The Singing Detective (2003) User Reviews (82)

See it for yourself

[hall895 · 6/10 · 24 April 2015]

The Singing Detective is a movie which defies description or explanation. Any attempt at a summation of the plot would be futile. It's a comedy, it's a musical, it's a mystery, it's film noir. Well, it has elements of all of those things anyway but the end product does not fit neatly into any category. Structure? The movie really has none. This means that, while it may be interesting, it often comes across as somewhat incoherent. Much of the movie seems to take place inside the main character's head. But that character is the most unreliable of narrators. He doesn't have any grasp on what is real so how can the audience? This is a movie you just have to try to figure out for yourself.

Robert Downey, Jr. plays the main character, Dan Dark. Dan is a writer of cheap, lurid detective novels. Right now he finds himself laid up in the hospital with the worst case of psoriasis you've ever seen. He's in terrible pain, pretty much completely incapacitated and quite possibly losing his mind. He lapses into a fantasy world in which he is the main character in his own novel. But characters from the novel start to appear in the real world. Or do they? Are we still inside Dan Dark's mind? If so, how do we get out because inside Dan Dark's mind is not a particularly pleasant place to be.

This carries on throughout the film, real world and fantasy worlds colliding. Even what seems obviously real may not be. We meet Dan's wife, played enigmatically by Robin Wright. She's cheating on him. Or does Dan just think she is so that is what is presented as reality? In flashbacks Carla Gugino plays Dan's mother. But then she shows up as an entirely different person in Dan's delusions. Mel Gibson plays a rather strange psychologist who may well be able to help Dan if only Dan actually wanted to be helped. Maybe Dan prefers to retreat into his own mind, into his fantasy world. Does this all come together in the end? Not really. You're left largely wondering what in the world it was that you just saw. But confusing though it may be the movie still manages to be pretty entertaining. Downey turns in an excellent performance. Wright and Gibson are very good as well. Adrien Brody and Katie Holmes are among the performers who are solid in smaller roles.

The movie is well-acted all around and the story draws you in. But as you go deeper and deeper there is the sense the movie spirals a little bit out of control. Some structure would have helped. But if told in entirely straightforward fashion the story would not have been nearly as interesting. This movie is unique. Some will love it. Some will hate it. It is a movie which was an interesting experiment. Maybe you'll appreciate what was attempted here, maybe you won't. Everyone is going to have their own unique personal reaction to this movie. To each their own.

Could have been great, but.......

[prod74 · 5/10 · 8 July 2004]

I picked this movie up because I read the story on the back cover and found it interesting and because I like Downey. I was prepared to watch something different (from most movies I watched this year) and in that regard I was not disappointed. The movie was indeed different, the story was interesting, acting was very good (in most cases) the soundtrack was excellent....so why didn't I enjoy it?

When the movie finished I was left disappointed. I couldn't find any real flaws in any aspect of the film (direction was above average, acting was great, music was very good and appropriate) but still I did not feel like I have just watched a great movie. I did not hate it but I didn't like it either. More than a couple of times I was tempted to hit fast forward.

And after a while I realized what was the problem with this film. Every character (except Downey's character - and then only to some extend) is left undeveloped and every relationship in the film is also left undeveloped. Most parts of the story are left unfinished or are presented in so little detail that they become uninteresting or irrelevant. It almost feels as if the original duration of the film was 4 hours and they had to cut bits and pieces to make it shorter.

All in all, I feel this could have been a great movie, but something happened along the way and the result was an average film. Worth watching it once, if only for Downey and an out-of-character Gibson, but that's it.

P.S. Please excuse any spelling or grammar mistakes. I'm not used to writing in English.

An Outsider's View

[mstomaso · 5/10 · 7 June 2005]

I have neither read the novel nor seen the original mini-series. A relative was enthralled with both, so seeing this listed on my cable guide I decided to give it a shot. I knew only the basic premise - that the film would be centered around a writer of pulp detective fiction who fantasizes about the lives of his characters as a way to escape his debilitating chronic skin disease. This was a good impression to enter this movie with, though far from complete. The 'singing detective' is the main character in Dan Dark's first novel, and an imaginary alter-ego existing in a seedy film-noir world of pulp fiction, in which Dark has encoded all of the traumas of his emotionally disturbing life. Meanwhile, Dark himself lies in a hospital bed incapacitated by some form of chronic leprosy and spreading a message of hate to everybody who dares to try to help him. The film focuses - though rather impressionistically - on Dan Dark's psychological journey during a prolonged hospital stay.

