Customer Reviews

The Big Sleep

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

Unhampered by Production Code restraints, this 1978 version of Raymond Chandler's novel is more faithful to its source material than the 1946 classic with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Viewed today, the contemporary London setting works in director Michael Winner's favor. Of course, the film's raison d'être is Robert Mitchum's second go-round as Philip Marlowe - an iconic portrayal that perfectly captures the world-weary spirit of Chandler's famous detective. An excellent supporting cast includes a poignant appearance by James Stewart as General Sternwood. The 1978 "Big Sleep" will not erase memories of Bogie and Bacall, yet it makes a surprisingly effective companion piece.

"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.

When you first start watching the 1978 version, I, like probably many other viewers, do a double take because the scenes are definately not LA. THE BIG SLEEP is as the case says, "A spellbinding mystery full of bare-knuckle action and heart-pounding suspense."

I had already reviewed THE BIG SLEEP by Chandler on Amazon as well as the 1946 Bogart/Bacall movie classic.
I was curious about the Mitchum version.

Last night, I got my chance to sit by the fire and watch this movie. At first, I thought that this version was just too weird; and thought to myself that this version made the 1946 version look like I should have given it six stars rather than five. But then I just sat back in my armchair and got into the movie. I had to admit to myself that I enjoyed Jimmy Stewart's rendition of General Sternwood more than I liked Charles Waldron and then I started to notice other differences which were not all bad; and in some cases an improvement or just different strokes at the same masterpiece.

For prospective viewers I would like to identify some of the differences without discussing the plot which might ruin the movie viewing for some:

BOGART/BACALL VERSION:

a) Bogart for me was the right choice for Marlowe. Here was a terrific acting job and the costume designer did a great job portraying the lifestyle and financial background of the role.
b) This was the American version and was California based.
c) There were three well-known screenwriters including William Faulkner working on the script; with two (2) versions which can be viewed; one highlighting Bacall.
d)Lauren Bacall had better attire and hairstyles; for me her performance was more believable in the role and better suited.
e) After viewing the 1946 classic, I was always impressed with the acting job that Martha Vickers had done in her portrayal of Carmen Sternwood. For me, she was more believable and credible in the role even though the Mitchum version seems to accurately depict scenes from the book which brought certain aspects of her character and the plot front and center. There was not the nudity in this version. It was odd but despite the scenes in the English version being truer to the actual book; the performance itself by Vickers rang more true for me.
f) The movie was done in black and white and the supporting cast aside from the primary characters like Bogart, Bacall, Malone and Vickers was not as strong or as good.

MITCHUM VERSION:

a) Mitchum as Marlowe did not fit quite right with me. I thought that he was too old for the role. And how does a poor private eye who "doesn't put up much of a front" afford to dress like he is going to Ascot or to Wimbleton with his fine cut suits and expensive watches.
b) For some reason, Sir Lew Grande's version is pure Brit. I am not sure how or why this happened but it was replete with many scenes of London and the British countryside. Scotland Yard was featured, not the LAPD.
c) Sarah Miles was for me a poor choice for the eldest Sternwood daughter. To me, she was in her own way as ditsy as her sister; maybe a tad less crazed. And what was she continually doing with her mouth and tongue. I could not figure that out as well. God only knows where her hairstyle came from; another reviewer mentioned that it was a pretty big Afro on a white woman and I have to agree; and nevermind her clothes were a little funky too.
d) Despite the above, the scenes themselves seemed truer to the Chandler version which was interesting to me and I did enjoy those attempts by the producers to capture the core plot details.
e) Candy Clark as Carmen Sternwood was deranged and a real crackpot versus the unruly nymphomaniac thumb sucking Vickers' version. Vickers' performance was much more remarkable despite Clark's nude scene.
f) The ending was very true to Chandler's book and the movie was in color. Owen Taylor was actually shown in the movie and his dead body was found and shown in the family limo.
g) There were better performances by supporting cast like Sir John Mills, Harry Andrews as the butler was superb; I even liked Oliver Reed as Eddie Mars better here and Edward Fox and Joan Rivers were the perfect Joe and Agnes.

I think it is fair to say that everyone when they read THE BIG SLEEP creates a visual picture of who the perfect private eye might be who helps the Sternwood family avoid continued blackmail. For some, I am sure, the choice might be Mitchum (who is a fine actor). However, there was no doubt in my mind that for me it was Bogart.

Though I was not at first a great fan of Bacall's interpretation; I definately preferred her performance to that of Sarah Miles; although as I have noted previously many of the supporting cast were exceptional and their great dramatic performances dwarfed and outclassed the American supporting acting attempts.

I think that the Mitchum version was both entertaining and a good effort; but in the final analysis (for me anyways), the LA locale and the non-Britishisms suited the Chandler original more. Both had their strong points; but though I loved the English supporting cast.....THE BIG SLEEP will always be a Humphrey Bogart classic.

