Amazon.com

Imagine a Cheech and Chong pothead comedy, only instead of two scruffylowlifes, the movie is about an aimless Scottish gardener and a middle-agedBritish widow with a green thumb. Grace (Brenda Blethyn of Secrets andLies and Little Voice) has just discovered that her recently deceasedhusband has left her with an enormous debt when her gardener Matthew (CraigFerguson, The Big Tease) asks her to help him tend to his small,personal-use marijuana crop. Grace soon realizes that they can turn her greenhouse into a hydroponics laboratory and turn out a profitable crop--if only theycan keep the local constables at bay and then find a dealer to actually sell thestuff. Saving Grace has well-developed characters, intelligent dialogue,a charming and capable cast, and clean, clear direction. But at heart it's stilla marijuana comedy, with most of its funniest moments coming from the silly,stoned behavior of elderly ladies and other stuffy Brits. Nothing wrong withthat, and Blethyn and Ferguson give the film a strong anchor. The ending goes alittle over-the-top, but most of the movie is well-grounded in genuine humanbehavior. A subplot about Matthew's girlfriend's pregnancy is treated withrespect and integrity. Sweet, silly, and sincere. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (55)

Quaint, entertaining and enjoyable
This droll English comedy kept me enchanted and amused throughout. Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) is widowed by her husband when he takes a flying leap out of an airplane without a parachute. Upon putting their affairs in order, she discovers that he spent all their money and mortgaged the estate leaving her penniless and steeply in debt. In a last ditch effort to save the estate, she hits upon the idea of using her hothouse and her considerable skills with plants to grow and sell high quality marijuana. Thus, the formerly wealthy widow collaborates with her gardener to grow and process the weed and attempt to bring it to market. The results are often hilarious, especially her negotiations with the drug kingpin and the reactions of the local residents.

The film is well directed and written with numerous funny situations throughout. Director Nigel Cole keeps the pace brisk and works well with the actors to produce a good deal of physical comedy laced with comical reaction scenes by various characters. He also treats us to some terrific locations that show off the wonderful English countryside. The acting is excellent, especially by Brenda Blethyn, who is quite humorous as the fish out of water determined to make her way in the drug culture. She has a quality that makes her equally believable as a proper English aristocrat and a common conniver. Craig Ferguson is also good as her partner in crime, a hapless fellow whose harebrained ideas are always getting him into trouble.

The story is not very original, the film having thematic similarities to numerous British comedies of the recent past ("Waking Ned Devine", "The Full Monty"), however one can do worse than imitate the success of these films. I rated it an 8/10. Overall, it is quaint, entertaining and enjoyable. For those looking for a light film that will tickle them, this is an excellent choice.

Charming and Quirky
I first saw Saving Grace on a Virgin Atlantic flight in July, coming home from Scotland. I never heard of the movie, but was quickly drawn in by the characters setting and plot. When it finally opened in the U.S., I became a one-man PR firm, talking the film up and getting people to go see it. Brenda Blethyn is one of my favorite actresses, back from when she played the mother in "A River Runs Through It." She plays Grace with dignity, warmth, and just a touch of desperation. Craig Ferguson is nothing like the character he plays on Drew Carey. His Matthew is sweet, concerned, and a little irresponsible, but trying hard to do the best he can. The supporting cast is wonderful too, adding a richness to the village in Cornwall that makes you care about what is happening, and believe it to be possible. Martin Clunes as Dr. Bamford, and Valerie Edmond as Matthew's girlfriend, Nicky, provide a sense of whimsy and groundedness to the events that unfold. Combine the performances with a good soundtrack and the beautiful setting on the Cornish coast and you have a great "little" film in which you will discover new things with each viewing.

