Sleuth (1972) User Reviews (188)

A classy, intriguing, devilishly good two-hander

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 8/10 · 30 August 2022]

One man is a famed mystery novelist, Andrew Wyke, the other is a braggadocios young businessman named Milo Tindle. One day, they meet in the writer's automaton and game filled manor house (that assuredly directly inspired the mansion in 'Knives Out'). They have nothing in common- except for the writer's wife, that is. Tindle is her lover, and both men want her for themselves. The writer has a cunning plan as Machiavellian as some of his plots to ensure the businessman winds up with nothing before the day is out. Tindle, though, has a plan of his own; and a fiendish battle of wits and wills ensues.

Based on Anthony Schaffer's Tony-winning play that originally starred Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter as novelist and businessman respectively, this adaptation features Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine in their places, and is a highlight in the careers of both men. Schaffer's screenplay is full of vicious verbal barbs as Wyke and Tindle have a sparring match full of twists, turns and double-crosses. Their battle of wits becomes a battle of class, and the story is as unpredictable as it is clever.

Olivier's mixed feelings towards his place in cinema is well documented, and often his on-screen performances seem very mannered and actorly- over the top even. As the pompous, old- fashioned Wyke, however, the overly theatrical streak doesn't seem out of place. He is a classist, racist good ol' boy of the English aristocracy, and Olivier plays him brilliantly. In the latter half of his career, he took film roles for the money and was quite open about it. Here, however, you can see he relishes playing Wyke and is having a ball speaking Schaffer's fantastic lines.

Caine- one of history's most natural screen actors- is terrific as the cocky businessman Tindle. His performance is one of much depth, he plays Tindle like a working-class tinderbox ready to ignite the moment anyone mentions his accent. His disrespect for Wyke clouds his judgement, and he can't see when he's being played by the old man. Whereas Olivier is formal and exact, Caine is like a jazz musician, going this way and that with the rhythm; and his is arguably the better performance.

As an aside, in 2007, Caine starred as Wyke in Kenneth Branagh's remake, written by Harold Pinter. While the film isn't as good, it's interesting to see him play both characters; and in both he overshadows his screen partner.

This could very well be one of- if not the- best adaptations of a play ever put to film. It is beautifully photographed by Oswald Morris, who also served as cinematographer for the screen versions of 'Oliver' and 'Fiddler on the Roof'- he clearly understood how to adapt theatre for the screen.

The stirring, John Addison score signifies mystery and intrigue like few others have done before or since, and the set design is remarkably detailed and rich. Wyke's manor is so full of memorabilia, knick knacks and automata it makes the Thrombey mansion from the overrated 'Knives Out' look positively sparse.

Terrific performances from two fine actors, crisp cinematography, tight direction from Joseph L Mankiewicz, incredible set design and a brilliant, complex Anthony Schaffer screenplay- what more could you ask for? This two-hander whodunnit is fiendishly good.

A brilliantly twisty mystery.

[Mr. Pulse · 9/10 · 5 August 2001]

My parents saw "Sleuth" on Broadway, during its original run, just a year or so before this film was released. Watching the movie I can see how it would make a good play, but by the same token, it is not a translation that feels slow, or wordy, or unsuited to the screen. The adaptation is excellent, without "opening up" the play too much. If you're a fan of mysteries, you'll be intrigued by the performances and the script. Joseph Mankiewicz's direction isn't terribly flashy, but subtle and well-done.

Laurence Olivier stars as Andrew Wyke, a famous mystery novel writer. Milo Tindle (Michael Cane), comes to visit him one weekend; asking for Andrew's wife's hand in marriage. But things aren't as simple as they first appear. Andrew wants something in return from Milo. And then again, maybe he doesn't.

The film unfolds slowly and patiently; you almost feel like the film's sentient and realizes how juicy its secrets are, holding on to them for as long as possible. There are numerous twists and surprises in the film; and even if you see one or two coming (as I did), don't expect to get it all right until it's over. It's best not to know at all what is going to happen, so I'll leave you with no more clues.

I enjoyed nearly every moment after the initial meeting between Milo and Andrew. Once Cane and Olivier really get going in their scenes, the film never looks back. They are exceptional in their performances, and deservedly earned nominations for Best Actor Oscars.

So who wins? Does anyone win? Is it a game with a winner at all? Oh just go rent it already!

Deadly Games

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 2 January 2007]

In England, the Italian English hairdresser Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) is invited by the successful writer of detective stories Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) to visit his isolated house. The lower class Milo is the lover of Andrew's wife, who is used to have a comfortable life, and he intends to marry her. Andrew proposes Milo to steal his jewelry simulating a burglary. Milo would make a fortune selling the jewels to an intermediary; and Andrew would be reimbursed by the insurance company and would not pay alimony. However, the whole situation was part of an evil game. When Milo vanishes, a detective visits Andrew to investigate what really happened that night, when deadly games are disclosed.

