User reviews

Many of the facets of this story could have been transplanted to the film noir period of the mid-20th century, and bar the occasional reference to technology (which could have otherwise been replaced for something of those times), this movie could have been set then (LA Confidential, anyone?). But it's not, its setting is contemporary. But I couldn't help but think that I would have liked to have seen this movie, and this cast, in a 1940s film noir. A glam Gillan would have been particularly good!

A drunken ex-cop, with memory loss due to alzheimer's, has had an experimental procedure that may help his condition. He gets approached about an old case he worked on, but cannot recall, and where the convicted man is near to his execution date.

Hiding his condition, out of a mixture of pride and knowing that he would not be seen as competent by those asking for his help, he meets the advocate and then the death row inmate, and believes the convicted man's claims of innocence in the murder he was jailed for.

Despite his condition, the ex-cop decides that the case is worth looking at again. No doubt he also thought that the mental exercise might do him some good - as would doing something useful be to his sense of pride (I state for anyone who can't see this premise as plausible).

As the ex-cop looks into the matter, he not only starts to see other possible suspects to the crime, but starts to regain his own memories, as his experimental medical procedure starts to work.

Large elements of the story are shown in flashback, from the point of view of a manuscript, written by one of the characters involved, as well as shorter flashbacks as the ex-cop gradually recalls his own past. Again, this is reminiscent of film noir, where a character may explain what happened and the movie shows it.

Russell Crowe is convincing as the drunken ex-cop with a shredded memory that is starting to come back to him. Tommy Flanagan is solid in support as his old-partner (he needs more character roles so we can see him more often) and Karen Gillan can now add 'femme fatale' to her acting resume.

This movie is better than most people seem to be saying. It's well told, the central cast are all solid and the story should keep you interested until the end.

It is however an end that not everyone may care for and has a penultimate confrontation scene that I found too contrived.

It's not the most engrossing film and is another one of those thrillers that is more cerebral than it is fast moving, but has interesting characters and an interesting enough plot to reach the end.

If you're hoping for a Russell Crowe action flick, you'll probably be disappointed. This isn't as good as "The Next Three Days", for example, but it's good enough to get Crowe and two of Scotland's best acting talents together on screen.

If you don't like film noir, or are expecting a fast-paced thriller, you may not like this.

Summary: Not bad, not brilliant either. Worth a watch (with the above provisos).

Greetings again from the darkness. It's easy to forget that Russell Crowe was once Oscar nominated three years in a row, winning Best Actor for Ridley Scott's epic, GLADIATOR (2000), and has probably deserved two or three additional nominations. His reputation has not won him many industry friends over the years, but to his credit, he keeps plugging away - some minor roles in big films, and some lead roles in smaller films. Crowe can still command the screen with his presence, even when the material is slight (see THE POPE'S EXORCIST, 2023).

This project from writer-director Adam Cooper (writer, EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS, 2014) and his frequent writing partner Bill Collage has been adapted from Eugen O. Chirovici's 2017 novel, "The Book of Mirrors". It's Cooper's directorial debut, and it's entertaining enough, especially if one can avoid comparisons to other similar crime drama films, especially the classic MEMENTO (2000). In this one, Crowe stars as Roy Freeman, a former homicide detective who lost his badge after a drunk driving accident. He has recently undergone an experimental brain procedure designed to help him regain some of the memories Alzheimer's has robbed him of. Roy's apartment has notes posted everywhere. These notes remind him of his name, remind him of his shoe size, and remind him that his Hungry Man dinners are hot when they come out of the microwave. Turns out, it's too late for a note to remind him not to put the TV remote in that same mircrowave.

A ten year old case he worked is brought up by a group looking to prevent an innocent man from being executed. Roy has no memory of the case, so he re-visits the files and tracks down his old partner, Jimmy Remis (played by Tommy Flanagan, in a reunion of GLADIATOR actors). What follows is a sufficiently intricate web of characters to keep us interested and guessing. The murder victim was Professor Wieder (Marton Csokas), and the usual suspects include his PTSD-suffering handyman Wayne Devereaux (Thomas M Wright), Wieder's research assistant and lover Laura Baines (Karen Gillan, Nebula in the Marvel Universe), Laura's other lover Richard Finn (Harry Greenwood) who is writing a book on the murder, and a couple other characters tossed in to knock Roy and us off track.

