classicsoncall Comparisons against the original 1972 film starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine in the Milo role have not been favorable for this remake. I haven't seen the prior picture but will likely seek it out now, based on other reviewers' comments on this board. My main point of concern with the story is with the character of Milo Tindle, portrayed by Jude Law. To my mind, anyone dumb enough to fall for the plan laid out by Andrew Wycke (Michael Caine) to simulate a break-in and steal his jewelry, wouldn't be smart enough to come up with the revenge plan he masterminded to even the score. Not only that, but Milo was ready to accept Andrew's second proposition to live in the guest suite and cut Maggie, the woman we never see, right out of the picture. I'll admit, I didn't see the original twist coming that revealed Wyche's third gun shot to be a blank, but knowing that he was an utterly remorseless liar, it didn't take much effort to figure he would set his opponent up for the kill for real. The finale was a bit more abrupt than I expected, but quite welcome given the absurd nature of the story.

HotToastyRag Besides the title, the name of the characters, and the first few minutes, the 2007 Sleuth is a completely different movie than the 1972 Sleuth. Widely touted as a remake, featuring a toe-to-toe between Alfie and Alfie, it really isn't a remake at all. Anyone who liked the original will detest this version, and vice versa.On paper, it's a great idea: Take the actor who played the younger part in the original Sleuth and cast him as the old man. Take the actor who remade Alfie and cast him opposite the actor who originated Alfie. How can that possibly go wrong? Two reasons: Harold Pinter's screenplay and Kenneth Branagh's direction. Pinter bragged not only that he'd never seen the original but that he didn't use a single line of dialogue from Anthony Shaffer's play. Even the most innocuous plot description—one man invites a younger man over to his house for a drink—can't be said about the remake, because in this version, the younger man invites himself over. That tiniest detail makes all the difference to Anthony Shaffer's original plot.Kenneth Branagh has proved time and again he doesn't really understand the classics. Just take a look at what he did to Murder on the Orient Express. In his direction, he places the camera in areas he thinks will add to the mystery of the story and will put audiences on the edge of their seats. For example, the first few minutes are shown through a security camera. Neither of the leads' faces are shown during their initial meeting, which, if shown and well-acted, would have added an extra depth to the story. He constantly places the camera in different parts of the minimalistic house, hoping that stripes along the wall, elongated mirrors, or bird's eye views will make audiences think, "Oo! I'm confused—nothing's what it seems!" At first, I had my doubts about Michael Caine taking on Laurence Olivier's role, because he doesn't reek of wealth and cunning intelligence, as the role requires. He was perfect in the younger role, because audiences forever associate him with Alfie, the lovable Cockney ladies' man. However, in the remake, the role is entirely different. He's rich, but his house is minimalistic and modern, rather than opulent and obviously belonging to the family for generations. He isn't cunning, either, and the entire raison d'être of Laurence Olivier's character—his need for mystery and games—is replaced by homosexuality, in a cheap attempt to make audiences think the film is cutting edge.Jude Law's character is also cut down and changed. His role is far more cunning than in the 1972 version, but he's also written to be quick-tempered, disgusting, and almost deranged. He's a very handsome man, but for some reason, he's continually drawn to roles that make him either physically unattractive or so horrible on the inside that his outsides don't matter. If you happen to have a crush on Jude, you might not want to see him in this movie, as he's particularly creepy. This film actually gave me nightmares after I watched it.Without giving anything away of the plot, I'll express one more concern with Pinter's script. In Anthony Shaffer's play, the older character has a particular motivation that in turn, once realized, motivates the entire rest of the story. The remake uses the original motivation, but the way in which it's executed is reduced in length and emotional impact. Therefore, the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. I watched both versions of Sleuth on back-to-back evenings, and while I didn't like the first one, I was appalled by how much I hated the second.Kiddy warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to language and violence, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.DLM Warning: If you suffer from vertigo or dizzy spells, like my mom does, this movie might not your friend. There are strobing lights and distracting wall designs that might make you sick. In other words, "Don't Look, Mom!"

krstanic-47084 I understand why everybody speaks about how remake stayed in the shadow of the original, but I've first watched this one and I was impressed. Maybe because I love the movies with the talking and expressing feelings rather than some car chase action or romantic crap with silly humor. Two great actors, great movie and nothing else (M.Caine from original movie, but in different role now).After watching, I've enjoyed in original black-white movie even more.

GusF Based on the 1970 play of the same name by Anthony Shaffer and adapted for the screen by Harold Pinter, this is a decent but not great film. In spite of the excellent performances of Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, I was not exactly enamoured of the 1972 version so my hopes were not too high when it came to this one. It was on about the same level that I expected it to be. It is very well directed by Kenneth Branagh - whom I was lucky enough to see play Leontes in "The Winter's Tale" at the Garrick Theatre last week, incidentally - and there are many wonderful shots but the script by Pinter is not great. In some respects, I preferred it to the 1972 version and in others I preferred the 1972 version. However, I don't think that either version is as clever or psychologically interesting as it thinks it is. In both cases, the first 20 to 25 minutes are the strongest. If this film had not been directed by Branagh, I would probably not have bothered watching it, to be honest.Succeeding Olivier in the role of the manipulative Andrew Wyke, Caine gives a great performance but Law's performance in Caine's original role of Milo Tindle is a bit lacking. It's not a bad one by any means. He just goes a bit too far over the top in some respects. Considering that Law previously played the title character in the 2004 remake of Caine's 1966 film "Alfie", he is making a career out of succeeding him in roles. They should have cast him in the remakes of "Get Carter" and "The Italian Job"! In all seriousness, I liked the fact that the silly and distracting thing with the clown costume was removed. However, the homosexual themes were far more interesting when they were kept comparatively subtle in the first half as opposed to the unambiguous attempt at seduction in the second half. The exclusion of the Tea subplot was a mistake and this version's ending is weaker as a result. Oh, and it would have been nice if the underrated Alec Cawthorne had reprised his role as Inspector Doppler, called Inspector Block in this version, as was originally intended but he was unavailable. The cameos by Branagh and Pinter were nice though.Overall, there's nothing terribly wrong with the film but it is fairly bland and boring. The original was far too long at 138 minutes but this one still drags at 88 minutes. In both cases, the concept is far more effective than the execution, which is a shame.