Without the background most viewers of this film might approach it with, I can only view it as an outsider, judging it only on its own merits. There are a few major problems which immediately come to mind. First - The Singing Detective is slated as a comedy. While I suppose some people might see it as a dark comedy, I am afraid that I found none of it funny whatsoever. Obnoxious, mean-spirited verbal violence does not amuse me. Second - though I do not have the insider perspective needed to support this idea (I haven't even read any IMDb reviews of this film), I suspect that the film leaves a lot of the development of its basic theme - of healing - out. Paradoxically, this problem seems to develop because of the nearly exclusive focus on Downey's deeply disturbed and paranoid character Dark, and his hospital antics. Yes, he's a very difficult patient - we get that right away - but is it necessary to drive it home scene after scene after scene? Downey's Dark is a blend of Woody Allen and Dustin Hoffman's Rainman, while his "Singing Detective" is a cold-fish hybrid of Humphrey Bogart, Bob Mitchum and all of the other noir detectives ever seen on the big screen. And he sings (this is a fact which is neither explained nor well-developed, but I am sure that the silly 1950s RnR tunes are the only venue for positive emotions the character allows himself). Downey's performances are, as usual, good, but they fail to sustain the entire film (which they are, unfortunately, asked to do). Mel Gibson, playing the hospital psychoanalyst, steals the show, despite his decidedly minor though important role. The rest - the pretty young nurse, the ambiguous wife, and the characters inhabiting Dark's fantasies and later his hallucinations are all well written and performed, but fail to compensate for the somewhat dull development of the central theme.

Good films based on unfamiliar literary works always make me want to read the original material (Master and Commander, The World According to Garp, and Bladerunner are some examples). When I see a good film based on a book I am familiar with (LOTR, Cider House Rules, Minority Report, The Shining, Solaris, for example) I approach it with a head full of expectations. With this film, I had only a palm full of expectations, and, though my review may sound negative, I was pleasantly surprised. The film dove unexpectedly deep, but in the end, came up a little empty-handed for me. Nor did I expect the film to be as breezily entertaining as it was. Balancing breezy entertainment and deep psychological drama (not to mention literary comedy and plenty of music) is a difficult task. Though The Singing Detective ultimately fails in this ambitious goal, it is still worth seeing, if nothing else, as an appetizer for the mini-series - which I will borrow from my relative post-haste.

Not perfect but interesting at times

[Buddy-51 · 10 November 2004]

When 'The Singing Detective' was first produced as a TV mini series in 1986, it had a cumulative running time of well over 400 minutes. In this theatrical remake, the story has been pared down to no more than 106. I haven't seen the original - which enjoyed almost unprecedented critical acclaim in its time - so I have no idea how much of its quality has been lost in its currently truncated form. Hence, I will only be talking about this expurgated version, which stars Robert Downey Jr. and Mel Gibson, both in virtually unrecognizable roles. It should be noted that the screenplay is credited to the late Dennis Potter, the author of the original work, so we can assume that director Keith Gordon simply cut and pasted - though a less charitable person might say 'bowdlerized' - the much longer teleplay.

'The Singing Detective' tells the surrealistic tale of a writer of detective fictions who is suffering from a horrifically painful and disfiguring skin disease. As he lies in his hospital bed, his mind drifts back and forth between reality and fantasy, a hallucinatory condition brought on by fever and his own author's imagination. At times, Dan is acutely aware of his miserable situation in the here and now, with all its attendant physical and psychological agony. At other times he becomes lost in re-enactments of key scenes from his gumshoe fictions, memories of his miserable childhood, and elaborately staged song-and-dance numbers in which the characters lip-synch to musical standards from the '40's and '50's.

Because its style and subject matter are somewhat off-putting at first, 'The Singing Detective' takes a bit of getting used to, but eventually the themes and stylistic elements begin to come together and the film takes off. The irony is that, for all the razzle dazzle of its form and style, the film is at its most intriguing in its quieter, subtler moments when the embittered hospital patient is forced to confront the demons of his own tormented psyche. Dan Dark is a man who obviously prefers the world of fantasy to the cold harshness of an often excruciatingly painful reality. In addition to his debilitating disease, Dan is also haunted by a failed marriage and an often tragic childhood that he tries to 'correct' by entering the world of idealized fiction, one that he can manipulate and control. As the bombastic hospital psychologist figures out, Dan's illness is essentially psychosomatic in nature, one rooted in his inability to accept the realities of life in his own skin. In fact, Dan ultimately discovers that his disease is as much a product of his imagination as the scenarios and characters that make up his fiction. The illness becomes his way of not having to deal with his inner torments. Somewhat paradoxically, his writing becomes a form of therapy for him, helping him to deal with all that unresolved bitterness in his soul. The film is as much about psychological healing as it is about physical healing. Oddly enough, Dan's confrontations with his wife, psychologist and other hospital staff are actually far more interesting than what is happening in his rather puerile imagination. Still, towards the end of the film, when Dan starts to make some profound psychological breakthroughs, the fantasy scenes actually do begin to work and the complex structure pays off.