Flanagan and Csokas are two of my favorite character actors - both always bring something interesting to their roles, and here it's Gillan's Laura that seems to offer the most intrigue - changing names, locales, and personalities, all while publishing a book on a theory of how 'bad' memories can be replaced with good ones, or erased altogether (think of another classic film, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, 2004). Roy's flashbacks are handled by quick spurts of moments that he struggles to assemble, which allows us to struggle right alongside him. Roy's plight leaves us with the thought that it's possible to find yourself, and not like what you see. Memory is obviously crucial to the story, and for a second-level crime thriller, there is enough here to keep us going until the conclusion.

In theaters beginning March 22, 2024.

The movie is just average, things like music, cinematography etc. It's not bad but nothing new or special. The plot is a bit convoluted which will either keep you engaged or annoy you depending on your mood.

Solid performances from the main players, particularly the creepy yet sexy professor guy.

Russel Crowe is the main character, a retired detective with a new/old case. It's basically a mystery detective story with some added drama psychology elements.

The biggest problem is one has to keep ones attention to know what is happening but it's mostly just dialogue and Mr. Crowe asking people stuff which leads to new discoveries so he goes and asks some more.

Sleeping Dogs is a perfectly decent little murder mystery that clips along at a nice pace and slowly peels away its onion layers to reveal its dark centre.

The acting Is pretty good, Crowe is perfectly cast, Gillan is good enough and the rest of the cast are convincing. The writer/ director is competently done and the film is well made with good production values and nice touches in the flashbacks.

There are movies that it draws from, Momento for the memory loss and every film noir ever.

All this being said, there is nothing about Sleeping Dogs that is fantastic or groundbreaking. It is however good, honest old fashioned film making. More like this please.

Sleeping Dogs is a new crime mystery directed, written and produced in part by Adam Cooper. He makes his directorial debut with this film. He also has some experience as a screenwriter for films such as Allegiant and Assassin's Creed.

Roy Freeman (Russell Crowe) is an ex-detective who had to quit his job because he suffered from Alzheimer's. When a prisoner is threatened with the death penalty, he asks Roy to take another look at his case and hopefully find enough evidence to prove his innocence and save his life.

Despite his poor memory, Roy tries to revisit and revive the ten-year-old case. This is how he ends up in a crime web full of brutal actions and dark secrets, in which he must decipher the real truth.

Just like Russell Crowe's character, as a viewer you try to keep up with what happened in the ten-year-old case. This way you can try to solve the matter yourself. The crime web just contains many events and different characters, some of whom are suspects or victims. Everyone also brings their own story with hints, although some hints sometimes contradict each other. Due to the Alzheimer's complaints of the main character and all these different storylines and hints, you do not always get all the traces clearly. Despite the many twists and the main character's poor memory, the real perpetrators of the crime can still be guessed. As a result, all the mysterious aspects of the mystery can be a bit disappointing in the end, because the answer was so easy to guess.

However, they have unnecessarily chosen to add special drugs and science fiction-like medical gadgets to the story, which causes the film to lose some of its realism. In addition to these non-existent things, the film responds nicely to real things and data surrounding the human brain. If they had just stuck to the real stuff, the movie could have been more interesting.

Russell Crowe comes across well and realistically as an older detective who can no longer always trust his own memory. Other cast members also play well on the mysterious aspects of the mystery. With most of them you don't always know whether or not they can be trusted and whether they play victims or perpetrators in the story.

Well, what can I say? This film is a captivating ride from beginning to end. With a solid directorial debut, it skillfully incorporates elements reminiscent of classics like Murder by Numbers and Oldboy. Throughout the narrative, I found myself fully engrossed, a rare feat that kept me glued to the screen without the usual urge for a smoke break. While it draws inspiration from various films, its unique blend creates an intriguing and immersive experience. For aficionados of crime thrillers and murder mysteries, this film is definitely worth adding to your watchlist.