"Sleuth" proves that a great screenplay, an outstanding director, two top-notch actors and four scenarios suffice to make an excellent movie with four nominations to the Oscar. The intelligent and wit theatrical story has amazing lines and twists in a duel of cat and mouse between two icons, and has not aged. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): "Trama Diabólica" ("Diabolic Plot")

The ultimate "thinking persons" movie.

[uds3 · 15 July 2002]

When Britain does it right....no one can come close to it! This was just such a movie. A filmed version of Anthony Shaffer's own wonderful stage play, the brilliance needed to sustain 138 minutes attention between just two people in three or four rooms of a single house - should not be underestimated. Olivier is in his element as the upper crust land-owner who invites Alfie-esque hairdresser Caine to his mansion, simply to acknowledge his wife's infidelity with him and to inform Caine that he is messing with the wrong guy.

The dialog driven plot is probably beyond the grasp of most younger viewers, but is a veritable revelation for those seeking to be entertained on a grand scale. As important a player as anyone else, the house itself and its many wondrous artifacts are simply stunning. How the tables are turned and the roles reversed? Without doubt, one of the greatest films ever made.

As for Alex Cawthorne's stunning performance as Inspector Doppler, what can I say? Its almost as is he wasn't there!

One of the best thrillers of all time

[The_Void · 9/10 · 23 September 2004]

Sleuth is, without doubt, one of the finest thrillers ever made. It continually keeps you on the edge of your seat and you never truly know where you are. This is an excellent thing for a thriller to do as it ensures that you will keep watching for that all important next plot development. The plot itself follows a man named Andrew (played by Lawrence Olivier) who is a big fan of playing games. He invites the man that has run off with his wife; Milo (Michael Caine) to his house, and while there, he entices him into a plot to steal his wife's jewels so that he can avoid the taxman, and so that Caine can accommodate his new found girlfriend's overly expensive tastes. To give anything else of the plot away would be running the risk of spoiling what is a fascinating piece of cinema, so I will leave the plot details at that. The plot meanders in a way that is hard to pin down; the film remains ambiguous all the way through; nothing is ever what it seems, and that is what makes Sleuth a cut above many detective mysteries.

This movie stars two super-heavyweights of the British movie industry; Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine. The film requires the two to be on screen for nearly the full duration of the movie, so it is obviously essential that they perform to a high standard; and I can confirm they most certainly do just that. The chemistry between the two is outstanding. The way that the sublime dialogue bounds back and fourth between the two is simply a pleasure to watch; and is more entertaining than a lot of movies that are made simply for entertainment purposes. The two do have a tendency to get a bit dramatic at times, there's is a particular sequence in the cellar that springs to mind immediately on that front; but the over-dramatics add to the atmosphere of the film. The film is very different and over the top in it's style anyway; it plays out almost like a moving detective novel, and the fact that both actors have a tendency to camp it up gives the movie something that it would not have had otherwise. The film is based on a stage play by Anthony Shaffer, and this is evident throughout the movie as it plays out just like a stage play on the big screen. The only film that I can think of that is similar to Sleuth in this way is Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rope'. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who also made the classic All About Eve, very astutely directs this film. I would even go as far as to say that the direction here is better than it was in All About Eve; Joseph L. Mankiewicz's use of the camera is amazing and you can tell throughout the film that this is an auteur at the absolute top of his game. Overall, Sleuth is one of the best films ever made. It is amazing just how brilliant a film can be with a miniscule cast and a brilliant script, and if only for that fact alone; Sleuth is a film that you need to see.

Joe's puppet theater

[dbdumonteil · 10/10 · 11 July 2001]

The beginning and the end of the movie take place on a stage:a mortal feud between two characters,played by two splendid actors ,directed by one of the giant of American cinema.It's hard to speak of the screenplay without spoiling the suspense,the action-packed story,the surprises waiting for you every step of the way.The two belligerents are diametrically opposite:Sir Olivier plays a local squire,full of disdain and smugness,he's wealthy and claims a noble pedigree.Michael Caine is what the French call "nouveau riche",the most despicable breed of man to his proud opponent :worse,he 's still working,as a posh hair-dresser at that!Both are oozing hatred ,and behind the automatons,we feel the tempers rise .Height of contempt,Olivier disguises Caine as a clown!Anthony Shaffer's tour de force is rendered with gusto and virtuosity.It' s a pity that it was to remain Mankiewicz's last work.

Elegance, Wit, Invention, Class Struggle

[Eumenides_0 · 10/10 · 21 March 2010]

If Sleuth isn't the best thriller ever made, I'm sure it's at least the funniest, smartest and best acted. With a very small cast, of which Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine are the main protagonists, perfectly directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, using a screenplay by Anthony Shaffer (and how wasn't he nominated for an Oscar too?), and with a humorous main theme provided by John Addison, Sleuth succeeds in becoming one of the most perfect thrillers in cinema's history.