Downey does a fantastic job bringing Dan to life, conveying both the physical and emotional anguish the character is undergoing. Gibson has a great deal of fun playing the part of a paunchy, balding psychiatrist whose unorthodox methods wind up getting to the root of his belligerent patient's troubles. Robin Wright Penn, Jeremy Northam, Adrian Brody, Katie Homes and Alfre Woodard among others all deliver top notch supporting performances. And special praise must surely go to the large makeup staff whose work here is nothing short of miraculous.

'The Singing Detective' will probably not satisfy die-hard fans of the original lengthy mini series. But for the rest of us who have seen no other version than this one, the film's audacious style and complex themes help the movie ride up and over its not inconsiderable flaws.

intriguing failure

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 31 May 2016]

Detective story writer Dan Dark (Robert Downey Jr.) is hospitalized suffering full body lesions. The pain is causing hallucinations of hard-boiled detective characters. He is treated by Dr. Gibbon (Mel Gibson) and nurse Mills (Katie Holmes). He is demanding to have his novel 'The Singing Detective' from his wife (Robin Wright). He is hounded by two detectives in his dreams as well a vision of his mother (Carla Gugino) who took him from his father to live in rundown L.A.

It's an intriguing idea. It may even work if the surreal dreamscape makes any sense at all. The dream work becomes a lot of nothing with bits of really interesting childhood recollections with his mother. After awhile, the hallucinations get repetitive and it ultimately goes nowhere.

Time is not on our side

[travis_iii · 6/10 · 19 March 2012]

If it weren't for the original TV series I fancy that this version of Dennis Potter's 'The Singing Detective' would be regarded as an unusual and interesting film, maybe with something of a cult following. But inevitably it is compared to the original series and can't help but shrivel in its illustrious presence.

So why remake the 1986 TV series as a feature film? The original is one of the best works ever made for TV and it runs to almost seven hours. It could be that the producers wanted to bring the piece to a wider audience and that is laudable, but the time constraints mean that much of the original narrative is stripped away and with it goes most of the emotional power, leaving a peculiar and spare story about a bitter, misogynistic man who is hospitalised with psoriasis and who is haunted by feelings of guilt concerning the death of his mother. This means that fresh audiences of the story will probably see it as a piece of rather clichéd psychodrama made interesting only by its visceral dialogue and quirky dream sequences, rather than as the masterpiece it is.

Maybe if the producers were really committed to the work they would have added another 30 minutes to the film to give it a better chance of success as a work of art. I suspect a half-hour more running time wouldn't have saved it but it would have allowed more material from Dan Dark/Philip Marlow's childhood to be included, for that is where the emotional core of the work lies. The fantasy sequences are meaningless without reference to the real emotions that Dan Dark has left behind. This lack of context drains the film and its characters of meaning and it is left just being quirky and slightly interesting; a sort of puzzling crime scene. The question being: who stole the story's soul, and where has it been stashed?

In parts, RDJ's performance is very good (he excels hamming it up as the fictional detective of the title), but in parts it slips, and generally the acting comes across as more mannered than the British TV original (makes one appreciate just how great that cast were). In particular Mel Gibson , in dodgy prosthetic comb-over, is rather grating.

The finger-prints of the Hollywood studio can be found all over the cinematic crime-scene. The songs should have stayed in the 1940s. Shifting them to the 1950s seems like an attempt to make them have more commercial appeal and perhaps allow RDJ to look a bit more cool when lip syncing - which rather misses the point of the songs. He gives the game away when he actually sings a song over the end credits - I bet Dennis Potter didn't put that into his screen adaptation - more likely it was RDJ's agent. It has the effect of eradicating any lingering sense that you've been watching a drama. Of course by the time the credits are rolling you've already been served up an ending even more anodyne than the problematic ending of the original, with RDJ strolling out the hospital looking like he's just got back from a two-week vacation in Florida.

