's all set in one place and there's a clear turning point in the middle. The performances are theatrical, not over-the-top but with wide ranges of emotions. There are so many swings of power between the main characters. They are cocky and childishly gleeful when they're in control and miserable or desperate when they're being taken advantage of. It's impressive that Sleuth consistently maintains our interest with so few actors and only one location.I'm not sure there's much depth to the story. It's more psychological, about the way we manipulate each-other or try to get the upper hand. It reminds me of The Prestige where two magicians try to outsmart each- other, weaving traps for each-other, hopelessly falling into them and growing ever more spiteful. The ironic thing with so many of these endless, spiraling conflicts is how similar the two parties are. Palestine and Israel, Serbia and Croatia, Borden and Angier, Andrew Wyke and Milo Tindle. Why must they be antagonistic when they have so many common interests and could help each-other immensely?The mansion has a personality of its own. The dolls, toys and collectibles are given screen-time of their own. It would be a mistake to read too much into those close-ups. It works simply in creating mood and giving us time to think. Plus, it adds a bit of creepiness. As if all the events are being watched. There are certainly some aspects of horror to this movie. The music is nice as well although I don't think there was much. The cinematography is simple but effective. It feels non-intrusive but makes the scenes more dynamic somehow.This movie plays out a bit like a mystery thriller, a whodunnit. An investigator comes regarding a possible murder but indeed, the plot thickens. It's hard not to give anything away. But movies shouldn't lean too heavily on twists lest they are predicted and that was an issue here. The movie is perhaps too clever for itself. It becomes a pattern and loses meaning and realism to the point that I didn't believe anything the characters said or did. For all I knew, it was just another part of their game.I actually expected more twists than there were. So I felt a bit let down. It seems to go 3/4 of the way and then back down. There's no clear message, it's just entertainment, but then why not bring down the house with a great surprise ending? Nevertheless, Sleuth manages to keep things tense and interesting all the way through. The directions it takes you are certainly creative and unexpected. It gradually evolves through many different atmospheres. Laughter gives way to shouting or crying or relief. The actors do a very good job. But it's all merely an exercise, albeit a fun and unique one.