Milo Tindle (Caine) travels to Andrew Wyke's mansion to discuss the affair he's having with Wyke's wife. Wyke (Olivier) is a famous author of detective novels and he lives a fantasy life in a fantasy house populated by mechanical toys (or automata, as he calls them), puzzles, parlor games, his awards (an Edgar Allan Poe Award no less!), and other jovial objects that show what an eccentric and inventive person Wyke is.

The art direction in this movie is one of the best I've ever seen in a movie. If the purpose of art direction is to fill the movie with those objects that give depth and authenticity to the movie even if they're not part of the story, to recreate worlds that suit the characters, to express themes, then the art direction in this movie is spot on. One look at Wyke's living room and all one needs to know about him comes instantly. Furthermore, this is one of the rare movies where the art direction plays a very large role, as the objects around them are used, abused, referred to - they pretty much become another character, and I'm sure the people in charge of it had a lot of fun during the movie.

So Milo wants to marry Wyke's wife. Wyke isn't much too bothered but he wonders how Milo, a humble hairdresser, expects to support a woman used to luxuries. Wyke proposes a plan that'll suit both: Milo steals the jewels in the mansion's safe, sells them and gets rich; Wyke, who's insured the jewels, merely has to collect the insurance money. It's perfect and harmless. Wyke has everything planned and instructs Milo in every step of the plan. It all seems perfect until Wyke does something unexpected and the movie reaches the first of its many twists. From here on the movie becomes unpredictable, but never loses its wit and humor.

In the end, the movie uses the thriller to explore questions about class difference, as Milo and Wyke represent two different worlds: Milo, descendant of Italian immigrants and a working-class man, and the aristocratic Wyke. Their confrontation goes beyond women, for Wyke it's an attack on his persona and all he represents as a member of a dying breed of people who can't stand people like Milo rising above their humble conditions.

The confrontation between Olivier and Caine is unforgettable. Watching these two giants of cinema trying to upstage each other on screen is one of those experiences we seldom see in cinema. It may have to do with the fact that the movie is based on a play, making it quite theatrical. The dialogue is intelligent and verbose - I'm constantly surprised by Wyke's wide vocabulary.

The movie is also quite artificial, in the best sense. Sleuth, for me, represents the purpose of cinema as an art form: not as a dull representation of reality (like those pseudo-documentaries that pass off as movies these days - The Hurt Locker, for instance - which by being so impartial and documentary have nothing to say about anything at all), but as a space to extrapolate, to let imagination run wild, to create situations that wouldn't happen in real life but nevertheless shed insight into human existence. Watching Sleuth today, one sees how insignificant and monotonous cinema has become, which only makes jewels like Sleuth the more important.

Battle of Wits

[ThomasDrufke · 8/10 · 12 February 2019]

I'm so curious as to how the 2007 remake pulled off this story considering the particular directions it takes. Alas, I'm here to discuss the 1972 original. Brilliantly played out by two of the all time great actors, Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier, Sleuth tells the twisted story of two men constantly trying to one-up the other with games and wit which could lead to deadly outcomes. It's 2 hours and 18 minutes and not a single second lost my attention. Even more impressive that it all takes place in one house, over the course of just a night or two, and yet the film doesn't drag nor hold up on thrills. It's not a film that can necessarily be duplicated ever again, considering the social media age we live in now, but considering this film still holds up, we never need another rendition.

8.3/10

Slightly Corked...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 28 August 2020]

... very entertaining nonetheless but you can't help feeling however, that to get away with the intent, you need a hard of hearing audience with poor vision, while accepting that gullibility and greed are sufficient to open the gambit. Michael Cane plays Michael Cane, no matter how you dress him up but it's Olivier who steels the show and by a country house pile.

cunning and delicious dialog, chewed up to full-tilt by two masters of their craft

[Quinoa1984 · 10/10 · 3 July 2008]

Sleuth is about playing games on one another- sinister, bizarre, but ruthlessly witty and almost charming games- and it's maybe more-so about the depths to which masculinity may be displayed in the most conniving but mannered manners. The premise is simple, sort of: Milo (Caine) is invited by Andrew (Olivier) to his sprawling estate, and the detective-fiction writer questions Milo about having an affair/planning to marry his wife. But there's a twist: Milo will steal his wife's jewels, sell them, and both reap the rewards via insurance payoff for Andrew and clean get away for Milo. At least, this is what is first thought of, crazily enough. This is just the beginning of a back-and-forth display of gamesmanship by two evenly matched men who can't leave un-humiliated for long.

Schaffer's play, and subsequent screenplay, play on the idea of these two generations of men- Andrew's refined, regal, seemingly upstanding if definitely eccentric old-timer, and Milo's new-wave, half-immigrant youngun- coming together over a battle of wills in the guise of mind-f***ing. What's even cleverer, and which the director Mankiewicz (his final great feature) latches onto, is the mood of the setting, the various figures and puppets and animatronics like some kind of creepy 1950s Disneyland attraction, and how they almost work into the thick of things as their 'audience', cutting back to them every minute or so. And every line of dialog, every little nuance and trifle and rise and fall of the game at hand, is brilliantly charged for actors to latch onto and make it their own times 100.

