Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

valdaquende-39713 Rating this film is a tough go. As a long-time fan of Chandler's stories, I appreciate and watch every film based upon them. Some are stunning; some are not. This one is in-between.First a word about Robert Mitchum. Watching him in 'Farewell My Lovely' (1975), I had to conclude that of all the portrayals of Philip Marlowe I have seen (by Humphrey Bogart, James Garner, Dick Powell, James Caan, Elliot Gould, Robert Montgomery, George Montgomery, Powers Boothe and several others), Robert Mitchum stands out as the most realistic Philip Marlowe of them all. Shop-worn, hard-bitten but with a kindly and chivalrous streak within; aging but still very vital and with a solid 'authority'(for want of a better term) in the role, Mitchum made as perfect a Philip Marlowe as has ever graced the screen - in 'Farewell My Lovely'.Unfortunately, in this film he probably won't impress you in this way but that is not his fault; it's the screenwriter's. Sadly, it was decided, for whatever reason, to transplant the story to England; a transplant that doesn't work very well. The gritty world in which Marlowe lives is not a very good fit for the English countryside and the locales and characters lack the film-noir geist that Chandler's world evokes: the crazy mixture of glitz and sleaze, glamour and grittiness that was post-prohibition Los Angeles.Nonetheless, this film has a number of redeeming qualities; the acting is quite good, the plot adheres to Chandler's story much more closely than the Bogart/Bacall version and the scenes, cinematography and direction are competent and entertaining.

John T. Ryan WHENEVER A CLASSIC film is remade, a true classic that is, the producers are aware from the start that they will have opened that proverbial can of nails. Compatison, criticism and all sorts of charges of bloody murder are sure to follow.SO IT WAS with today's subject matter title in THE BIG SLEEP (ITC/Winkist/United Artists. 1978); but, in this case, it's not for reasons usually cited. This is our considered 'professional' opinion because the original version of THE BIG SLEEP (Warner Brothers, 1946), which featured Humphrey Bogart and young paramour/trophy wife, Miss Lauren Bacall, is very good, but never crosses that threshold into the very elite productions.WHILE IT TRULY had a lot of the potential that is required to be considered, those certain intangibles just weren't there. In short it is no CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA nor not even KING KONG. The Good News that it is still better than the remake.WHEN ONE EXAMINES its entirety, we discover that some of the more obvious reasons are unusually led into the witness chair in an attempt to affix blame. Hence we have the following, 'usual suspects' awaiting en queue; those being: star & featured roles, supporting cast and general fidelity to the original story and characters.CERTAINLY ONE MUST come to the reasonable conclusion that none of these factors are 'the murderer'; although there could be made a strong case against some of their being complacent and knowing accomplices.ANY PRODUCTION WHICH boasts of having two such iconic stars as this picture does is surely said to be out of the old 'starting blocks' with ease. The combination of James Stewart and Robert Mitchum (considered by many to be the best of the screen Matlowes)was a concession to both critical approval, as well as to Box Office $ucce$$!* WHAT WE FAULT as being the weak link in this movie is its setting. Had it not been transported to contemporary London, instead of to 1940's Los Angeles of Raymond Chandler's pen; it would have been a much better,interesting and more entertaining a movie.AS EVIDENCE OF what we are driving at, just take a gander at the previous Phillip Marlowe outing in FAREWELL, MY LOVELY (ITC/????/Avco Embassy, 1975) as proof.AND JUST WHY was such a change of venue or setting implemented as cornerstone of this filming of THE BIG SLEEP? We believe it was the fault of 'the Suits' in the Board Rooms of the Companies who were footing the bill.AS OFFERING THE best comparison that we can to strengthen and perhaps prove our case, we must refer to the old SHERLOCK HOLMES Series, with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.** Those stories were filmed in a contemporary (1940's) setting for one simple reason; that being, the bottom line. It was much more economical, ergo, more profitable to do it this way; rather than having incurred the extra expense of Victorian costuming, Olde London Towne sets, horse drawn carriages, etc.SO IT IS true to this Marlowe romp that present day London would be far less costly than recreating the Los Angeles of a bygone era; as was done for FAREWELL, MY LOVELY.THE PROSECUTION RESTS. your witness! NOTE: * The popularity of Raymond Chandler's cynical, world weary sleuth is evidenced by the number of major movies made in the '40's on' all done by various studios and not as a run of "B" or "Series" movies.NOTE:** These don't include THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (both 20th Century-Fox, 1939)which both starred and originated the Rathbone-Bruce team and were set as they should Be, in Victorian/Edwardian England, Scotland, Wakes and Ireland.