There are some well crafted scenes but ironically the film looks rather small and studio-bound compared to its TV predecessor. I think this is partly because of the originals' brilliant direction by Jon Amiel. It was shot in film often in wonderful locations such as the Forest of Dean and so even cinematically it was a hard act to follow.

So many considerations make one realise what a doomed artistic enterprise this was. Potter was at his most brilliant when writing about the things he was most familiar with, especially the Britain of the 1940s and 1950s with its repressive class system, and his childhood in the Forest of Dean. Removing this cultural setting (along with 5 hours of complex interwoven imagery) renders The Singing Detective impotent. I can't help but think he knew this - and I'd also like to believe that any adaptation he handed over was hacked to pieces in the making of this film. It may also be that he wanted to leave an extra financial legacy to his family, and handing over his most celebrated work to Hollywood was the best way of accomplishing that end.

My plea to first-time viewers of The Singing Detective is: do not be put off by this feature film version. Please, please watch the original! It's breadth is enormous and it will make you think and weep like the best art should.

Not much here

[fmwongmd · 2/10 · 6 November 2018]

What a waste of time and treasure. It's not funny or fun.

Another Feather In The Cap For Mel Gibson... I Finally Forgive Him For Lethal Weapon 4!

[hokeybutt · 6/10 · 16 December 2004]

THE SINGING DETECTIVE (3 outta 5 stars) Excellent main performance by Robert Downey Jr. as a writer of detective stories who is stricken with a horrible skin disease which makes his every movement extremely painful. He is basically trapped in his hospital bed and at the mercy of the doctors, nurses and attendants. With nothing else to do he begins to hallucinate... mixing up plots of his novels with personal details from his past. Also people he talks to tend to start lip-syncing old 50s tunes for no particular reason. Mel Gibson has a great supporting role as a psychiatrist who thinks that there may be a psychological component to Downey's suffering and seeks to get to the bottom of it. Odd, little film has a lot of interesting scenes and characters... unfortunately there are a number of scenes that kind of fall flat, too. Not to worry, the movie is still well worth seeing... if for no other reason than to see a balding Mel. Gibson produced the movie... which is probably the only reason they were able to afford to get him in a small, independent movie like this.

Let's remake a classic! What a stupid idea!

[dusty-bottoms · 1/10 · 5 March 2004]

The original 48-hour TV production could apparently only be networked either in it's entirety or not at all. Why then was this bastardisation ever allowed? To ascribe Potter's name to this travesty of a mockery of a sham is an insult to possibly the greatest screen writer to ever draw breath.

I was more than ready to hate this, and I must say I was not disappointed. Where to start? The performances (mostly bad), the shoe-horned musical numbers, the lack of character development...

This follows the increasingly wearisome and well-trodden path that is Remake Alley. Take a classic, stick some big-bucks names in it and call it Betty. Have you guys run out of ideas? Get Carter!? The Italian Job!? Do us a favour, get a writer!$#

The (albeit few) positive reviews cite RD Jr's performance. This moist-eyed sentimentality for the drug-addled loon's fall from grace is quite touching. However, methinks he was playing himself, and as for Gibson! No matter what demands the part asks of him, he plays Gibson. A bit like Michael Caine, but devoid of cockney charm & wit. Or Ozzy charm & wit, but he's not even really an Ozzy.

Can't wait for his newie... "Strewth Sheila, I mean Mary! Throw us a tinny, I've been in the bush for 40 days and noights (sic) and I've a mouth like a swagman's grundies!" ...I think not.

I'd Rather Watch This Than Another Transformers or Fast & Furious

[slightlymad22 · 7/10 · 5 February 2017]

The Singing Detective (2003)

Plot In A Paragraph: From his hospital bed, Dan Dark (Robert Downey Jr) a writer suffering from a skin disease (he calls himself a "human pizza) hallucinates musical numbers and paranoid plots.

I can't talk about this movie, without talking about the casting of Robert Downey Jr. Long before Downey Jr cleaned up his act and landed the Ironman gig, there was a time when he was damaged goods and yesterday's headlines.

Following a troubled past, at the turn of the decade, Downey Jr was on the rise again. He'd been nominated for an Emmy, and had won a Golden Globe for his superb work in Ally McBeal, and he was praised as being responsible for a boost in the shows ratings, but he was fired from the show by FOX, after his latest drug related incident, it also forced Mel Gibson to shut down his planned stage production of Hamlet with Downey Jr in the lead role and he also lost the John Cussack role in American Sweethearts. That seemed to be that. Nobody would touch him, let alone offer him a decent movie role. Enter his Air America co star Mel Gibson.