And it goes without saying one can't get better, if you want pure gold movie performance from Britain, via Olivier and Caine. If anything, though some might disagree, Caine may possibly win out as giving the better overall performance (which is saying something), but this doesn't mean Olivier is off his game; on the contrary he relishes Andrew in the first half- when he's dealing the wicked game at Milo- and the second when the tables are turned. If you're idea of two character playing psychological and plot-driven cat-and-mouse isn't your idea of a good time, don't go near it. But if you're looking for something that's pure black comedy done with a delight that few films can muster, and even leans towards the lighthearted here and there, this is your movie. It also features the a truly creepy closing.

"Isn't it about time we stopped talking about games, Sir?"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 11 June 2018]

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.

(An almost) perfect parlour thriller

[michael-heathcote3 · 10/10 · 18 June 2008]

Yes it goes without saying that a project as ambitious as this was bound to have flaws, and Sleuth (1972) does have a few, mostly niggling, but one quite major. But as others have pointed out already, any sort of made up disguise under the bright glare of studio lights and the close scrutiny of cine-cameras is nigh on impossible to pull off, even today, 35 yrs later - just look at all the TV shows that disguise their presenters to fool the public and you will very rarely be fooled as a viewer. The plot demanded that this disguise scene was essential, and so they just got on with it and did the best they could with making it look believable. I thought they did a reasonable job with it, myself, and no it wasn't undetectable, but it was good enough not to look embarrassingly abysmal. Don't forget though, that essentially this was a piece of theatre still, filmed or not, and there were many other clear pointers to this being a stage mystery and not a flat out naturalistic, trying to be real thriller - none more so than the casting of Mr. Olivier, and the wordy script, so the unlikely disguise factor was not alone in pricking viewers' bubbles. When you watch filmed theatre you have to do a certain amount of belief suspending, or at least re-aligning your priorities as to what you want out of the piece. Too many people it seems, who have said it doesn't work, either are not making this necessary allowance for it on credibility terms, or much more sadly really, just do not know that there is a difference between filmed theatre and pure cinema.

That this movie has engrossed so many over the years surely speaks of its overall success, despite the little flaws. And despite a lack of visual credibility being too much for some (seemlingly weened on nothing but Hollywood and TV for visual entertainment), this movie is an outstandingly successful and popular piece of entertainment, unlike many, many realistic thrillers and mysteries. It shows that theatrical writing, theatrical sets, and probably most of all, damned fine theatrical acting can still be as good as anything the grittiest and most worldly, realistic film makers can produce. I believe this is a masterpiece of old fashioned civilised entertainment and I love the OTT acting. Olivier shows off his very best high camp style of acting and proves yet again that it can be very cinematic, and Caine puts in one of his best 'I'll show them I can act' performances to give acting lovers a rare treat here. Lovers of detective novels are also very well catered for in this ever fabulous movie. A rightly acclaimed classic.

Joseph L Mankiewicz's masterpiece , about a cat and mouse thriller , being flawlessly acted and perfectly realized

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 3 July 2014]

Agreeable mystery based on successful play about a cat and mouse game . Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is a famous writer who lives in a luxurious mansion . He loves games and theater invites his wife's lover to meet him . Wyke is a successful novelist , a master of menace , the number one bestseller author from Baron Books . There arrives Milo (Michael Caine) , a hairdresser who seeks to convince the former for signing the divorce papers and Andrew in seeking avenge on his detested and unfaithful wife . Andrew and Milo setting up a battle of wits with potentially deadly results . An ultimate game is being played on its audience .

This lighthearted suspense/mystery based on a hit play from Anthony Shaffer and being well adapted ; dealing with games-playing mystery novelist played by Olivier leading his spouse's lover performed by Caine into diabolical trap . The original stage production of "Sleuth" by Anthony Shaffer opened on Broadway on 12 November 1970. It originally starred Anthony Quayle as Andrew and Keith Baxter as Milo, ran for 1222 performances and won the 1971 Tony Award for the Best Play . This is a deliciously sardonic and witty movie and excellently starred by a magnificent protagonist duo ; both are the peak of their game in this dazzling film . This interesting movie is plenty of twists and turns and stunning surprises . Splendid and fascinating performances , a real Tour De force for two stars . Michael Caine was so very much beside himself to be working with Laurence Olivier, that he didn't even know how to address him . However , Michael Caine was the third choice for the part of Milo Tindle after Albert Finney , who was deemed too plump, and Alan Bates , who turned down the role . The film only had two stars - the rest of the cast were made-up names . In addition to Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) and Give 'em Hell, Harry! (1975), only one of three films in which entire on-screen billed cast received acting Oscar nominations . Packs a jolly and adequate soundtrack , including a haunting, remarkable musical leitmotif by John Addison , who was nominated for an Oscar for his music score. Colorful cinematography by Oswald Morris as well as appropriate production design by Ken Adam .