My recommendation is to watch both (you will be entertained) and make up your own mind. You will find something to like and enjoy in either and I have to say I did like the opening and closing scenes of the Mitchum version - very well done.

Mitchum is a wonderful actor and as a detective is not a bad choice; it was just a hard act to follow after Bogart nailed it.

Recommended.

Bentley/2007
The Big Sleep

I've watched this film a dozen times or more, and each time I find more things to recommend it as an adaptation of the book. Read that carefully: It's an adaptation of the book. It's got some clinkers, and it has indeed been transferred from pre-1940s Los Angeles to late 1970s London. Strangely, however, Chandler's novel proves as sturdy as Shakespeare, in terms of being re-adapted in a new setting.

Much of the dialog comes directly from the book, which is a fascinating and huge "plus" to the film. Despite various nuances that clearly put it into modern times, there is a strong sense of the original Philip Marlowe here. Remember that "The Big Sleep" didn't have nearly the amount of gunplay that other hard-boiled detective stories had; therefore, placing it in England, where the general population is less likely to carry a gun around than our own NRA-poisoned America, wasn't a bad idea at all.

Another point: Part of the film's plot revolves around pornography, which doesn't make anyone in this country even blink anymore (we get language and near-nudity on prime time, these days). In England, where there is still something of a caste system whether it's admitted or not, the porn becomes a bit more of a big deal -- which makes it sensible for Marlowe to be called in on the case.

Some reviews have blamed the movie for being confusing. I suggest that those reviewers go back and read the book, which is the source of the highly entwined plot twists. Considering how much the book weaves in and around itself, Michael Winner is to be offered some serious kudos for doing so well with the film.

It's great to see so many stars and well-known actors appearing in the film. Oliver Reed makes an interesting Eddie Mars, a character who thinks he's more dangerous than he really is. Harry Andrews as Norris (the butler) is quintessentially British in his attitude, showing a quiet approval of Marlowe's (Robert Mitchum) rough nature. Sarah Miles and Candy Clark play the troublesome Sternwood daughters with the right amount of faintly (or fully) drugged vacuousness; the former is trying to keep a secret by constantly hinting about it, and the latter is completely crazy.

A flawed gem, but a gem nonetheless. Highly watchable (repeatedly), and somehow every bit worthy of Chandler -- much more so than DiCaprio's mildly psychotic version of "Romeo and Juliet" is worthy of Shakespeare.

The American movie star Robert Mitchum headlines the 1978 English-made adaptation of Californian Raymond Chandler's famous noir novel, "The Big Sleep," generally considered an inferior remake of the 1946 American-made adaptation of the same novel, starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. In any case, the plot centers on private investigator Marlowe, called to the aid of a rich family, the Sternwoods, who are being blackmailed. It then meanders to many highways and byways.

The 1946 American version is a classic of film noir, and an enduring entry in the Bogie/Bacall canon. But can we look at it a bit more closely? It's a Howard Hawks production, from Warner Brothers Studios. It is, of course, in black and white: Warners' made everything in black and white. And who says a noir film can't be done in color? What about the later "Body Heat," "Against All Odds," or "The Long Goodbye?" Or the famous trio of noir pictures from the far side of the pond, "Mona Lisa," "Get Carter," and "The Long Good Friday?"

Hawks and Warners' did spring for famous novelist William Faulkner as head screenwriter on the picture. But it could hardly be more obvious that what all three wanted was simply a follow-up vehicle for Bogie and Bacall, who'd just burned up the screen in "To Have And To Have Not." From looking at the picture, a case can be made that any story would have done them, as long as it showcased the studio's new golden couple, and they sure didn't throw money up on the screen. Black and white. Filmed totally on the back lot: General Sternwood is supposed to be rich, yet we never see the exterior of his house, only interiors. In fact, almost the entire movie is shot in interiors. The picture had Bogie and Bacall, all right; Martha Vickers and Dorothy Malone in important supporting parts. Beyond that, you'll notice Warners' didn't even send over their usual suspects on the A list of supporting players, the people you see in "Casablanca." Only supporting players you've ever heard of are Elisha Cook and Bob Steele. However, Warners' did send over a half-dozen young studio starlets, whose sole purpose seems to be making eyes at Bogie, as if they needed to underline his attractiveness to the female sex. And the studio stops the movie cold so Bacall can sing a sexy song: hey, it worked in "To Have and To Have Not."