However it wasn't plain sailing, Gibson had to pay Downey Jr's insurance, after the studio balked at the cost of insuring someone deemed an unreliable actor, due to the last five years of substance abuse, arrests, rehab, and relapses. Gibson dug in to his own pocket to ensure Downey Jr was cast.

This movie is certainly not to everyone's taste, and I can see why!! But it's filled with great performances from Downey Jr, Robin Wright Penn, Katie Holmes, Adrian Brody, Saul Rubineck, Carla Gugino and a barely recognisable Gibson. Its soundtrack is filled with songs almost everyone over a certain age should recognise, and personally I'd much watch something original like this, than another Transformers or Fast & Furious movie.

I'm not sure why Downey Jr's singing voice was dubbed for this, as he has a good singing voice. I even own his album.

The Singing Detective was a flop, it did not finish the year in the the top 100 highest grossing movies of 2003. Which (even for a supporting role) was unheard of for a Gibson movie back then.

It's funny how their respective careers went from here. Downey Jr had supporting roles in movies such Gothika, Scanner Darkly and Zodiac whilst nabbing the lead in Shane Blacks Kiss Kiss Bang Bang before being cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man. Whilst Gibson made The Passion Of Christ and all hell broke lose..... and it was pretty much down hill from there for a long time.

Worst Movie I've Seen in Years

[chron · 1/10 · 19 November 2005]

I am pretty stingy with my 10 ratings and I have enough respect for the effort and complexity of movie making that I rarely rate a movie a 1. This movie got a 1.

I rented the movie based on my appreciation with the work of Robert Downey. With such a strong supporting cast - real A list actors - I thought this would be a good movie in spite of the relatively low IMDb rating. I now appreciate Downey less and IMDb viewers more.

The writing was bush league. I think it was trying to be a campy spoof of the 1940's film noir, but it was just bad. The direction was weak as well. There was film-school shots that would make George Romero cringe.

Run, don't walk, away from this disaster of a movie. If you like Robert Downey, go rent "Chaplin" again, but don't waste your time on this dog.

An imperfect film for an imperfect world

[artzau · 8/10 · 12 July 2004]

Hey, I liked it. There were good things: Gibson unrecognizable as the shrink, Downey at his best, whacky story, pastiches of film noir, mind mystique, Touches of Freud, Jung... but it's not perfect. Some confusions persist: Downey as the frustrated, nonintrospective, horny writer whose imagination has taken over his life is often whining. His round-heeled mother has few redeeming features, the shifts between real and irrealis is jerky..., and so on. It's easy to find fault with a complex tale and one in which there are so many loose ends and ravelings but what do you take away with you when it's all said and done? Reading through the comments here, I came across the usual "I didn't like this..." and "I didn't like that..." comments. OK. Not every one likes pistachio ice cream. I love to see, hear and consider other views because it makes me reexamine my own impressions. Of interest to me was the recurring theme of confusion in these commentaries. I shared much of that because of the less than smooth transitions in the switches to irreality and the flashbacks. In films where the observers are given admittance to the inside of the performer's head, must be a melange of images, themes and mini-scenes because, alas, that's the way the mind works. So, from an audience perspective, it works for some and won't for others because, alas again, that is the way OUR minds work. Sorry to wax so psychiatrically but films like this one, as imperfect as it is, can tell us a lot about ourselves.

A provocative mix

[ALauff · 7/10 · 18 October 2007]

Rotting with chronic skin lesions on a hospital bed, pulp author Dan Dark (Robert Downey Jr.) routinely slips into the comforting daydream of detective fiction in which he's a whip-smart, crooning PI. By now, noir-like fractured light, neon signs, and sleazy dives are like catnip to me, but the common setting is a dimly lit studio apartment that specifically references Blue Velvet (a slatted closet door even plays a crucial role). The tone of these reveries is an appealing blend of early Coen brothers—Coen regular Jon Polito is a menacing but buffoonish assassin—and low-key Lynchian absurdity (Downey's lip-synching of '50s pop-jazz standards emits the same gleeful rush as Cage busting out Elvis in Wild at Heart). These fantasies are splintered by a childhood trauma in which little Dan glimpses his mother's indiscretions. As his hallucinations bleed ever inscrutably into reality, he begins seeing an odd psychologist (Mel Gibson) who plunges into Dark's stories to find the root of his discontent. But psychological diagnosis rarely makes for scintillating drama, and the breakthrough spells out what is apparent from Dark's flashbacks. This isn't a crippling development, however, since it illustrates the thematic point about the dangerously alluring, sometimes therapeutic power of art and its value in deciphering the mysteries of the human soul and psyche; but it sure is superfluous. Still, the film is well worth seeing, a provocative mix of stylistic innovation and an unflattering profile of a self-loathing writer who's not as entitled to his bitterness as he initially believes.