Remade many years later as ¨Sleuth¨(2007) by Kenneth Branagh starred by Jude Law and again Michael Caine as Wyke ; including modern production design and set on a stark house , monitored with high tech . However, it is inferior the first version that was a directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz, in his last film . In the similar style was subsequently filmed 'Deathtrap' by Sidney Lumet with Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and also Michael Caine. Rating : Good, delicious from start to finish. It's a great and enjoyable fun.

See how cleverly I am fooling you?

[majikstl · 4/10 · 8 April 2004]

This is the type of film I really like: twisted tales of mystery and deceit featuring great actors who like to slice the ham thick. I wanted to like SLEUTH. No, I wanted to love SLEUTH. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, squaring off in a murderous battle of wits: What's not to love?

SPOILERS.....

But, I was very disappointed the first time I saw SLEUTH, and subsequently have seen it four or five more times to no avail. The film is clumsy and hokey and as smart as it thinks it is, it is really pretty dumb.

To succeed the story relies on characters who are alternately brilliantly diabolical and just plain dumb. For a film of this sort to work, the audience can't be in on the scam. We have to believe the film is going one way, when it is actually going another. Sleight of hand, as it were. Any storyteller can make one character fool another; it takes skill for someone to honestly fool his audience.

I even know exactly when the film started going astray. When one character suggests that another disguise himself as a burglar by dressing up as a circus clown. That's dumb. Worse, is when the other character does so. That's just plain stupid.

It becomes apparent that the robbery scheme being discussed is bogus. One character is lying to the other, and we know it -- and we know he should know it as well. We see through the gambits, the disguises and the lies, but the characters who are supposed to be smarter than us, don't. Worse, the film keeps announcing that it is being clever and pulling scams. See how smart I am! See what a fool you are for being fooled! Now shut up while I fool you some more. SLEUTH is too obvious; it wears its cleverness like a neon sign.

And it is a small point, but what was with director Joseph Mankiewicz's repeated cutaway shots to laughing clowns and smiling puppets? Once or twice it is stylish; but repeatedly it seem like a desperate attempt to jazz up the story or, worse, an attempt to cover up sloppy editing. Whatever, it was a constant annoyance.

This film has a companion piece called DEATHTRAP. They have similar themes and gimmicky plots and both star Michael Caine. DEATHTRAP is considered the poor cousin of SLEUTH. I disagree; DEATHTRAP may lack the over-the-top theatrics of SLEUTH (which, in itself, is not a bad thing) but it is more than just clever, it is tight, sly and truly surprising. Everything SLEUTH isn't.

One of the best thrillers ever.

[barnabyrudge · 8 October 2003]

Sleuth is based on an outstanding stage play by Anthony Shaffer. Sometimes, a work which succeeded on the stage doesn't transfer well to the big screen. Movies like Equus and Dangerous Corner - which were a delight in theatres - lose their power under the close scrutiny of a film camera. Sleuth is not a failure. It retains its stagebound plot, characters and dialogue, but somehow manages to be totally engrossing as well.

Part of the joy is due to Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. The two giants of Britsh acting don't chew the scenery in an attempt to out-shine each other; they complement each other quite brilliantly and turn in two of the finest screen performances you could ever aspire to see. Olivier plays elderly author Andrew Wyke, an obscenely wealthy, well-educated and devious man. Caine is Milo Tindle, a charming, ever-polite young hairdresser. Milo visits Andrew to ask for his blessing in marrying his estranged wife. Although Andrew seems fairly open to the idea of giving away his wife (after all, they despise each other) he still feels stung by her exit, so he engineers a cruel game to humiliate Milo. But who is playing a trick on who?

The dialogue is terrific, but it needed terrific actors to get the best out of it. Caine and Oloivier do a fine job. Ken Adams' set design turns Olivier's gorgeous palatial house into a dazzling mansion of madness. The tinkly music by John Addison creates a playful yet ever-so-slightly uncomfortable mood. Joseph L. Mankiewicz directs perfectly, getting maximum suspense from his staging of scenes and thoughtful choice of camera angles. The twists are superbly disguised, especially the awesome "shock" climax which will blow you away. See Sleuth - it's one of the best!

A Top-Notch Role for Michael Caine

[gavin6942 · 8/10 · 13 December 2014]

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?

Superb Convoluted Drama

[Hitchcoc · 10/10 · 30 November 2016]

Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier together. Need I say more. This, of course, was based on an incredibly successful stage play. It involves more twists and turns than can be mentioned here. The cool thing is that there is gamesmanship at every turn, and these two wonderful British talents don't disappoint. It involves a plot to get rid of a extravagant woman through manipulation. The kicker is that the two principles are both masters at solving problems, using creative solutions. They are equals and that's where the fun comes in. I have always loved it when a mystery film has enough complexity to have me fooled. Being a suspicious viewer, I really watch for nuances in these films, but this time they got by me. One of the best films of the Seventies.