If you're a film junkie like myself then you'll appreciate the time and effort that Adam Cooper and everyone else put in to make this happen.

I enjoyed it. Not my place to say where it could have been improved. It is what it is.

Thank you.

A title like 'Sleeping Dogs' should already tell you it's not going to be a high-octane thriller and some of the complaints about the slow-burn pace of this film may have missed the point regarding its very solid tonal consistency. It's an 'old' film by design. This is reflected in the casting, the murder/whodunnit trope, the 'mystery' incidental music and the dated style of storytelling with the reveal at the end. There's nothing wrong with any of the performances, particularly Russell Crowe's portrayal of a man who knows he's past his peak and harbouring concerns about the reliability of his memory. Tommy Flanagan also manages fine in a larger role but I couldn't decide if Karen Gillan was intentionally overdoing it or just did a spectacular job of playing a control freak nutcase. Sleeping Dogs may not appeal to everyone but if you're over 50 (and no longer a gladiator) you'll likely find it relatable.

I recently watched the movie "Sleeping Dogs," and I was left completely stunned. After the credits rolled, I could only sit in silence, utterly amazed by what I had just experienced. This film is, without a doubt, the best crime movie I have ever seen.

From start to finish, "Sleeping Dogs" delivers a gripping and intense narrative that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The storyline is masterfully crafted, with twists and turns that are both surprising and thought-provoking. The characters are complex and well-developed, making it easy to become emotionally invested in their journeys.

One of the standout aspects of this movie is its ending. The final scenes are incredibly powerful and leave a lasting impression. They are executed with such precision and emotional depth that they alone make the entire movie worth watching.

Despite its brilliance, "Sleeping Dogs" seems to be underrated based on its current IMDB rating. I urge potential viewers not to be swayed by the numbers. This film is a hidden gem that deserves much more recognition than it currently receives.

In summary, "Sleeping Dogs" is an exceptional crime movie that combines a compelling story, strong character development, and a memorable conclusion. I highly recommend giving it a watch, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Don't let the rating deter you from experiencing this remarkable film.

One sentence summary: To keep his mind active following an experimental medical treatment for Alzheimer's, a retired detective decides to revisit an old closed case.

While I would stop short of calling Sleeping Dogs a good movie, there is plenty to like about this Russell Crowe-led independent mystery. It unashamedly draws inspiration from films like Memento (2000) and, more recently, Memory (2022), but Crowe's performance is what gives this movie its own spark. The supporting cast provided him with little help, though, as he was noticeably a league above his co-stars. Inconsistent pacing also hurt the film at times, hampering the momentum that the twisty, occasionally convoluted story seeks to build. Luckily, the movie concludes with a bang, delivering a gut-punch ending that is equally satisfying and devastating.

Well what can I say, not much of a thriller to me as more of a criminal mystery.the movie seemed very interesting and it was until about half way when I just found it so so slow, un interesting and un realistic. I found my self dozing off during periods of the movie. Thanks to Russell Crowe keeping me a bit engaged with his acting and abilities to do so. This movie started falling apart to me and had the potential to be and do so much more. Endings to these movies never amaze me, and this one is exactly the same, see it once you would know what I am talking about always the same amnesia....b+.

Great to see Russell Crowe back on our screens even if it's not in the same standard as past great successes . I don't know or care why he and Guy Pearce appear to not be offered the type of movies they used to get despite both having starred in some great movies while we are being fed a diet of so called " Blockbusters " featuring less talented actors rehashing old movies , mostly with inferior results despite massive budgets . This is not a GREAT Movie but is lifted from a 3 or 4 to a solid 6 by Crowes reliable performance and another excellent performance by Scottish actor Tommy Flannagan who SURELY deserves a major role himself and not just known for his Sons of Anarchy role where he stood out ( not difficult compared to some other " lead " actors ) . I admit that , at first , I didn't recognise Tommy but was struck by his resemblence nowadays to a real LEGEND , the great Anthony Zerbe , who had a great career but like Tommy Flannagan , never quite got the recognition he deserved.

