Sleuth (1972) review

 Number 238 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joseph L. Mankiewicz' mystery thriller 'Sleuth.'

Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is an eccentric crime writer with a love for puzzles, games and his mistress. He wants nothing more than to run off with her. The problem? He is still married. Enter his wife's lover, salon-owner and second-generation Italian immigrant Milo Tindle (Michael Caine.) Together the two hatch a plot for them to end up with their desired women.

You have to give Mankiewicz some credit. This is film with a minimal cast and sets, yet it is a true head-scratcher. It was a complicated affair. I'm not sure I understood everything even now. Despite that it is an interesting film that demands every ounce of your attention. At least for the many references to the crime genre in general. It is a meta text with many allusions to the likes of Agatha Christie etc.

It was originally adapted from a play by Anthony Schaffer and I wonder if it would have been more effective on stage and screen. The two-man cast and two or three sets would have lent itself well to Broadway. Considering it won a Tony, it obviously did.

Plus this film adaptation included a giant of the English theatrical world: Laurene Olivier. He was enjoyable as the eccentric Andrew Wyke, often giving the role an electrifying energy. This coupled with his larger-than-life performance certainly wouldn't have been out of place in the theatre. He was incredibly physical and incredibly theatrical. Andrew Wyke is an odd fellow who fancies himself the next Agatha Christie. His house is full of strange costumes and other peculiarities. Olivier played the role to a tee. He was rightly nominated for an Oscar.

Michael Caine - also Oscar-nominated - was every part his equal. He plays Tindal well and he soon enters a battle of wits with Andrew Wyke. Although the two start as uneasy allies, they then enter a cat-and-mouse game, as they desperately keep trying to outwit one another.

Although Sleuth was good on screen, I do think it was better suited to the stage. The intellectual plot, heavy dialogue, minimal sets and characters would have been perfect for any theatre hall.

It review (1990 mini-series)

Review for It

SPOILER ALERT

We’ve come to another adaptation of Stephen King’s work.  As I’ve read ‘It’ and I've heard that the adaptation is supposed to be great, I thought I would it a go.

‘It’ is set in mostly Derry, Maine and in two different timelines, one in 1957 and the other in 1984.  The 1957 timeline follows the protagonists’ narrative as children.  There are seven protagonists: Bill Denborough (Richard Thomas,) the stuttering leader of the group, the fat but good-hearted Ben Hanscom (John Ritter,) the asthmatic Eddie Kasbarak (Dennis Christopher), the wisecracking smartarse Richie Tozier (Harry Anderson,) the sceptical and rational Stan Uris (Richard Masur), the only girl in the group Beverly Marsh (Annette O'Toole) and the only black member of the group Mike Hanlon (Tim Reid).  

These seven children do battle with the child-eating, inter-dimensional monster known as Pennywise the Clown or It (Tim Curry).  When they fail to kill Pennywise in 1957, they return in 1984 to do battle once again.  One prominent subplot also sees them facing off any times with the neighbourhood bully Henry Bowers.  Henry serves as a human and therefore more relatable, but no less psychotic antagonist.

‘It’ was released as a two-part TV movie, each part being 90 mins long.  Seeing as the book is over 1000 pages long, I would argue that this is a reasonable length for a film, which they achieved by cutting out some unnecessary secondary characters and some lengthy character development.  I’m glad they did this, as I thought the book had far too much backstory for its characters and I got very bored reading through parts of it.  The film also worked well as a horror.  It did well in, rather than showing the murders themselves, it showed the effects on those left behind.  Pennywise has the powers to shapeshift into a character’s biggest fear or make them see what they fear most.     The film depicted these different images very well, which all added to the scariness of it.  I also quite liked the child cast, although it was weird seeing Seth Green, who played the young Richie Tozier, as a sixteen year old.

However, the film missed out a couple of important scenes that featured in the book.  The first focuses on Beverly in the 1984 timeline.  In this timeline, she is married to the abusive and possessive Tom Hagen.  When she tells Tom, she wants to return to Maine, they get into a bloody and physical fight with Beverly being the victor.  In the film, this is mostly omitted, which I didn’t like, as in the book we see Beverly’s inner strength and power as a character, which isn’t conveyed in the same way within the film.  

The second scene focuses on Mike Hanlon’s past in 1957.  Within this scene, Mike’s father tells him how he and some of his friends created a club that was originally just for black people, but soon expanded to encompass all races, but the club was burnt down by white supremacists.  I felt that this really highlighted the racial prejudice that black people experienced at the time and by omitting this scene, I felt that the film glossed over this issue.  

Tim Curry was also good as Pennywise the Clown. Sure, you could argue he was a little over-the-top, but it worked. There's a reason why Pennywise is considered one of the scariest film villains ever.

And the less said about Bill Denborough's ponytail, the better. 

Overall, this was an enjoyable film.  It was certainly very creepy and horrific and for the most part, it was a faithful adaption of the book it was based on.  However, I felt that the filmmakers could have been a little wiser in the scenes that they omitted. That notwithstanding this film brought us one of the scariest villains of the 1990's.