One of my "Top 5" films of all time

[lemon_magic · 9/10 · 20 May 2007]

I was lucky enough to catch the stage version of "Sleuth" in London as a teenager in 1974. It was - and still is - the most involving and entertaining mystery play I've ever seen (kudos 30 years later to the two actors whose names I no longer recall). So when I saw a video version of this play in 1990 or so, I was anxious to see if the snap and pop of the stage play would carry over to film. Boy, did it ever. In spite of the enormous bite of my budget, I gladly spent the $20+ to have it, and watched it several more times in the intervening years on a slow weekend late at night.

What prompted this review in 2007 was that the Mystery channel revived it a few nights back, and even though I already have a VHS copy, I stayed up to watch it. (That's how much of a fan I am). The best part was that Paramount supplied the "closed caption" feature, and so I was finally able to catch the full meaning of a few phrases that had escaped me over the years (especially when Wyke calls Tindall a "jumped up pantry boy who doesn't know his place." I had thought Wyke called him a "pansy boy", but "pantry boy" makes much more sense now that I understand the landed English gentry's attitude towards the immigrant class.)

Jesus, this is a great movie - IF you like plots involving psychological tension and a battle of wits. Yes, there are a couple of lapses in the film version that might weaken the story a bit more (the reviewer who mentions that you can't help but notice

*****SPOILER********* that Inspector Doppler is just Tindal with makeup *****SPOILER ENDS*****

is dead on. But it doesn't really matter after you've seen the story for the first time, anyway, and I've watched it at least six times now in the past 15 years. I just like the hell out of this production.

The younger version of me was horrified and appalled by the denouement, but the older me -who understands disappointment and fatalism and Pyrrhic victory - now finds it perfectly appropriate and satisfying. Watching young Michael Caine hold his own with superstar Laurence Olivier also provides a special kind of satisfaction - knowing how long and storied a career Caine has enjoyed, it's a lot of fun seeing the raw talent and "juice" in the actor as he starts out.

If you haven't seen "Sleuth" and you like psychological drama (like "Deathtrap", which is the only similar movie that even comes close to being this good), you owe it to yourself to set aside some time to see "Sleuth".

Extraordinary piece of theater

[Writer_Mario_Biondi · 8/10 · 13 August 2013]

A piece of theater, I repeat, because this is exactly filmed-theater, not cinema. That said, I must put a strong stress on the expression "extraordinary", because that's the only way one can describe the acting of the 2 actors. Only two, for all the plot, which is pretty long. Too long, possibly, and I have in my opinion (not being a cinema and even less a theater man) that the third part could have been cut away with a big gain for the story in itself and for the audience. But the way in which L. Olivier and M. Caine perform their (several…) parts is simply admirable. Highly admirable. Funny but, having seen only now the movie (which is 40 years old!), I feel the strong sensation that it was there that Mr Irvine Welsh found inspiration for the main character (a pulp writer, albeit a woman) of his "Lorraine Goes To Livingston" (a part of "Ecstasy").

Major Disappointment

[Don1980 · 6/10 · 16 December 2006]

****SPOILERS!!!***** I really wanted to like this movie. I'd long heard it was one of the best mystery thrillers ever made, and its near unavailability on DVD made it especially tantalizing. So when I finally stumbled across a copy today, I was thrilled. I had studiously avoided reading anything about the plot, so I had no preconceptions about the movie, beyond that it was supposed to be good.

What a disappointment!! Now, I'm not saying it was a total waste of a movie (note the 6/10 rating I give it), I just can't remember the last time a movie so let me down. The plot was, at turns, ridiculous and predictable. The jewelry thief plot was absurd: how could Caine's character have been roped into that mess so easily? Wouldn't he have wondered why Olivier's character was not going to go out somewhere so he'd have an alibi during the "robbery"? Why was Caine's character so inconsistent during this scene -- one minute he's cynical and suspicious about the whole thing, an instant later he's gleefully dressing up as a circus clown and doing pratfalls off a ladder? And how about the next section of the movie -- the moment I saw Inspector Doppel, it was clear that this was a person in make-up. I was not immediately sure that it was who it turned out to be, but I thought of the possibility right off the bat. The whole movie proceeded this way. I guess people in the '70s were a bit more trusting of their movies; today, after "The Sixth Sense" and its innumerable imitators, it takes a bit more than a bad make-up job to pull the wool over an audiences' eyes.

The look and feel of the film were dated and stage-bound. Manckiewicz made some great movies, but I found little of his customary skill here. The incessant cutaways to the ugly dummies and automatons were very grating.