Don't bother

[lipinskiuk · 1/10 · 9 September 2010]

Yet another American remake of a British classic that gets it totally wrong.

The singing detective is the middle section of a trilogy that describes Dennis Potters childhood and early adulthood.

Pennies from Heaven is set in the 1930's with a jazz soundtrack The singing detective is set in the 1940's with a swing soundtrack lipstick on your collar is set in the 1950's with a rock and roll soundtrack.

How can The singing detective have rock and roll music as it had not around in the 1940's?

Don't get me started on the remake of Edge of Darkness as this was in the negative score's, but both original's had Johanne Whalley is the cast so there's a bonus.

Sometimes the original version can not be bettered, so please don't bother.

It's an offbeat film with style.

[JohnDeSando · 26 November 2003]

The 1984 'Singing Detective' miniseries had Michael Gambon as a misanthropic novelist confusing himself with his pulp-fiction noir detective. Although no one could approach Gambon's startling portrayal, no actor I see can match Robert Downey Jr.'s ability to bring back this character with his own demons to recreate hallucinations and '50's musicals in dreams lurid, colorful, and downright Freudian.

His debilitating skin and bone infection of extreme psoriasis have landed him in the hospital but provide him with the opportunity to dream about his choleric mother and tramp wife as well as place the hospital staff in cheesy '50's musicals.

In Keith Gordon's 'Singing Detective,' Downey brings his own life of addictions, which have truncated his career and left him dangerous to hire. He seems at home here as Dan Dark, emerging into the light of sanity by exorcizing his demons and dealing with the unreality of seductive nurse Katie Holmes attending to his skin and bone in reality and dream only as a writer could envision.

It's an offbeat film with style, similar to Woody Allen's lyrical 'Everyone Says I Love You' and Bjork's depressed 'Dancer in the Dark.' It's not quite as good as either but a charmer nonetheless.

Intriguing concept overstays it's welcome

[rosscinema · 5/10 · 6 January 2005]

It would be hard not to be interested in viewing this film considering everything involved from the great cast to the origin of the script and it's writer. Story is about Dan Dark (Robert Downey Jr) who is in the hospital suffering from a hideous skin disease that covers his entire body. Dan is a pulp fiction writer and while his pain ridden body lies in a hospital bed his hallucinations usually end up in song and dance routines or of himself as a Humphrey Bogart-like character.

*****SPOILER ALERT***** Dan is also paranoid that his wife Nicola (Robin Wright Penn) is cheating and plotting something against him but he also fantasizes about two hit men (Adrien Brody & Jon Polito) that are trying to kill him. Dan is sarcastic and downright insulting to everyone around him and it seems to stem from his memories of his mother Betty (Carla Gugino) so part of his therapy is to talk to the hospital psychiatrist Dr. Gibbon (Mel Gibson) who attempts to get at the core of his problems which may mean that his skin condition might be psychosomatic.

This film is directed by Keith Gordon (Waking the Dead) who along with producer Mel Gibson have assembled a good solid cast that helps the viewer get through the films duration because the script makes it's point early then meanders on for another hour. Downey has always been one of our more interesting and talented actors and here he's extremely well cast because the character he plays seems to mirror his own personal demons. Downey has that rare gift of taking any sort of material no matter how elaborate and make it watchable and he does it here although after about an hour the films premise grows increasingly tiresome. Dennis Potter is credited with the script and reports say he finished it before his death in 1994 although it has sat around for almost 10 years until someone decided to film it. The BBC series from 1986 was hours and hours long and you get the feeling that those responsible for this condensed effort had difficulty figuring out what to leave in and what to take out. I look at this film as an interesting try but one that loses it's spark of originality about halfway through.

A great film with a bit of everything.

[RagDolly · 7/10 · 7 February 2010]

Firstly, I have to admit, I haven't seen the original series "The Singing Detective", so I watched and am reviewing this film with fresh eyes.

And I loved it. This film is about Dan Dark, and all the events are from his perspective or in his mind. This means that the story often changes focus and jumps about a bit. But this didn't bother me, probably because Robert Downey Jr gives such a brilliant and engaging performance, you are actually interested in the character's thoughts, as strange as they may be.

