The Big Sleep (1978)

"The Big Sleep", re-located from 1940s Los Angeles to 1970s Britain. An impeccable cast cannot overcome the fact that this is really a rather lackluster production. It is not that this is a bad film. It is simply that, despite the color cinematography, this version comes off as pale and bland in comparison with Howard Hawk's superb black-and-white 1946 version.

1970's England. Aging and cynical private eye Philip Marlowe (superbly played with world-weary grace by Robert Mitchum) gets hired by the frail and crippled General Sternwood (a moving performance by Jimmy Stewart) to investigate a blackmail scheme that proves to be much more complicated than it initially seems to be.Writer/director Michael Winner relates the intricate and involving story at a steady pace, maintains an appropriately seamy tone throughout (such risqué subject matter as porn and homosexuality gets depicted with unwavering explicitness), stages the action set pieces with aplomb, treats the material in a respectful manner without ever resorting to either condescending kitsch or sentimental nostalgia, and makes neat use of the London locations. Sarah Miles really sinks her teeth into the juicy role of tart and conniving gambling addict Charlotte Sternwood. Alas, Candy Clark goes way too over the top with her hysterical portrayal of unstable nymphet Camilla. Fortunately, the strong supporting cast more than compensates for this, with especially stand-out contributions from Richard Boone as the brutish Lash Camino, Oliver Reed as fearsome mobster Eddie Mars, Harry Andrews as loyal butler Norris, Edward Fox as smarmy book maker Joe Brody, and especially Joan Collins as the ruthless Agnes Lozelle. Robert Paynter's slick cinematography provides a pleasing glossy look. Jerry Fielding's funky-throbbing score hits the right-on groovy spot. Worth a watch.

WHENEVER A CLASSIC film is remade, a true classic that is, the producers are aware from the start that they will have opened that proverbial can of nails. Compatison, criticism and all sorts of charges of bloody murder are sure to follow.SO IT WAS with today's subject matter title in THE BIG SLEEP (ITC/Winkist/United Artists. 1978); but, in this case, it's not for reasons usually cited. This is our considered 'professional' opinion because the original version of THE BIG SLEEP (Warner Brothers, 1946), which featured Humphrey Bogart and young paramour/trophy wife, Miss Lauren Bacall, is very good, but never crosses that threshold into the very elite productions.WHILE IT TRULY had a lot of the potential that is required to be considered, those certain intangibles just weren't there. In short it is no CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA nor not even KING KONG. The Good News that it is still better than the remake.WHEN ONE EXAMINES its entirety, we discover that some of the more obvious reasons are unusually led into the witness chair in an attempt to affix blame. Hence we have the following, 'usual suspects' awaiting en queue; those being: star & featured roles, supporting cast and general fidelity to the original story and characters.CERTAINLY ONE MUST come to the reasonable conclusion that none of these factors are 'the murderer'; although there could be made a strong case against some of their being complacent and knowing accomplices.ANY PRODUCTION WHICH boasts of having two such iconic stars as this picture does is surely said to be out of the old 'starting blocks' with ease. The combination of James Stewart and Robert Mitchum (considered by many to be the best of the screen Matlowes)was a concession to both critical approval, as well as to Box Office $ucce$$!* WHAT WE FAULT as being the weak link in this movie is its setting. Had it not been transported to contemporary London, instead of to 1940's Los Angeles of Raymond Chandler's pen; it would have been a much better,interesting and more entertaining a movie.AS EVIDENCE OF what we are driving at, just take a gander at the previous Phillip Marlowe outing in FAREWELL, MY LOVELY (ITC/????/Avco Embassy, 1975) as proof.AND JUST WHY was such a change of venue or setting implemented as cornerstone of this filming of THE BIG SLEEP? We believe it was the fault of 'the Suits' in the Board Rooms of the Companies who were footing the bill.AS OFFERING THE best comparison that we can to strengthen and perhaps prove our case, we must refer to the old SHERLOCK HOLMES Series, with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.** Those stories were filmed in a contemporary (1940's) setting for one simple reason; that being, the bottom line. It was much more economical, ergo, more profitable to do it this way; rather than having incurred the extra expense of Victorian costuming, Olde London Towne sets, horse drawn carriages, etc.SO IT IS true to this Marlowe romp that present day London would be far less costly than recreating the Los Angeles of a bygone era; as was done for FAREWELL, MY LOVELY.THE PROSECUTION RESTS. your witness! NOTE: * The popularity of Raymond Chandler's cynical, world weary sleuth is evidenced by the number of major movies made in the '40's on' all done by various studios and not as a run of "B" or "Series" movies.NOTE:** These don't include THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (both 20th Century-Fox, 1939)which both starred and originated the Rathbone-Bruce team and were set as they should Be, in Victorian/Edwardian England, Scotland, Wakes and Ireland.

Michael Winner, who claims as many of the credits (I use the word loosely) as he can for this celluloid abomination, is an intriguing phenomenon. He makes dreadful films, but presumably they earn enough at the box office to persuade yet another philistine, bean-counting producer to sign him up for another assault on sensitive eyes.As a sideline, the horrendously smug and obese Winner is a restaurant critic. Some of the less respectful publications in the UK hint that Winner is so loathed by chefs that every dish he is served contains a not so secret ingredient. How can I explain? The special stuff that is added in the kitchen to Winner's sauces and soups could otherwise have been deposited at the local branch of the Sperm Bank.Does Winner think he makes good films? How did he persuade Mitchum, Stewart, Reed et al to take part in this dire production? Do superannuated movie legends have no self-respect? Surely they don't need the money. Shame on them all for signing up with him.As a standalone film, this might earn 3 stars out of ten. As an unbelievably misconceived remake of a 1940s classic (despite all the loose ends of one of the most complicated and creakiest plots ever), I'm being too generous in awarding the IMDb minimum of one star.