As for the acting, well...I'm not going to be popular for saying this (though I imagine my whole review up to this point won't be very well received), but I don't see what the big deal is with Olivier and Caine here. Well, Caine does pretty well (excepting his mugging for the camera while in the clown suit), but Olivier comes across as a bit shrill. And his horrible accents..! I've pretty much trashed the film to this point, but it does have redeeming qualities. In spite of the above, it's a mildly entertaining movie, and the dialogue is well-written: I can imagine that it's a pretty quotable movie.

Anyways, I would say it's a take-it-or-leave-it movie. Entertaining enough, but vastly overrated, and not something you should go out of your way to see.

A titanesque acting battle between two giants!

[formationlc · 8/10 · 16 September 2018]

I have just rewatched this movie tonight. It had been many many years since the last time.

How truly extraordinary to see such exquisite acting performances! Sir Michael Caine at his best and Sir Laurence Olivier in one of his greatest roles! Two actors trying to outwit the other at his own "game", making you litterally drink every word, (everything is in the dialogues, and what brilliant dialogues they are!). Two gigantesque figures of the British movies industry letting you sit on the edge of your seat, and keeping you guessing until the very end (don't try...you will not be able to. ) for over two hours. How good to see what acting is really all about and so refreshing ...

One thing, though, about calling this movie a mystery drama... I would rather call it a sarcastic comedy because I laughed wholeheartedly so many times either at the begining, the midldle or even towards the end (which is, actually, pretty dramatic.)

Thumbs and all fingers and hands up ! A must-see in a lifetime for anyone who says to enjoy cinematic entertainment!

Look Out, Inspector Doppler Is On The Case !

[ShootingShark · 7/10 · 19 July 2010]

Andrew Wyke is a rather vain author of detective fiction who discovers his wife is having an affair with Milo Tindle, a younger man. Andrew invites Milo to his country retreat and proposes a mutually beneficial solution, but can Milo trust him ?

Sleuth is a real treat. It's ingenious, it's very funny and it features two pretty unforgettable performances from the inimitable leads. It's based on a play by Anthony Schaffer (who also wrote Frenzy and The Wicker Man) and it's just a peach of an idea - a simple revenge story dressed up as an elaborate prank which then cleverly transmutates into a treatise on class struggle. It has a big midway twist which the jaded may criticise as either unfair or obvious without really appreciating how much fun the subsequent mayhem is. Caine and Olivier both milk the intrigue and the drama for all they're worth, one-upping each other with rustic accents and pratfalls, and sparring like two prizefighters over the soliloquies. Both are outstanding although for me Caine pips it, not least because their casting bears no small resemblance to their characters; Olivier was near-gentry (an uncle was a Baron) and lauded with every acting accolade and exclusive status possible, whilst Caine grew up in the East End and earned everything he got the hard way. Olivier is a good sport to play an ageing prima donna with empty boasts of his sexual prowess and he is very funny at times, but Caine's performance is much more natural, richer and thoughtful. It's also a revelation in that just two actors can play a whole movie and it never gets dull or needs any other storytelling devices - Robert Altman and Richard Attenborough take note. The story is so deliciously twisted that there are plenty of opportunities for mugging, but both stars reign it in a bit, with lots of sly little moments like the scene where Milo waits in vain to get a turn in the game of snooker. The other great aspect of the movie is Ken Adam's nutty production design; Andrew's house is a spooky old Victorian folly with a dungeon of a cellar, a hedge maze in the garden and a cavernous living room crammed full of creepy automata whose jerky movements reflect their owner's self-deluded illusion of puppet master. Mankiewicz was an interesting guy who began as a writer in the thirties then moved into production and is best known for directing All About Eve and Cleopatra. This was his final movie, and I think his best. Remade (with substantial changes) by Kenneth Branagh in 2007, with Caine playing Wyke and Jude Law playing Tindle.

Quite Simply Brilliant

[cdemw · 9/10 · 20 November 2007]

The background on this film for me was that I spent ages trying to get hold of this film and then because of the remake it got aired (without fanfare) on ITV4 in the middle of the night. Well, it was worth the wait.

Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier feed off each other in these visceral performances, it was hard to judge who was better! It made me think of 'The Deer Hunter' where Chris Walken and Robert De Niro are so brilliantly cast against each other, or even Glengarry Glen Ross where the ensemble cast is truly peerless.

Caine's performance as Tindle is seminal, you can feel his hunger for a victory, to pull one over Olivier's snobby gentry. Similarly, the film is crackling with tension, down to Olivier's portrayal of Andrew Wyke - seething with arrogance, classism and as a symbol of the ever-declining bourgeoisie. What really impressed, however, was how funny the script managed to be without losing the drama, something that isn't easy to achieve.

The two performances, however, are not enough - it is Anthony Shaffer's subliminal screenplay, from his stage play, that is the glue that binds this together. The dialogue is fantastic throughout and doesn't falter, whilst Caine and Olivier deliver their lines and interactions completely naturally.

