Rating: 
Summary: Cinema Noir, but without soul and malice...
Review: 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...
Rating:
Summary: Cinema Noir, but without soul and malice...
Review: 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...
Rating: 
Summary: Out of the Shadows
Review: 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.....
Rating:
Summary: Try It, You Might Like It
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Try It, You Might Like It
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: MITCHUM VERSUS BOONE MAKES "BIG SLEEP" WORTH WATCHING.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: MITCHUM VERSUS BOONE MAKES "BIG SLEEP" WORTH WATCHING.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Marlowe belongs in California
Review: This is the second film of Mitchum as Marlowe (the first being "Farewell, My Lovely") and the man excelled in bringing to life the character created by Raymond Chandler. While his first film was placed in LA in the 1940s, this film is set in the swinging London of the 1970s. While it does follow the story-line of the novel, the setting is a distraction that might be too much for some viewers. For me, Marlowe belongs to and in the LA area. If you can accept an American, ex-vet working as a PI in London, this might work for you.
Rating:
Summary: Robert Mitchum - a first class Marlowe
Review: 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).
Rating:
Summary: Robert Mitchum - a first class Marlowe
Review: 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).
|