The movie is solid in every aspect, but it's at a certain point where the flashbacks kick in that you start piecing things together. Picture this: an Alzheimer's-afflicted crime detective finds himself unravelling a decade-old case, and as time goes on, he becomes deeply involved. Everyone's a suspect, yet the lines are drawn so clearly, pointing directly to the murderer with each new piece of evidence. Motives are unveiled gradually, like in any classic mystery, but what sets this movie apart is the romantic entanglement of the obvious suspects, making it easier to identify the true culprit. They've excluded the convicted from scene one, leaving only a handful of people under scrutiny.

Russell Crowe is solid. The rest of the cast is laughably silly. Some decent actors reading silly lines. The plot is Scooby Doo-ish. I am confused where it was taking place. Thought New England but not sure where it was supposed to be. I hope Crowe isn't gonna be the new Nic Cage and take every roll thrown his way, cause that would be sad.

I watched to see how boiler plate it was, who would you think was the bad guy and then the next and the next. Kinda disappointing. Someone else mentioned the music, which is good, but it's there to make the movie seem better.

4 outa 10 mainly for Russell Crowe.

Sleeping Dogs starts with promise, despite a reliance on a few tried-and-true tropes, the film initially offers moments of genuine intrigue. Russell Crowe, as always, delivers a solid performance, anchoring a decent cast. The soundtrack, too, complements the film's atmosphere well.

However, as the main plot unfolds, the film stumbles into predictability. What begins as a potentially clever twist devolves into a series of disconnected scenes where characters seem as absent as Bruce Willis in "The Sixth Sense"-only without the payoff. Instead of a clever reveal, we're left with a plot so foreseeable that it saps the viewer's interest.

The script, unfortunately, is the crux of the issue. Rather than developing characters and deepening the narrative, the screenplay flounders with irrelevant references and red herrings that lead nowhere. By the film's conclusion, the audience is left feeling indifferent towards the characters, detached from their fates due to the weak writing.

It's a disappointment, especially given the clear effort by the cast to elevate the material they were given. "Sleeping Dogs" might have been a compelling psychological thriller but is undermined by its screenplay, making it a forgettable entry in the genre.

This is another good performance from Russell Crowe in my opinion. The film is centered around a retired police homicide detective who is suffering from a disorder that is creating memory loss. He is called by a inmate that is on death row that wants him to help clear his name in a murder conviction that he claims only he and Russell Crowea character know the true identity of the killer. The retired police detective agrees to help him track down the real killer and the story just goes from there. Very good performances in this film and the storyline is good as well. I would not say it's predicable but it's still a good movie.

Ahh the old memory-loss thriller. Christopher Nolan mastered it with 'Memento' obviously but there really hasn't ever been a bad one that I can think of. 'Sleeping Dogs' is a solid concept that only lets itself down with a bit of sloppiness in the polish department.

There are some decent actors in this movie, and yet I kept thinking to myself - why is the acting so sub-par? I think the answer lies in the dialogue they were delivering. I think it was written quite clunky and therefore the actors performances come across quite awkward and wooden.

This is one of those films where if you can put all the other stuff aside and just appreciate a good, solid and entertaining story, you're going to enjoy it. If those kind of things tend to bother you, then that may become an issue. Personally, I enjoyed it. 7/10.

The bad: a retired cop with Alzheimer who cant remember his own name NOW OUT OF THE BLUE is going to solve an old murder case! Get outa here! Whose gonna buy into such a ridiculous story. If you buy it, then enjoy the show...

The good; the acting aint bad at all, although there are quite a few mediocre supporting actors, but the leading actors all do perform well and Russell Crowe is still firing on all cylinders.

But in the end I must admit this movie was completely out of balance, because the basic story did not make sense. There was also a real lack of thrill or supsense. Definitely not recommended, although it aint a terrible movie either...