Pass the dutchie, Grace
I loved Brenda Blethyn so much in "Secrets and Lies" that picking up "Saving Grace" was a no-brainer for me. Grace Trevethyn (Blethyn) is devestated by her husband's sudden suicide, but even more astonished at what apparently brought it on- he mortgaged everything they own and the bank is ready to foreclose. As Grace brainstorms how to get the dosh to keep her home, her gardner and loyal friend Matthew ("Drew Carey"s Craig Ferguson), whose girlfriend is unexpectedly pregnant, offers Grace a solution that will solve their prospective money woes: use Grace's horticulture know-how and ample greenhouse to nurse and multiply his marijuana plant to sell to a dealer. The humor sometimes slips into Benny Hill mode as Matthew and his doctor friend Martin (played by "British Men Behaving Badly"'s Martin Clunes, who is also the voice of the children's cartoon "Kipper")help Grace fend off the bank and the cops, not to mention the stodgy residents who all know what Grace is up to, but don't discuss it. One of the films funniest moments comes when two old ladies (one of whom is played by Emma Thompson's Mum Phyllida Law) stumble upon Grace's stash and think it's tea. They brew up a cuppa and get seriously stoned. Then, the film takes a more ridiculous approach as Grace and her husband's mistress enter a seedy London club to find a dealer to sell the stuff to. Still, this little ripple isn't enough to bring "Saving Grace" down to 4 stars for me. All around jolly good fun!

It'll sneak up on you
This charming, amusing film starts out fairly quiet and unassuming. When the recently widowed Grace Trevethyn (Brenda Blethyn) finds that her husband left her with a pile of debt, she slowly realizes that if she doesn't find a way to increase her income dramatically, she would lose her house. Her gardener Matthew Stewart (Craig Ferguson) encourages her to help him with his struggling pot plants. She takes this to her greenhouse and is hit by an idea on how to make money. All this is encouraged by her doctor Martin Bamford (Martin Clunes). Watching the remaining sequence of events unfold will leave you laughing.

Cornwall is not in Scotland or Northern England..?
Contrary to some really bad reviewers on this site [Shashank Tripathi on "'WEED"ING OUT MONEY TROUBLES IN A CORNWALL SETTING" and Ante Soda on "Grace saved herself"] Cornwall is not in Scotland or Northern England..? Some of this film's harshest reviewers have no idea about the setting of this work. Were they stoned when they watched the show, or wrote their reviews? Either way, don't take their word for it because they are obviously clueless about this motion picture which is outstandingly charming. British comedy fans won't be disappointed with "Saving Grace" either... ... Read more

Amazon.com

AKA has been favorably compared to The Talented Mr. Ripley, and for good reason. A fascinating drama about a young, working-class man's fraudulent claim to aristocracy and subsequent rise among the rich and privileged, AKA has a touch of the thriller about it. Matthew Leitch plays 18-year-old Dean, a handsome, beleaguered fellow abused in every conceivable way by a monstrous father and thwarted in his desire for higher education and a lucrative career. Sheltered and polished by a high-society arts matron, Lady Gryffon (Diana Quick), Dean eventually lands on his feet in Paris, gaining entrance to elite circles by pretending to be Lady Gryffon's son and getting caught between the desire of two men. The smart script by writer-director Duncan Roy plays on the paradox of an ambiguous hero whose attractiveness to the rich and jaded is his emotional authenticity and natural frankness. Leitch's performance is mesmerizing, both cryptic and eerily honest. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (61)

Uncompromisingly a five-star flick...
Based on Joseph Conrad's book "The Duel", the true story of a 30-year feud between two Napoleonic cavalry officers, "The Duellists" was Ridley Scott's first major film. Starring Keith Carradine as the pompous D'Hubert and a particularly menacing Harvey Keitel as Feraud, the film climbs inside the minds of two men for whom honor is more important than life itself.

The two antagonists begin their series of bloody encounters when D'Hubert is ordered by his commanding general to arrest Feraud for wounding the local mayor's nephew in a duel. Feraud, in a hopelessly irrational state, challenges D'Hubert to a duel, which is carried out more or less on the spot. D'Hubert comes off slightly better in the initial encounter, which only serves to fuel Feraud's rage, and the course of the film is set.

The cinematography of this film, shot by Frank Tidy, is almost beyond comparison. The previous versions on VHS simply looked muddy and rather washed out. The colors lacked any real saturation, rendering Feraud's bottle-green dolman black and it almost looked like a poor quality black and white in some scenes, especially those set in Napoleon's abortive Russian campaign.