Michael_Elliott Big Sleep, The (1978) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Philip Marlowe (Robert Mitchum) is asked by General Sternwood (James Stewart) to track down a blackmailer who is using his daughters (Sarah Miles, Candy Clark) but after the blackmailer is found murdered the private detective finds a whole string of people who seem to be keeping one secret after another. THE BIG SLEEP certainly doesn't come close to the Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Bacall film but at the same time it's somewhat unfair to judge the two especially when you consider that this version was a lot closer to the original novel and features stuff that couldn't even be hinted at in the 1947 version. The basic plot how a lot of perversion as we're dealing with one sister (Clark) who is certainly a sexual pervert and someone who is taken nude photos, which sets off the entire blackmailing. Teenage pornography is one of the many subplots as a wide range of characters come in and out of the story. For the most part I enjoyed this version but I think what really kept it from being a good movie is the rather lackluster direction by Winner who just doesn't seem to know what to do with the material. There are far too many scenes that contain no suspense, no tension and even worse is that some of the action scenes come across as some sort of bored after thought. There are a couple different scenes where Marlowe finds himself in some sort of struggle yet they're all filmed rather poorly and end up going no where. I'm not expecting some sort of masterpiece but the director should have at least worked the mystery a tad bit more but sadly there's very little energy or emotion to be found. I will admit that the story here is much better than the original movie as Marlowe and Mitchum seem perfectly well suited for the material. There are several scenes where the sisters come onto Mitchum and that laid back approach of his is perfectly done and there never was a better acting at playing this type of detective. Mitchum is clearly having fun with the role and he certainly helps keep the film moving. Stewart only has a couple small scenes but it's always nice to see him and the stuff with Mitchum was a lot of fun because the two legends are clearly having fun working together. Both Miles and Clark are good in their roles and we get nice supporting work from Richard Boone, Richard Todd, Joan Collins and Oliver Reed. This film certainly earns its R-rating as Clark is nude in pretty much each of her scenes here and the dirty nature of the pornography certainly sets the film apart from the original. The film had its setting changed to London, which is somewhat of a letdown as L.A. would have been much better but overall THE BIG SLEEP is a fairly rewarding picture but one only wishes the director had done a better job.

elshikh4 Who can make tasteless, dull, silly movies? Who can bother you by the stupidest cuts in one scene? Who can light dumbly everything and everyone like the worst TV work yet in cinematic movies? Who can move the whole cast as robots without so much meaning ? Who can bring the wooden performance out of all the actors, even the big names ? Who can direct the highest spiritless scenes ever ? Who can manage to write the most mechanical scripts, with the unfunniest lines? Who got the passion for harsh sex and violence on the screen ? Who got no sense of humor or maybe no sense? Who can annoy you with a style has no style at all ? Who can make movies to be learned at Film schools as the prototype of "don't do that again" ? And finally, who got the talent of deforming an American classic movie? So can bore you to death with what's supposed to be a thriller ? Ladies and Gentleman, I give to you the Winner himself : Mr. Michael Winner, who with him you'll always lose ! P.S : I think that's more merciful than other comment I wanted to write, about such a movie, which I intended to entitle "How To Explode a Movie By Dynamite ?!"