Comparisons against the original 1972 film starring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine in the Milo role have not been favorable for this remake. I haven't seen the prior picture but will likely seek it out now, based on other reviewers' comments on this board. My main point of concern with the story is with the character of Milo Tindle, portrayed by Jude Law. To my mind, anyone dumb enough to fall for the plan laid out by Andrew Wycke (Michael Caine) to simulate a break-in and steal his jewelry, wouldn't be smart enough to come up with the revenge plan he masterminded to even the score. Not only that, but Milo was ready to accept Andrew's second proposition to live in the guest suite and cut Maggie, the woman we never see, right out of the picture. I'll admit, I didn't see the original twist coming that revealed Wyche's third gun shot to be a blank, but knowing that he was an utterly remorseless liar, it didn't take much effort to figure he would set his opponent up for the kill for real. The finale was a bit more abrupt than I expected, but quite welcome given the absurd nature of the story.

Everybody is comparing this remake with the 1972 version. That's a thing I won't do. This isn't an action-packed flick or a suspenseful flick. This is a flick without any action too, this is pure talking and there's a lot of it. It also contains two actors, Michael Caine and Jude law. Both are excellent here and the film needs that.What I did like was the transformation of Jude into another person and I just didn't see it coming. But overall this wasn't really my thing. It's not that bad at all due the performances but so low on everything you really should be in the mood to watch such kind of psychological flicks.Still, it's a strange flick clearly to see that it came from a stage play. I still don't know what to think about this flick because it's all about the two actors their dialogue and the and performance that you sometimes forget about the characters. I started to compare Caine toward other flicks he made looking for the same reaction or whatsoever. Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 0/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

It is a remake of an older film with Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. I will not compare the two because I have only seen excerpts from the first one.This film has no real suspense because we know at once what it is all about. The interest of the film is in the two actors and how they build their confrontation in a super-minimalist set. The only sophistication is the lighting or the lights if you prefer. But the value of these changing lights is to make you, the audience, lose your footing and it works.What about the two actors and their playing, acting, gaming or hunting, titillating appeal and anti-appeal? It is OK here and you will believe the devilish turn-around, turn-about and hairpin spinning in the situation. But then we can wonder what the film is all about. Does it represent in anyway anything but that kind of expertise on the side of the actors to lure us with something that is so obvious that any avid reader of thrillers and pulp fiction knows ahead of time what is coming? We know for example the detective is no detective and we know he has to be the young man of before in a way or another because he knows too much and the way he is dressed is sloppy. Not typical of even a village detective in England with rural herds.Too bad because Michael Caine had managed to dominate and control his London accent, but Jude Law had some kind of slurpy (just the proper word since he plays a gay-gay game later on: "gettin head. when a girl orally pleases you. it involves suckin and is messy if not done correctly, hints the name," as the urban dictionary says) accent when trying to be a detective that he was not. Only partially convincing. The London accent is a lot more melodious and musical than that.Entertaining but maybe not enjoyable.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

After watching the just first minutes of the film, I feel confident that this film would be one of the best movies I have seen in a while. After watching it, I feel strongly that this is a great film in terms of the screenplay, production and storyline. As a movie, it had an interesting approach stylistically. If anything, I think that it may be suitable for the stage.There are only two characters: Andrew Wyck and Milo Tingle. And the setting is only a few rooms and the entrance of a grand house. Wyck, who is played by Michael Caine, is an old mystery writer with several successful books. Tindle played by Jude Law is a struggling actor as well as a detective. Tindle is in love with Wyck's wife, and visits Wyck's house in London to broach the subject of Wyck's divorce from Maggie. Wyck tries to convince Tindle to abandon Maggie, since she is a money- spender and a poor man like Tindle cannot complete her happiness. Wyck makes a proposition to this poor man who refuses to give Maggie up. He proposes that Tindle steals 1 million pounds worth of his wife's jewels from his house and sells them to get money. Wyck would not lose his money as the jewels are insured. And so both would be happy with this result.The psychological warfare that goes on between the mystery writer and the actor within a limited setting is well worth a watch. It is difficult to take your eyes off the backtracking storyline with its witty, provocative tone and its excellent acting. Because of the limited space of the film, I developed a sense of emotional involvement with the characters within an hour and a half.This film is a remake of Sleuth in 1972. The opinions of those who have watched the original film may be divided on this remake. Since I have not watched the original one and I had no such prejudice, I found it to be a greatly entertaining film.