Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

GamerTab That was an excellent one.

PodBill Just what I expected

Allison Davies The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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!"

David Holt (rawiri42) A thoroughly enjoyable movie. As usual, Michael Caine clearly demonstrates his worthiness of his knighthood (not to mention nomination - sadly unsuccessful - for this part for the leading actor Oscar).However, much has already been written on IMDb about this excellent movie so I won't waste additional space by simply repeating it all again. My reason for this posting is to ask the question that is its title - Did anyone else notice... the mystic script in the flames? Let me explain. Whilst watching the DVD, I was interrupted by a telephone call and so I paused the film. As it happened, this occurred just as Michael Caine was walking past the gas heater-cum- decoration in his hi-tech home. When I returned to restart the film, I was immediately amazed to see that the flames, when frozen in stop- motion, appeared to spell out words. Had I not paused the film, I doubt very much whether I would have ever noticed this phenomenon. The words "Animation" and either "sublimation" or "substitution" seem to appear and disappear as the film is advanced frame-by-frame. Other words come and go and, whilst discernible, don't appear to spell out a specific sentence or phrase. Since first noticing this, I have examined each frame and am now left wondering if this is nothing more than a freak of nature or was it purposely digitally placed there by Kenneth Branagh and, if so, why... OR... am I hallucinating???The really weird thing is that, even though I have examined the film frame-by-frame, the message that I saw when returning from the phone hasn't been nearly as clear as it was then. This is spooky! So, I return to my original question, has anyone else noticed this and, if they have, can they explain it or, at least, throw more light on it? Someone PLEASE comment.

adi_2002 Maggie is married with Andrew, a rich writer that lives in an isolated and fancy house. But seems like the high age of her husband makes Maggie to cheat on him with another man much younger and attractive, Milo. He goes on day to his house in order to ask to grant the divorce so the young couple to advance in their relationship but Andrew is not quite ready to accept this request so propose Milo to steal Maggie's jewelry and make like an burglar enter his house and take them. But turns out that he was fooled and now must pray for his life. But what happens when a detective comes and ask Andrew about the disappearance of Milo? Will he get away with this of the game is still on but there can be only one winner. Who will win?Filmed in only one location the movie is quite good but still for some viewers might become boring at one point and the conclusion is revealed only at the end when there are only a couple of minutes. Arm yourself with patience of you want to resist until the end but in conclusion will worth it.

Catwings After watching the just first minutes of the film, I feel confident that this film would be one of the best movies I have seen in a while. After watching it, I feel strongly that this is a great film in terms of the screenplay, production and storyline. As a movie, it had an interesting approach stylistically. If anything, I think that it may be suitable for the stage.There are only two characters: Andrew Wyck and Milo Tingle. And the setting is only a few rooms and the entrance of a grand house. Wyck, who is played by Michael Caine, is an old mystery writer with several successful books. Tindle played by Jude Law is a struggling actor as well as a detective. Tindle is in love with Wyck's wife, and visits Wyck's house in London to broach the subject of Wyck's divorce from Maggie. Wyck tries to convince Tindle to abandon Maggie, since she is a money- spender and a poor man like Tindle cannot complete her happiness. Wyck makes a proposition to this poor man who refuses to give Maggie up. He proposes that Tindle steals 1 million pounds worth of his wife's jewels from his house and sells them to get money. Wyck would not lose his money as the jewels are insured. And so both would be happy with this result.The psychological warfare that goes on between the mystery writer and the actor within a limited setting is well worth a watch. It is difficult to take your eyes off the backtracking storyline with its witty, provocative tone and its excellent acting. Because of the limited space of the film, I developed a sense of emotional involvement with the characters within an hour and a half.This film is a remake of Sleuth in 1972. The opinions of those who have watched the original film may be divided on this remake. Since I have not watched the original one and I had no such prejudice, I found it to be a greatly entertaining film.