On his sprawling country estate, an aging writer matches wits with the struggling actor who has stolen his wife's heart.On his sprawling country estate, an aging writer matches wits with the struggling actor who has stolen his wife's heart.On his sprawling country estate, an aging writer matches wits with the struggling actor who has stolen his wife's heart.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 6 nominations
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaSir Michael Caine (Andrew Wyke) played the role of Milo Tindle in the first adaptation of the play: Sleuth (1972).
- GoofsDespite not firing a bullet, blank cartridges are still dangerous causing severe injury at close range and have been known to kill at up to six feet.
- Quotes
Milo Tindle: Maggie never told me you were... such a manipulator. She told me you were no good in bed, but she never told me you were such a manipulator.
Andrew Wyke: She told you I was no good in bed?
Milo Tindle: Oh, yes.
Andrew Wyke: She was joking. I'm wonderful in bed.
Milo Tindle: I must tell her.
Featured review
Calling this film a 'remake' is not only misleading, but also incorrect. Harold Pinter had never seen Anthony Shaffer's play performed or seen the classic 1972 film version directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, starring Caine and Laurence Olivier and penned by Shaffer himself. The 1972 version of "Sleuth" is an epic, 138 minute long battle of wits and egos, and is generally pretty much flawless.
2007's 86 minute long "Sleuth" is about as different as could be. Pinter wrote this script from scratch, using Shaffer's original stage script as the basis for it, and this is obvious right from the beginning. Anthony Shaffer was an immensely talented thriller writer ("Sleuth" was one of three truly great screenplays he wrote, the other two obvious standouts being "The Wicker Man" and Hitchcock's "Frenzy"), but other than using interesting subtexts, he was not exactly an intellectual writer. Pinter, on the other hand, is precisely that- an intellectual. Pinter does not write thrillers with subtext, he writes material driven almost entirely by thematic content which loosely fall in certain genres. What Pinter has done here is taken Shaffer's clever battle of wits and turned it upside down, making the dark subtext of battling male egos and perhaps even fetishism the main driving force of the film. This is a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth", one far colder than Shaffer's vision. It is distinctly Pinter's work.
The film is most interesting visually in the first half, where we are introduced to this cold, hi-tech version of the old country house we remember from the first film. The art decoration and set design in this film are simply fabulous and suit Pinter's vision perfectly. We see several shots through Wyke's surveillance equipment, establishing his cold, distant view of the world, alone in his large, empty residence. After the opening act, the film occasionally seems awkwardly-shot and I do have to question the use of the 2.35:1 screen format. It worked in the original film but this version seems to be going for a more depressing, claustrophobic feel and the width works against it, particularly as closeups become more common towards the end of the film.
I have no major qualms with Pinter's variation on Shaffer's play, but it is by no means superior. This concise and to the point version is much darker and more mean-spirited than the original play was. It starts at ugly and just gets uglier from there. Some may consider this a comedy, but there is little humor here, and the script is not too concerned with coming off as witty and dives straight into the battle of egos part, substituting ugly, straightforward insults for the witty degradation Shaffer's version had. Michael Caine and Jude Law are both excellent here, but neither are as inspired as Olivier and Caine were in the 1972 version.
I mentioned earlier that this was a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth". That is certainly true, but that does not mean that it is a better "Sleuth". This film is much more flawed than the previous film version was, and though it is a very good, interesting, and different take on Shaffer's play, it doesn't measure up to the the 1972 film. On its own, as a standalone film, it is excellent, though not among 2007's elite.
8/10
2007's 86 minute long "Sleuth" is about as different as could be. Pinter wrote this script from scratch, using Shaffer's original stage script as the basis for it, and this is obvious right from the beginning. Anthony Shaffer was an immensely talented thriller writer ("Sleuth" was one of three truly great screenplays he wrote, the other two obvious standouts being "The Wicker Man" and Hitchcock's "Frenzy"), but other than using interesting subtexts, he was not exactly an intellectual writer. Pinter, on the other hand, is precisely that- an intellectual. Pinter does not write thrillers with subtext, he writes material driven almost entirely by thematic content which loosely fall in certain genres. What Pinter has done here is taken Shaffer's clever battle of wits and turned it upside down, making the dark subtext of battling male egos and perhaps even fetishism the main driving force of the film. This is a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth", one far colder than Shaffer's vision. It is distinctly Pinter's work.
The film is most interesting visually in the first half, where we are introduced to this cold, hi-tech version of the old country house we remember from the first film. The art decoration and set design in this film are simply fabulous and suit Pinter's vision perfectly. We see several shots through Wyke's surveillance equipment, establishing his cold, distant view of the world, alone in his large, empty residence. After the opening act, the film occasionally seems awkwardly-shot and I do have to question the use of the 2.35:1 screen format. It worked in the original film but this version seems to be going for a more depressing, claustrophobic feel and the width works against it, particularly as closeups become more common towards the end of the film.
I have no major qualms with Pinter's variation on Shaffer's play, but it is by no means superior. This concise and to the point version is much darker and more mean-spirited than the original play was. It starts at ugly and just gets uglier from there. Some may consider this a comedy, but there is little humor here, and the script is not too concerned with coming off as witty and dives straight into the battle of egos part, substituting ugly, straightforward insults for the witty degradation Shaffer's version had. Michael Caine and Jude Law are both excellent here, but neither are as inspired as Olivier and Caine were in the 1972 version.
I mentioned earlier that this was a darker, more intellectual "Sleuth". That is certainly true, but that does not mean that it is a better "Sleuth". This film is much more flawed than the previous film version was, and though it is a very good, interesting, and different take on Shaffer's play, it doesn't measure up to the the 1972 film. On its own, as a standalone film, it is excellent, though not among 2007's elite.
8/10
- ametaphysicalshark
- Feb 21, 2008
- Permalink
- How long is Sleuth?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Trò Đùa Nguy Hiểm
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $342,895
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $50,100
- Oct 14, 2007
- Gross worldwide
- $4,889,751
- Runtime1 hour 28 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content