The DVD transfer, by contrast, is staggeringly beautiful and releases colors, which I did not realize existed in the original. I am, by coincidence, a professional cameraman and I rate this as the best shot film I have ever seen. The only criticism I have is a somewhat inconsistent use of graduated filters, which, whilst they were probably quite innovative for their day, don't always work well. Grads are always a problem and any film made since will tend to suffer the same way. A very minor point.

The costumes and settings; mostly in The Dordogne, make the film not only totally authentic but defy the viewer to believe that it was made on a shoestring budget. The visual splendour challenges any modern filmaker to create the same effect without spending a vault full of money to achieve it. That is only part of the appeal of the film.

The acting performances, particularly by Keitel, want for nothing. The scene with Feraud standing on a cliff overlooking the river valley, taken in context, makes you realise that his life and pretensions to honor have been for nothing. His mania for revenge has cost him everything. Melded to the other performances with superlative skill by Ridley Scott, this film is a masterpiece and has now gone from a film I liked a lot to one which is now firmly wedged in my top ten. Like as not, it will stay there for a long time.

An overlooked masterpiece
Ridley Scott's film The Duellists is due out on Region 1 DVD soon. I have been waiting for a DVD release for this film since I first got my player. It's due out on December 3rd from Paramount.
It has a widescreen anamorphic transfer and looks set to have loads of extras.

This was the first film from director Ridley Scott.
The story is about two Napoleonic officers played by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. One offends the other and so they duel. But there is never a conclusion to the duellists bouts and one of the soldiers demands satisfaction and will not let the matter drop. He dogs the other over the course of twenty years. The final sequence in the woods is played out to perfection and I think Harvey Keitel captures the soldiers feelings brilliantly.
The cinematography and score are amazing, performances are strong despite the two leads strained accents. This film is one of the most breathtaking to look at, it's shot on a beautiful landscape and I really liked the story. To offend someone then and for them not to take up the duel was the markings of a coward and not one of honour. I think The Duellists is an overlooked masterpiece.

VISUAL FEAST -
I enjoyed this film because the producers have captured the era magnificentley with respect to period detail as well as the language and of course the mood of the time.

I was captured by the opening scene and wasn't released till the end,as the story appealed to my interest in history in general and the film certainly fulfilled this aspect as well.

The question I asked myself after seeing this film was "...why can't they make films like this anymore?..." as I learnt of the paltry budget this film was produced from. Instead of overdone special effects and mindless violence which assaults us today more often than not, this genre/style of film is appealing and should be copied with more frequency.

Superb Keitel and good solid performance by Carradine.

Obsession
Driven by a compulsion to fight a duel at the slightest insult, Harvey Keitel plays Lt. Feurandin the French army during the time of Napleon who lives by the sword. When Keith Carradine's D'Hubert is sent out to convey a message from their French commander to cease fighting duels after badly injuring the mayor of a town, Keitel's character finds the message and delivery insulting enough to--yes--challenge Carradine to a duel then and there. Carradine ends the duel by knocking Keitel's character out with a block from the butt of his sword.

From there they both spiral into the madness and obsession of Feruand and D'Hubert's need to win at all costs. Fighting over the years, they lose loved ones and, in a sense, lose themselves as the passion for the fight becomes everything. By the end neither man understands why they are truly fighting or what they are fighting for.

Ridley Scott's first feature film was his fourth attempt at making a full length film. Based on a short story by Conrad that eventually became part of a much larger narrative canvas, "The Duelists" catches Scott in perfect form the first time out. While Scott expanded his scope in higher profile films ("Alien", "Blade Runner", "Thelma and Louise" and "Gladiator"), his visual and narrative style blossomed in his very first "epic" (made for a paltry $1 million)film.

The powerful performances by the international cast manages to overcome the minor differences in accents (Keitel's Brooklyn accent vs. Carradine's California twang vs. Tom Conti's British accent, etc.). Visually and thematically powerful, "The Duelists" remains one of Scott's best films.

The anamorphic widescreen transfer looks marvelous despite some minor blemishes. Paramount has Packed this film with extras including a commentary from Scott: "Dueling Directors" featuring director Kevin Reynolds interviewing Scott; Scott's first short film "Boy on a Bike" (featuring his brother and future director Tony Scott); isolated score and commentary by Howard Shore as well as the theatrical trailer. The sound although not quite up to the standard of current films (it was made, afterall, in 1977), has a splendid range and there's minimal distoriton.