Cinematographically the film is excellently shot, with the insinuation of Wyke's plainly freaky marionettes and clutter as watching over the charade between Caine and Olivier. There is also a great score to accompany, adding to the thriller aspect of this piece.

I won't go over the plot because the only way to enjoy this film is to see it, all you need to know is it is a tale of jealous, competitiveness and revenge.

'Sleuth' is a master piece, it is witty and sharp and makes the viewer think, whilst Olivier and Caine chuck out performances that easily rank along the best they have done, before or after. So, to reiterate, it was completely worth the wait.

Devious and Twisted, but it leaves something to be desired

[moviesleuth2 · 6/10 · 29 July 2008]

When it comes to movies, I'm pretty stubborn. I realized that there was a remake of this film with one of its original stars and Jude Law, but I chose not to see it because like with every film that has to suffer through a remake, I wanted to see the original (the fact that I had heard it hadn't made it to DVD hadn't eased my stubbornness). So there I was at Blockbuster, and what did I see? THE ORIGINAL "SLEUTH" ON DVD! Needless to say I snatched it right up, and I couldn't wait to watch it. While it's a good film, and succeeds at being unpredictable (a rarity), it left me with something to be desired.

Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) is invited over to the house of Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) to discuss the divorce of Andrew's wife Margurite, who is also Milo's lover (a fact known by Andrew). But since both of them know that Milo can't afford Margurite's spending habits, Andrew offers Milo a solution that will leave both he and Milo very happy. And so begins a series of twisted games where the stakes grow increasingly higher.

There are two problems with "Sleuth:" pacing and Caine. "Sleuth" is at times very talky, and it causes the film to drag. Caine and Olivier take advantage of the material the best they can, but they can't help the film from being slowed down by the excess dialogue.

When I say that there is a problem with Caine's performance, I must tread lightly and be very vague, because it's only in one scene, and to describe it would give away one of the film's biggest surprises. But apart from that scene, Caine is terrific with Olivier.

Olivier clearly has a lot of fun with this role. At times he is an eccentric old man, but at others he is a force to be reckoned with, and Olivier switches from one side of the coin to the other flawlessly.

It would be unfair to blame director Joseph L. Mankiewicz for the pacing, since there is so much padded dialogue that Mankiewicz can't do much to rectify the situation. While one could argue that a lot of dialogue can be a drawing point, playwright/screenwriter Anthony Shaffer is no Quentin Tarantino (in fact, he's closer to David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross"-not a good thing). And Tarantino was never this wordy anyway.

But Mankiewicz does solid work with "Sleuth." He adapts the play so that while it is never a filmed version of a stage play, it stays true to its stage roots. I liked how he used the toys and dolls that are all over Wyke's house to enhance the creepiness of the play, but again, the dialogue is so wordy that it counteracts everything Makiewicz tries to do to ratchet up the tension, so the film seems longer than it should be.

Normally a film is inferior to its source material. It's a wonder to find a film that is hampered by it.

old school

[dgarwood · 3/10 · 17 February 2006]

Okay, I don't want to make anyone angry, but this doesn't hold up very well. In fact I posit that the interview with Anthony Shaffer on the DVD is more entertaining than the whole film. Mankiewicz was a talented man and so was Shaffer, and so were the actors, but this is dated. It's talky, easy to figure out, and mostly something for fans of theater, Mank, and Olivier and Caine. The editing is particularly jarring, with quick cuts of inanimate objects inserted rapidly, something David Lynch does much more poetically in his work, most notably, Twin Peaks. This would never be filmed today, unless it was for Lifetime, with the leads changed for women and the script tightened, and reworked. It's a rambling old dinosaur of a play/script - it thunders along kicking up dust and then heaves its last breath and lays there wheezing on the ground, leaving this viewer wondering if it ever should have been translated to film. I'm sure it worked quite well as a stage play but in the cinematic day and age of Fight Club, The Sixth Sense, and The Others, it's old and musty and easy to figure out, (does anyone not know that's Michael Caine as the Inspector Doppler in the second act???) and if it does fool you, it's only for a second and not to very great effect. Deathtrap, also with Caine is a subtle retelling of this tale, only tighter, and with a woman character added. And both Deathtrap and Sleuth borrow Heavily from Diabolique. Heavily.

If you do purchase or rent the DVD, watch the extra feature with Shaffer. It's Magic, which is what I expected from the film - but its time has come and gone. It has wrinkles and liver spots and will do little more than bore most viewers under 60. I know I'll get reamed for this, but it had its time and even then, in my humble opinion, it was over rated.

If you like Olivier, there's a lot of better choices out there, as well as Caine. If you want a more lively 1970's work from Shaffer, try Frenzy or The Wicker Man. As for J. Mank, All About Eve was made 56 Years Ago (!!) and still holds up quite nicely as a savage black comedy of words, forever a monument to the man as a writer and director. Sleuth is little more than a dated footnote to his career. Everyone's actually - it just doesn't pass the test of time.