The supporting cast, including some huge names, are fantastic as well. The film seems to have a bit of everything, comedy, romance, action, and interesting character developments and relationships. This film won't be for everyone, but I would definitely recommend it for it's unique style and a knock-out performance from Robert Downey Jr.

awful,awful,awful

[tresdodge · 1/10 · 8 November 2003]

This is a terrible film and what a shame as the original is superb. On paper the cast looked extraordinary with Brody,Downey jnr et al.However I could'nt stand the lead who appeared to be on narcotics throughout and Brody was used ineffectually to say the least.I feel sorry for any poor people who pay to see this crap

Good, but not as subversive as it thinks it is...

[dgefuller · 6/10 · 19 October 2010]

The film plays out like a Technicolour fever dream as reality meets fiction meets fantasy through the eyes of Robert Downey Jr's Dan Dark, a long-suffering author with an eye-watering painful looking skin condition.

Downey is on top form, and the gradual erosion of the boundaries between fantasy and reality is extremely effective as characters from the page walk into Dark's real world and vice versa.

His illness represents the decay apparent in his life since his difficult childhood, and all the clever metaphors therein are exploited beyond the obvious.

Downey is, as always, fantastic- the scenes with Mel Gibson a delight, and Robin Wright Penn exudes a vulnerable warmth in her role as his long suffering wife. Adrien Brody's presence is superfluous; still when he is on screen he's pretty darn good.

It's a film that's not as clever as it thinks it is, though- all that smart symbolism is explored beyond the plot of the story until it becomes an exercise in showing you how to be clever on film, though failing because it's so obvious.

Great performances, and all in all a wonderfully bold- yet fragile staging- of an a descent into illness and redemption, but flawed in it's brash attempt to overwhelm the audience with clever twists and turns and techniques which ultimately give the impression it's trying far too hard to be subversive.

Definitely different

[lakishaferguson21 · 3/10 · 25 March 2020]

I solely watched bc of Downey Jr, whom I'm a huge fan of but this was a bizarre flick. I understand how his broken down mental state was interfering with his real life and that of his stories. However after watching I found that I had more questions than answers: was his wife really unfaithful and money grabbing, who/what did the Polito & Brody characters represent, why was Katie Holmes in this, what was the point of the singing? Maybe I had to have seen the miniseries to understand but that should be the responsibility of the movie to help audiences understand.

See this film with an open mind

[AnaR · 7/10 · 4 June 2005]

TSD must not be judged alongside the earlier great miniseries. The film has to be allowed to stand on its own. Similarly, it is not a film that is typical of Hollywood, so viewers can't expect the same 'stah vehicle', facile storytelling and gratuitous titillation's that come out of Tinseltown. TSD is a complex, convoluted story that requires the audience to think intelligently, to remain aware and to be able to recollect what has gone before.

I found this film to be confronting, nasty, funny, moving, neurotic and deeply sad. IMO, Downey is a good enough actor to not need his fans to keep on harping about his past notoriety and drug abuses. He's an actor. He knows how to act and do that very well indeed. He played the tortured man in TSD with exactly the kind of skill and conviction that I would expect of a man of his talents. It is an excellent portrayal but not, imo, a great one. Katie Holmes's prettiness stood her in good stead, but apart from that, almost any of the current crop of young actresses could have done as well. I fail to see why a wig and a prosthetic nose should win Mel Gibson such acclaim for his rather mundane performance. Robyn Wright Penn was utterly convincing as was Carla Gugino. I liked Adrian Brody's shifty stand over man. But for me, the real standout performance was Jeremy Northam's as the handsome, oily, despicable, decadent and seductive Binney. I have read many times that Northam strives to select widely diverse roles, that he does not want to ever be typecast, that he never wants to be choked by wing collars again etc. Well, in TSD, he is about as far from Mr Knightly or Prince Amerigo or Wigram etc as he could possibly be! Here is a marvellously gifted character actor who is able to transform himself on screen in a truly powerful way. I am a great fan of Northam's acting but I confess that I found some of his scenes in TSD to be almost too confronting for comfort, but TSD is not about coddling its audience. The sum of its parts are intentionally awkward and messy, as a metaphor for Dark's life, and so it is entirely appropriate that the characters convey these conflicts too. I would recommend this film to any who like a challenge, who are not afraid of having to think, and who are brave enough to take a step out of their own comfort zone.