This sharply directed and written film deserves as much attention as Scott's other more mainstream features. Although no Scott film is without merit (even "Someone to Watch Over Me" and the Hammer-like "Hannibal"), "The Duelists" deserves its spot as one of Scott's five or six best films.

Point / Counterpoint
The Duellists finally arrives on DVD. At long last Ridley Scott's first film is available to the public and it was well worth the wait. The skimpy $900k budget looks more like $60 million in the hands of Scott. Using only real locations and splurging on costumes, this Napoleonic epic looks as good as any other, if not better. This is an intimate story and not one of those sweeping, libertine war melodramas. The story and acting are good, but what really stands out about this picture is the jaw droping cinematography. Scott employed a special photochemical process to enhance the contrast of the film. This is most noticed in the velvety depths of the shadows, and darker tones. The end result is a film that, often, looks like a moving Rembrandt. The above average DVD transfer serves to preserve this. I may be crazy, but it seems to me that Scott may be trying to provide us with contrapuntal films to those of Kubrick. I think that, thematically and stylistically, the Duellists is simply a boiled down version of Barry Lyndon. I think that it could also be said that Alien was probably the reactionary product of 2001. Anyway, the DVD extras provide some interesting vantage into the making and history of this great film. ... Read more

Description

"He Who Seeks Revenge Should Dig Two Graves"

Alex Cox's new film is a scathing black comedy about love, sex, family,murder, incest and revenge, set in a post-apocalyptic Liverpool. Afterten years in hiding, Vindici (Christopher Eccleston-28 Days Later, TheOthers) returns to destroy the Duke (Derek Jacobi-Gosford Park,Gladiator) who murdered Vindici's wife on their wedding day. During hisabsence Vindici's family fell into poverty, while the Duke, Duchess andtheir decadent sons acquired wealth and power, ruling over their courtobsessed with transient beauty, money, inherited privilege and power.Determined to exact his revenge, Vindici sets out to gain the confidenceof the Duke and his villainous heir, Lussurioso (Eddie Izzard-Dressed ToKill, Circle).

Featuring brilliant performances by Eccleston, Izzard, and Jacobi,Revengers Tragedy proves once again that Alex Cox (Repo Man, Sid &Nancy) is one of the few truly subversive filmmakers at work today.Somewhere between A Clockwork Orange and Baz Luhrmann's Romeo & Juliet,this updated telling of Thomas Middleton's notorious 17th century playis an energetic and stylish masterwork. ... Read more

Reviews (3)

Truly A Disappointment
While I can add little to the excellent review - "Appalling" - I can add my voice to say how disappointing every bit of this movie was. I am a fan of film noire, a fan of Robert Mitchum and a great fan of the original Humphrey Bogart/Lauren Bacall classic so I thought to myself, "This is bound to be a winner!" Boy, was I wrong! What a stinker.

Particularly disturbing was the dull, listless performance of Robert Mitchum. He was just going through the motions. This is particularly shocking in view of the fact that he had just done Phillip Marlowe in the remake of "Farewell, My Lovely" in 1975 and had delivered a classic performance of the dark, brooding over-the-hill Marlowe.

To make matters worse, the rest of the cast didn't help at all. With the possible exception of Richard Boone's energetic portrayal of Canino, it was pretty obvious nobody else really gave a damn either.

If you're a Mitchum fan, save your money. If your a film noire fan, save your money. If your money is burning a hole in your pocket - buy it - you'll only get what you deserve.

Appalling
Boy, how to begin to describe the shortfalls of this turkey? My movie book gave it a BOMB, but sometimes bombs can be fun to watch, so I wached this anyway.

What a waste of time.

First off, Mr. Mitchum virtually sleepwalks through his role. There is no spark, no flair. Just mumbling. Almost every other cast member turns in substandard performances, except Jimmy Stewart, whose fine job can't raise the efforts of his colleagues.

