Very uneven with mediocre performances by Reeves, miscasting of Dyan Cannon,and even Caine, although good, couldn't carry this feeble performance.(Spoilers) Inexplicably, they change the two genuinely scary parts of the movie: the reappearance of "Clifford" both from the first "attempt" and the second attempt at murder. In the first, he's supposed to break through the french doors, and the second, he appears out of the dark when, illuminated by a bolt of lightning, he is suddenly seen above Sidney's head swinging a pike or axe for one final attempt to kill Sidney with his dying breath. Both of these sudden appearances are genuinely startling--in the play, but not in the movie. The very end, too, is inextricably squandered.Don't waste your time or money. Unfortunately, no other version exists. Wait until a performance comes to your town. We just saw one by a volunteer amateur company in a small gin-rickety playhouse, which was far better than this.

First, the issue of Dyan Cannon's acting. She never was a top tier actress, and she;s not here. But I'm not sure she deserved all the bad press that she got for this film.My biggest criticism of this film is some of the scenes when characters are yelling...no, I should say screaming...at each other. It's uncontrolled screaming, rather than good acting, and it makes some of the dialog a little difficult to understand. Uncontrolled yelling is sometimes mistaken for actual acting.But then again, I never saw Christopher Reeve as anything but a very average actor. And he doesn't particularly impress me here.I also just have the feeling here that this film is too clever for its own good, although in reality, it's not half as clever as it thinks it is.Another complain I have is one that I always have about movies that take place pretty much in one room. I know this was a popular play, but I really dislike films that feel too much like a play. And this one does.My fondest remembrance of watching this film back in 1982 at the theater is when the audience realizes that the characters of Reeve and Caine are gay lovers. Some woman in the audience yelled out, "Oh my god. Say it isn't so!" Biggest laugh I ever heard in a movie theater.Really, the best thing about this film is that it takes place in an old mill which has been turned into a house. Unfortunately, when that's the best thing there is about a movie, it means it's not a very good movie. And then the very ending just confirms that.

Deathtrap (1982)If you have seen "Sleuth," the first version from 1972 or so, you'll know what "Deathtrap" is trying to by. Michael Caine is not the only common thread between the two. Add to this a mysterious murder, a lot of coy double takes and visitors to a rich man's house with peculiar intentions, and a kind of play made into a movie feel, undisguised.It is fun in the background, it has a bright late seventies feel (I know it's from 1982, don't worry). But if you really pay attention, if you were even to have been in the theater and spent money to be engaged, you might well wish you had tried harder, and that the movie makers had tried a lot harder. There will always be poignance to seeing Christopher Reeve at his pretty and charming best, though he's pretty dull stuff here (compared to both "Superman" of course and the iconic "Somewhere in Time" from just two years before).Caine is pure Caine, hard to fault, and if you already like him you'll like him still. I do, and he made it sustainable. But the plot? Well, it's all farce to the point of not really caring what happens. Even "Murder by Death," with all its superficial plot twists, revels in being superficial--it's just "fun" all around. This one is not quite fun, nor is it as ingenious or beautifully written as "Sleuth." The source of "Deathtrap" is a fabulously successful Broadway play, and why it didn't quite transfer to film is something to argue about. Sidney Lumet is certainly a really capable director, with some classic films like "Dog Day Afternoon" and "Fail-Safe." behind him. What "Deathtrap" lacks for a director is true drama, however, and the finessing, the faking, the lighthearted coyness requires a certain sensibility not quite working here.I think the two women in the cast, the wife and the psychic neighbor, are both so caricatured they're hard to take, too. Add all of this up, and you have mostly the endless twists and surprises to keep you going--and again, "Sleuth" has it all over this one in that camp.Not that you won't be surprised! If you do watch it and hang in there, you'll be twisted and amused. Which is the main point.

The first time I watched this movie was in my high school drama class, and I must say I enjoyed it very much. Michael Caine and Christopher Reeve do great performances in their roles. The film does a great job of capturing that "play" sorta feel, because of the way most of the movie takes place in one location, plus the long monologues and direction make it seem like a play.It also has a subtle sense of dark humor in it, which I really liked. And I have to admit, it did make me jump a few times. Without spoiling too much of the plot, I will say it's one twist after another. A good film that's both funny and scary.