SLEUTH - 8/10 (B+)

Well, that was gay. And I really mean it, just not in the pathetic way some use to refer to something as stupid. I had heard this was homoerotic, but never in my wildest dreams could I have expected it to be as homoerotic as it was. Had it been any more homoerotic Jude Law and Michael Caine would have been fucking. This movie brings new meaning to the term. It's so homoerotic that it's going to turn many off, but it turned me on. This was so sexy, stylish, and electrifying. Jude Law just oozed sex. He and Caine deliver game performances. Had it not been so delightfully homoerotic then it wouldn't have been nearly as enjoyable. I've got to give it credit for being so ballsy and not caring that it's going to alienate a lot of viewers. Casual renters picking this up will be in for a surprise.

It's terrifically acted and written and directed for a good hour or so, so why does it fail? A poor sense of pacing. Ill-advised homoerotic overtones that are neither subtle or effective. A great deal of suspense that leads to absolutely NOTHING. And it all leads to one helluva terrible ending. It's a far cry from the original, so skip this and watch that one instead.

4/10 -> D

I really like the opening part. But after that it's a complete turn for worse. Jude Law and Caine are really good in their parts. It's a shame halfway through their characters become uninteresting chaoses. The whole setup feels too much like a theater show. If they were doing a modern reinterpretation of Sleuth on a movie media, I'd expect that they would at least try to be more cinematic than this lazy work done here.

Sleuth

Fan-tas-tic. I absolutely love a film that can excite me with dialogue and an ambiguous narrative. I was intrigued throught. Jude Law, one of my favourite actors, and Michael Caine, one of the actors that I almost always underestimate, are together - it's Alfie versus Alfie - and it's terrific.

It starts out very much like a play, the way the words are uttered reminds me of the boards, it's full of over-acting, but it's great and you soon warm to it. The start is very Pinteresque, reminding me of The Birthday Party in its oddness. I'm glad there are still daring films being made like this. I'd take this over Summer blockbusters any day of the week.

A-

There is not much daring when it is a remake and an inferior one to the original at that.

The homo-erotic overtones are pretty daring. As are using two huge star names to sell such a story, one of them being Michael Caine, the respected Academy Award winner. The use of language is also pretty daring ("cunt" is uttered once as are many others), and it's an R-rated feature, also daring as this limits its audience.

And save the whole "it's not as good as the original" pretentious, elitist, spiel. It doesn't make you look superior or intellectual - quite the opposite. We can all utter those words, but it means very little without any reason or backing argument.

A backing argument such as having seen the original and found the performances and the cat/mouse game in it far more convincing?

That'll do. At least it's something more than your previous value-less post.

I was lazy.

So your saying it was Homoerotic???

It was all right. Law's bad makeup job made it kind of hilariously bad at points, but I don't think its particularly daring, but Caine being able to play the opposite role is interesting. The performances are good, but its kind of pointless in the end. Would have served better performed as a new version of the play on stage than as a film.

C+

Law's "bad makeup job" wasn't meant to be convincing to the audience. We were in on that. Michael Caine's character was the mysterious one throughout, and he did a great job convincing me that anything was possible.

I'm glad you liked it.

But how do you know, did you ask the director of the film? It was intended in the original and to be honest it takes all the tension away from the scene, maybe it was intended, but it could have been better. Another thing, dam this film is ugly. Kenneth should know better.

I don't know for sure - but it's how I read the film. I thought it was pretty obvious that we were supposed to know that it was Law under the prosthetics (especially since you've just admitted that it was intended in the original).

No big deal

No it wasn't intended in the original, you have no idea that he was still alive until the reveal in the original. It's very intense not knowing there. There's the possibility of Law just playing multiple roles. Agreed though, not a big deal, I just thought it hurt the film.