Candy Clark plays the psychopathic sister in such an over-the-top manner that her character is no longer disturbing, but comical. And not threatening, as it should be.

The directing is very trite, the lighting mostly high-key (lots of light filling every corner), and the audio editing is an abortion. Listen to this with headphones on and you'll hear the dialog jump back and forth between live action audio from the set to post-production audio from the studio - sometimes in the middle of a sentence!

The only redeeming thing about this film is that Candy Clark spends about half her screen time butt naked. But, that's it.

Forget this one, friends. It's a loser from every angle. You're throwing away your money. If you *must* see it, take it out of the library, like I did. Then you can rest easy at night, knowing you didn't throw your money away....

Good attempt at remaking a classic...
"The Big Sleep" is now and forever shall be Humphrey Bogart's movie. There's just no way around that.

Mitchum's great, as usual, but the British setting made me think of the Duke movie, "Brannigan". If you like "Brannigan" (I admit, I do), you'll like this version of "The Big Sleep". I suppose the producers had to make the location different to set it aprt from the 1946 film (also, British moneyman Lord Lew Grade financed the film; the Brits seem to have a quirky appreciation for our cowboys and private eye heroes).

However, this 1978 effort is worth a viewing for Marlowe fans. Mitchum captures the detective's character very well. Oliver Reed is a very menacing Eddie Mars, and just listening to his lines delivered in Reed's Shakesperian whispered hiss makes Reed the picture of the smooth and scary gangster.

Jimmy Stewart is in his golden years here, a big star just doing his thing. We only see him in two scenes, and they're fair. This was about the time he was guest-starring in features like "The Magic of Lassie", "Airport '77", and other big, overblown, movies packed with familiar faces and stars of yesteryear. Joan Collins also looks to have been added only for name value here.

Candy Clark is sexy and nubile enough (and nude often enough), as the troubled younger daughter Camilla, but although she plays the part well, she comes off as a little more spacey than incorrigable in this 70's Marlowe. Sarah Miles isn't really interesting or even all that sexy as the older sister Charlotte. She wasn't very convincing, and probably the weakest cast member. This is unfortunate, because Charlotte is an important character who is supposed to move the plot along.

As for the film itself, I think overall it was pretty good, but the modern setting (and being set in Britain), work against the Marlowe mystique. If you can get past those elements, and perhaps have not seen the classic Bogart film, this version will probably be more entertaining. I liked the opening and closing sequences, and the effort put forward throughout the film to bring Marlowe back and into then-modern times.

One thing that did not make sense was the proliferation of firearms in modern day Britain, which is just not as believable as a film set in 1940's America. Also, the scandal involving the nude photos, drug use, and the sexual antics of the younger daughter doesn't hold up well here.

The movie tries very hard, and is engaging enough for the casual viewer. There are even a few plot twists that diviate from the original film. If you are a big Marlowe fan, you may not be too pleased with the 70's re-make qualities on display, "50 pounds a day plus expenses", and other Britishisms/moderisms. On the other hand, if you want a good Mitchum detective movie, this one will fit the bill. ... Read more

Description

A brash young American comes to London to star in a major new production-and becomes the central character in a mystery fueled by intrigue and passion.Interactive Menus, Filmographies, Production Credits, Scene Access ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Romantic thriller with good acting and unexpected twists.
Even if you are not a fan of Jon Bon Jovi this film is very good. It centers around an American movie star, played by Bon Jovi who wants to get artistic recognition by starring in a London play. Thandie Newton plays the playwrights mistress and Anna Galiena his unhappy wife. The playwright is played by Lambert Wilson as Felix Web. The desperate playwrite asks the American star, Robin Grange to seduce his wife so she can leave the marriage with her self-esteem intact. The plot thickens from there with a surprise ending. Well worth taking a look at the slick European film.

Pleasantly Surprised
I have seen Jon Bon Jovi in a few movies before and he has always impressed. However this movie is at the start of his acting career and he is "The leading man".

So it was lucky that he had a smart script, excellent support actors and talent to burn.

The story revolves around an american actor who is to star in a play in London and his relationship with the writer, his mistress and his wife.

