Fantastic!

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

I envy the viewers who thought this was a brilliant film because I just don't see it. The performances of Olivier and Caine were good of course, but the story itself defies credibility. I had the same reaction when I saw the 2007 remake with the Michael Caine role reversed, with Caine portraying Andrew against Jude Law's Milo Tindle. In some cases, this story is even more outlandish, the clown costume Milo was expected to wear a case in point. Why go through all the machinations to simulate a jewel robbery when it could have been over and done with, without all the nonsense?But the one thing I think eludes most viewers is that whole business about the third shot being a blank. In both pictures, Milo reacts as if he'd really been shot dead. But why? And even if one argues that he collapsed from the fright of potentially being murdered, how does one come to grips with the fact that at some point he would wake up? At that point, would Milo have meekly left the Wyke estate without further confrontation with the scheming novelist? The whole scenario as presented doesn't ring true for this viewer.I've given this picture a one point higher rating than the remake primarily because of Olivier and Caine, and the oddball set up with all the toys throughout the Wyke mansion. For a while this one didn't look like it was headed for the same type of finale as the later picture, but Olivier's character managed to turn things around to it's inevitable conclusion. Though the outcome remained the same for Milo Tindle in both movies, I'd have to say that in the remake, Milo's death scene made a bigger splash.

Takes the Mickey, as they say. Surprise, surprise. The joke's on Shaffer, but I don't think he knew it. He doesn't seem at all aware of it in his off-putting interview, so intensely modest. Lord Olivier, whom we all know as Larry, is first reported to have had an extremely low opinion of Sleuth. It's a piece of p, he is supposed to have told Anthony Quayle, while railing at him for appearing in the original stage performance. I can't help feeling that Larry eventually leapt at the opportunity of taking the p out of Shaffer by performing in it himself. He gives the hammiest ever act as the passé whodunnit writer, capturing every nuance of cliché, in wild exaggeration. No-one seems aware of just how corny he comes across; not Shaffer, Mankiewicz, or even Mickey Caine. Or are they ? Or we ? It's very difficult to tell. But these days it's also a little difficult to last the full distance. Its almost unaccountable past popularity must have been because it was different then, though virtually dead today. Do the young of these times catch the slightest whiff of this kind of whimsy Wimsey ?

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.

A man who loves games and theater (Larry Olivier) invites his wife's lover (Michael Caine) to meet him, setting up a battle of wits with potentially deadly results.As far as detective stories go, this may be the best ever put to film. And the cast is incredible. With all due respect to Olivier, Michael Caine steals the show and gives a performance unlike we have ever seen from him. Although he is never a bad actor, it is rare that he excels on quite this level.Although not the primary plot, class conflict is also raised between Wyke, the long-established English country gentleman, compared to Tindle, the son of an Italian immigrant from the working-class streets of London. This is an interesting subplot, because it makes one wonder: is Wyke upset that his wife is having an affair, or more upset that she is with someone he sees as beneath her?