HotToastyRag 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.

Hitchcoc Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier together. Need I say more. This, of course, was based on an incredibly successful stage play. It involves more twists and turns than can be mentioned here. The cool thing is that there is gamesmanship at every turn, and these two wonderful British talents don't disappoint. It involves a plot to get rid of a extravagant woman through manipulation. The kicker is that the two principles are both masters at solving problems, using creative solutions. They are equals and that's where the fun comes in. I have always loved it when a mystery film has enough complexity to have me fooled. Being a suspicious viewer, I really watch for nuances in these films, but this time they got by me. One of the best films of the Seventies.

SnoopyStyle Crime fiction writer Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) invites hairdresser Milo Tindle (Michael Caine). He surprises Milo with questioning if he wanted to marry his wife Marguerite. Marguerite is high maintenance and he suggests a scheme to Milo to steal his jewelery while he claims the insurance. After guiding Milo all around the house in a fake break-in, he shoots Milo. Inspector Doppler comes to investigate Milo's disappearance but it's only the start of the continuing twists.What's the motivation for Milo to go see Andrew in the first place? What's in the note? That kind of bothered me. It starts like an Agatha Christie murder mystery in that it feels fake. It's highly questionable why Milo would trust anything that Andrew comes up with. The whole fake break-in feels fake. Luckily it's a little comical. It's fun to have Olivier and Caine play around but I never bought into the whole premise. I'm not thrilled by all the twists and turns. It felt like manufactured story constructions but Olivier and Caine are wonderful.

petra_ste Sleuth is a screen writing master class. Rich writer Andrew (Olivier, rarely better) invites Milo (Caine, a worthy sparring partner) to his country mansion with an offer. What starts as a heist movie becomes a psychological thriller about vengeful men trying to outplay each other.Now, how do you keep a story about few characters stuck in a single location interesting? First, conflict. The movie is drenched in it. Milo - young, handsome - is the lover of Andrew's wife. Andrew claims not to care but, from the way he glances at her portrait or casually trashes her stuff, we know better. Class antagonism sizzles. To Andrew, Milo is an upstart, a social climber - and a son of immigrants, to boot. To Milo, Andrew is a pathetic relic, obsessed with games and murder mystery novels. Two men who dislike each other and yet have to interact and cooperate - this is inherently compelling to watch.Second, variety. Sleuth continuously challenges the viewer's allegiance. We are never sure whom we are rooting for - both characters are, at their core, unpleasant, reptilian sickos, but they are smart and unpredictable. Situation is fluid, always evolving; they're constantly turning the tables on each other.Third, dialogue. Each of the two leads has his own peculiar voice. Erudite Andrew asks Milo to trash the room, as to create believable signs of struggle, and adds: "Convincing, not Carthaginian". A bitter undertone of class resentment often slips into Milo's words: "We come from different worlds, you and me... the only game we played was to survive... if you didn't win, you just didn't finish. Loser, lose all. You probably don't understand that".As the plot unfolds, games become the main theme of the movie. Sex as a game ("And marriage is the penalty!", comments Andrew); a criminal plan temporarily becoming a playful bonding moment for the two; class-conflict as a zero-sum game; the constant attempt to show one's superiority over the other. Then games take a darker turn - somewhere between Darwin and Freud. The sadistic pleasure of knowing you've got the best hand against a hated adversary becomes the whole purpose of the game itself.9/10