Take it seriously, its a good movie.

interesting...not much more to say
okay, i've read most of the other reviews for this movie and had high expectations for it. i mainly wanted to see it for jon bon jovi, maybe because he is really HOT. anyway, i was a little disappointed, but it was an overall job well done. i'm just going to state the fact that i'm only a teenager, which explains why i found a couple of scenes awkward. to make it short and simple, i would recommend that you only watch this movie before you turn out the lights to make it more interesting. in my opinion of course, you may have your own

BEST JOVI MOVIE EVER!!!!
if you are looking at this movie for the same reason i did (bon jovi) then you are looking at the right movie!
i've seen pretty much EVERY movie he's ever been in and this by far is the best. some of the other reviews said the same thing,that if you think bon jovi is the greatest you won't be disappointed!
here are a couple of reasons why this movie should be at the top of your bon jovi list:
*scenes with his shirt off
*he is the leading man
*seduces the leading ladies
*twisted ending
if you need more reasons than those you'll just have to check it out for yourself.

regrettable
the mystery of why anyone would cast jovi
in the lead cannot be answered by watching
this movie. just being a celeb doesn't give
you the acting chops necessary to hold up your
end in the company of established performers.
the faltering screenplay didn't help matters
either. altogether regrettable ... Read more

Description

Robert Mitchum is back as the legendary private investigator, Philip Marlowe. This adaptation of Raymond Chandler's classic hard-boiled detective mystery features an all-star cast, including: Richard Boone, Joan Collins, Sir John Mills, James Stewart, and Oliver Reed. Marlowe is hired by a retired general (James Stewart) to find out who has been blackmailing the old man's wild daughters (Sarah Miles and Candy Clark). At the same time he has to try to locate the missing husband of one of the daughters. Marlowe's search leads through a dangerous thicket of murder and suicide in the seedy criminal underworld straight to the head quarters of the notorious nightclub owner and gangland boss, Eddie Mars (Oliver Reed). Expert story teller Raymond Chandler spins a masterful web of deceit, creating an intricate, spellbinding mystery full of bare-knuckle action and heart-pounding suspense. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

MITCHUM VERSUS BOONE MAKES "BIG SLEEP" WORTH WATCHING.
Okay, Mitchum isn't Humphrey Bogart but the 1979 "Big Sleep" is a great way to kill 90-minutes. This version of "Sleep" begins with Marlowe (Mitchum) visiting Gen. Sternwood (a pallid Jimmy Stewart) at his palatial estate in England. Sternwood wants Marlowe to help him resolve a blackmail sceme involving one of his daughters. This is easily the most sleazy film Stewart ever appeared in; however Mitchum, Sarah Miles, Joan Collins and Oliver Reed seem right at home here. Richard Boone clearly has a hell of a time playing Mitchum's toughest adversary since Robert Ryan in "The Racket." For Michael Winner's best directorial effort take a look at "Lawman," with Burt Lancaster, Ryan and Lee J. Cobb.

Robert Mitchum - a first class Marlowe
Though I agree that this DVD is not as good as "Farewell, My Lovely", it still is superior to the Humphrey Bogart version. Bogart was very good at playing many roles, but 'The Big Sleep' comletely missed the mark. The ending of the Bogart version is almost criminal and completely corrupts the rest of the movie. Compare the 'Hollywood' ending of the Bogart version with the novel's famous last paragraph being read by Mitchum in this one. It's unfortunate that the rest of the movie was not up to Mitchum's level but it is worth owning another Marlowe movie with Robert Mitchum. Watch the original because you like Bogart/Bacall, but if you want to experience The Big Sleep, watch this one and buy the book (you'll hear Mitchum's voice as you read).

Try It, You Might Like It
Not being particularly fond either of Raymond Chandler or of the "classic" 1946 adaption of THE BIG SLEEP, I am perhaps more disposed than most to like Michael Winner's 1978 re-make. Shorn of Bogart and Bacall, the earlier film isn't much more than a routine detective saga. (The screenplay was co-written by William Faulkner, but if I absolutely have to deal with Faulkner, I'd prefer to do it with one of his lugubrious novels.) Still, if you choose to re-make an icon, even one made of brass, you're practically begging for trouble.