A dreadful trainwreck of a film

[daniel-183 · 2/10 · 11 September 2003]

I won't bore you with a plot outline - suffice to say there isn't a discernable plot. I won't bore you with all the myriad of reasons why this film should be avoided. Suffice to say that if it ever screens in an American cineplex it will be too soon. It is exactly this type of directionless, choiceless, pretentious, thoughtless drivel that makes the American film industry a frightening thing to behold. I've seen a smattering of insufficiently considered, poorly executed films this year at the Toronoto Int'l Film Fest, but this is, by far, the worst. And it is worse still for having such a fantastic, talented, ambitious cast. For their sake and that of the would-be audience, I hope no one else finds themselves sitting in a darkened theater (home or otherwise) staring at a title card that reads 'The Singing Detective.' Get out while you can.

Comparisons with earlier version unfair

[gapple-3 · 8/10 · 2 January 2006]

I saw this film as part of a process of educating myself about the career of Robert Downey Jr after seeing his remarkable performance in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and realising to my shame that I could recall seeing him in Chaplin but not much else. I have been working my way through his films and I am staggered at the range and depth of his talent, even in mediocre films (and he has made a few). But one can only agree with New Yorker critic Anthony Lane who wrote recently 'I'll watch him in anything'.

I disagree vehemently with those who've compared this Singing Detective unfavourably with the earlier version. I saw the original on television here in Australia when it was first screened, and it was indeed a great piece of television (though I preferred Pennies from Heaven which launched the international career of Bob Hoskins and was given a bad Hollywood remake). It's important to remember that Dennis Potter himself wrote this script, specifically for a shorter film version, and was keen to see it made. The dissenters should rent the DVD and listen to director Keith Gordon's commentary if they are in any doubt that it is faithful to the spirit of Potter's intentions and his written word.

The casting of Downey is a stroke of genius. Because he is a younger and very attractive man, the gross disfigurement of his character with psoriasis is infinitely more poignant than when the part was played by Michael Gambon - even when the Dan Dark character is behaving like a total bastard. His performance is extraordinary: the sublety of his mood changes and facial reactions, and the pathos he draws out of this trapped character (without a hint of schmaltz) just leap off the screen (even more remarkable given that for some of the time he was wearing makeup that took hours to apply and initially caused a bad skin reaction;and that he was under threat of returning to jail on drugs charges, which is why the film had to be shot in LA rather than Chicago - he was not allowed to leave LA).

I guess Downey's messy private life is one of the reasons he's such an interesting and complex actor. One can only hope that other brave producers will take a punt give him the big meaty parts that his talent deserves.

Don't let the nay sayers dissuade you from seeing this film; it's great. Mel Gibson is (thankfully, for me) unrecognisable and the scenes between him and Downey are terrific. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent.

High concept,impressive cast,weirdly entrapping,compelling

[rjliff · 6/10 · 12 February 2005]

I just finished watching the CD of this film and at least three time was ready to turn it off . This film is like a tight rope wire act with a human pyramid on top that is constantly wobbling throughout its performance .You can't take your eyes off it yet you feel the act will not live up to the billing . The musical numbers are great confections . The sets are obviously derivative of other films and genres , but they always look like stage sets & never quite draw you in to that suspension of belief one keeps reaching for with all that quality in play . Downey was perfect , Gibson was a hoot playing against his type but still with his unique madness just below the bald head and thick glasses . The enitire cast was of the best. So much quality in one production.

The sexual content was definitely there- Very R --lurid ,phantasmagorical,amusing, credible and at the same time you felt the protagonists convoluted lust plus pain & suffering---& past life .

A tower of gret height wobbling somehow. I wanted the film makers to "pull it off " the entire gambit --If asked, I would probably say that one has to be a sinful to groove on the sum of the parts -- but not the whole. with apologies for redundancy, R J L

Mediocre big-screen blow up

[MOscarbradley · 2/10 · 28 February 2009]

Whatever merits Dennis Potter's drama had on TV they are completely obliterated in this large-screen Hollywood version. Whereas Potter's "Pennies from Heaven" transferred magnificently to the cinema, (for starters it had a plot, a sense of both time and place and some stunning musical numbers), this is both inconsequential and largely incomprehensible. (If I hadn't seen the television series I'm sure I would never have known what was going on). Not that working out what's happening is really worth the effort; it's fundamentally mediocre and since Potter himself did the adaptation we know where the blame lies. A decent cast, including a heavily disguised Mel Gibson, do their best with the material but no-one seems to be able to work up any enthusiasm. One to avoid.