Let's take a closer look at the English version. Sir Lew Grade did spend money on the picture. He moved it to England, well, okay. He filmed it in color, horrors. He and Michael Winner, the director/screenwriter do open the story up, showing us exteriors, the English countryside, scenes of London. Nothing wrong with that. It's not as claustrophobic as the '46 version-- must film noir be claustrophobic? Some elements of the book and the Bogart treatment don't play as well as they did; the child pornography in the bookstore, the porn its owner is making of Carmen Sternwood, the bookstore owner's gay lover. They were hardly earth-shattering in 1970's England. In fact, it's popularly thought that England was awash in that stuff at that time. So the movie loses some force there.

Many people consider Mitchum too old to play Marlowe, and he was, by a couple of decades. But the humanity of his lived-in fact adds a dimension of feeling to the picture. His fancy car, suits and Rolex watch? It's a puzzlement. Many people also consider Sarah Miles to be no Lauren Bacall, and she wasn't. Furthermore, if there's a hairdressers' hell, that's where her hairdresser belongs; her clothes are kind of clunky, too. But Charles Waldron, who played the General in '46, is no Jimmy Stewart, who played the General in '78. The Warners' butler, Charles D. Brown, was no Harry Andrews, the British. The Warners' Eddie Mars, John Ridgely, was no Oliver Reed. The Warners' Mona Mars, Peggy Knudsen, was no Diana Quick. The Warners' Bernie Ohls, Regis Toomie, was no Sir John Mills. The Warners' Joe Brody, Louis Jean Heyd, was no Edward Fox. The Warners' Agnes, Dorothy Malone, in fact, was no Joan Collins. The Warners' Bob Steele, as Lash Canino, sorry, but he was no Richard Boone. The Warners' Jonesie, actually, Elisha Cook, was no Colin Blakely, either. And then there's Richard Todd as the English Commander Blake. Candy Clark in the English Carmen role, well, she gets naked, and Martha Vickers' is the class act.

Basically, these are two different pictures, made with different aims, and by different philosophies. The Mitchum picture has stood up to the test of time, as has Bogart's. A lot of people will tell you the English take is truer to Chandler's book than is Hollywood's. (Though neither movie can solve the mystery of Owen Taylor, the Sternwood family chauffeur, found in the family limo, in the water, dead) Then again, the author Chandler, who cobbled together three short stories to make this book, never did solve that bit himself. In sum, the English ending is much truer to the book's than is Hollywood's. After all, the book and movies are called "The Big Sleep," and they are, at their heart, about the disappearance of Rusty Regan, and where he might be.

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....

Granted Mitchum isn't Humphrey Bogart, but the 1979 "Big Sleep" is a great way to kill 90-minutes. This version of "Sleep" begins with private eye Philip 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 lot of fun 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.

The Big Sleep has to be the most bizarre pitch of the 70s: giving Michael Winner carte blanche to transfer Philip Marlowe from LA's mean streets to the Green Streets of suburban England. With so many of the stellar supporting cast just so terribly wrong for their parts - a drunken Richard Boone with his leg in a cast as an unintentionally comical Lash Canino, Sarah Miles with the worst wardrobe and the biggest Afro you've ever seen on a white woman displaying all the sex appeal of a decomposing antelope in the Lauren Bacall role, Edward Fox as a bookie, John The Thief of Bagdad Justin as a glass-eyed gay blackmailer and Richard Todd as the police commissioner - it's only Robert Mitchum who keeps the thing afloat, even managing to keep a straight face when confronted with such dangerous characters as Dudley Sutton and Derek Deadman. On one level it is perversely watchable without ever being gleefully bad, but like almost all of Winner's films it shows his amazing ability to flatten any material he gets his hands on. Still, at least Mitchum amused himself on the set telling any passing Arabs he saw that Michael Winner was forcing the cast to give 25% of their salary to Mossad and then giving them the director's home address - "You can't miss it, it's the one with the effigy of Yasser Arafat hanging from the chimney."

I feel in love with "The Big Sleep" when I first saw this film during the late 70s (it was on Showtime feature presentation). The way the plot moves with the narration is spellbinding. While I can see some possible weaknesses that others might find in the film--Robert Mitchum did an excellent job with portraying Phillip Marlowe. His voice and physic was a commanding presence in this film. I recommend it as a wonderful raining Saturday film.

After seeing and loving Farewell my Lovely, I went to see this in theaters back in the 70's and thought it was terrible. I had seen the better reviewed Bogart Bacall version and never cared for it beyond the lead performance. Well, I decided to read the novel, and that totally turned me around and also on to Raymond Chandler's writing. For all its problems, this movie captures the story of the book terrifically. The plot is complicated but does pay off, and Mitchum, while really too old for the part, does well with it regardless. So don't dismiss it out of hand, especially if you are a fan of the Philip Marlowe books. On a side note, the recently discovered original cut of The Big Sleep with Bogey was a big improvement over the Bogey/Bacall lovefest that was available for so long, and is recommended as a double sided disc, on amazon. One side is the original cut and the other side has all the extra lovey dovey crap added, so you can see both and judge for yourself.