If you can get past the gall of trying to re-make a "classic," you can see that Winner's film, while no masterpiece, is decently entertaining. It ably uses the English locations, takes advantage of the greater freedoms of the 1970s and boasts a first-rate cast. Mitchum, in his way, is every bit as good as Bogart. Sarah Miles isn't in Bacall's class as a larger than life image, but she's a superior actress and does a creditable job. Many of the supporting performances are at least as good as their counterparts in the 1946 film, including Jimmy Stewart, Harry Andrews, Edward Fox, Colin Blakely, Oliver Reed, and Joan Collins. Even Richard Boone, usually a bit of chore, uses his over-sized presence to good effect.

If you've seen any of Winner's other films, like DEATH WISH or SCORPIO, you know pretty much what to expect. His direction is, as usual, obnoxiously showy and rushed. There are sudden, incomprehensible close-ups on unimportant actions, unmovitated, low-camera angles, flashy zooms, and awkward compositions designed presumably to remind us that someone is behind the camera. His is almost the epitome of "70s filmmaking," for better or worse. Still, at least he has a style, which, despite the laborious efforts of auteurist critics to reveal it, I have never been able to see in Hawks's dry as dust filmmaking.

I don't exactly recommend THE BIG SLEEP. I know that a lot of people, particularly anyone worshipping at the altar of "classic" Hollywood, will find it offensive. If I say I prefer it to the earlier film, it is not in an attempt to turn it into a transcendant work of art. BOTH versions are hack work. They are perhaps best understood as what mainstream filmmakers of middling talent were able to accomplish in 1946 and 1978, and dealt with accordingly.

Out of the Shadows
Everyone knows that Bogart was a genius and will forever remain a star. His roles will endure all the tests of time. Put him together with Bacall and you have screen magic that can never be equaled, let alone surpassed... The 1946 version is regarded as a classic, and deservedly so. Now imagine what a insurmountable task it would be to emmerge from the shadow of such a film... This movie valiently attempts to do just that, but sadly for the most part it fails. Anticipating the inevitable comparison between this version and it's predesessor, the director chose to move the setting from Los Angeles California to London, England. The directors intention for the move is not to distance himself from the previous production so that this film may find it's own voice and be remembered in it's own right. No,I think the director had some vain hope that if he got far enough away from the original and successfully avoided camparison, that the viewer would not notice how little justice it does to Chandler's novel. This hopeless and nakedly self serving production choice insults the audience's intelligence... To the film's credit it does stay true to Chandler's characters. And it's "updating" does not interfere with the overall plot of the story. (Aside from the grating British accents) This was not the case with 1969's "Marlowe" (the film version of Chandler's 'The Little Sister') In "Marlowe" the "updating" consisted of taking each one of the settings that Chandler had so vividly described in his novel and making them hippie like. All of this set to a jazz score that would make Shaft cringe. As if that wasn't enough the mobster that trashed Marlowe's office was transformed into a kickboxer To top that off the title role was given to James Garner who's performance one could not avoid comparing to his most famous character Rockford. The title role this time was well cast. Robert Mitchum plays an above adverage Marlowe, I am eager to see his first portrayl in "Farewell My Lovely" Mitchum earned this movie it's first star solely on his merits. I gave the second because despite the misconcieved move accross the Atlantic, this movie was bold. One has to consider that not only did this movie have to tell a complicated story but it also had to overcome the barriers of it's two classics that came before it, and emmerge from their shadows.....

Cinema Noir, but without soul and malice...
A comparison with the original Bogart is inevitable, and, excuse me but, for me, the Bogart film is much much better. In first place, the Mitchun version seems to me a censored version in original idea, like the producer or director prefered a version without malice ( not for case, if my memory don't fail, the father role was given to James Stewart) and soul, diferent than the Bogart version. For example, a original Bogart dialogue with the sale book lady, with rain, with drink, is classic, is marvelous. Don't understand me wrong, i like this Mitchun version, like the Mitchun's voice and the beauty of Charllote Rampling, but for me, Robert Mitchun is much better playered, in a similar role, in The Yakuza, for example. So, i expect this dvd quality be good, and probably will buy myself, but this Bogart version, that i already have, is much better... ... Read more