Such a frustrating disappointment

Load of rubbish!!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Based on the 1970 play of the same name by Anthony Shaffer and adapted for the screen by Harold Pinter, this is a decent but not great film. In spite of the excellent performances of Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, I was not exactly enamoured of the 1972 version so my hopes were not too high when it came to this one. It was on about the same level that I expected it to be. It is very well directed by Kenneth Branagh - whom I was lucky enough to see play Leontes in "The Winter's Tale" at the Garrick Theatre last week, incidentally - and there are many wonderful shots but the script by Pinter is not great. In some respects, I preferred it to the 1972 version and in others I preferred the 1972 version. However, I don't think that either version is as clever or psychologically interesting as it thinks it is. In both cases, the first 20 to 25 minutes are the strongest. If this film had not been directed by Branagh, I would probably not have bothered watching it, to be honest.Succeeding Olivier in the role of the manipulative Andrew Wyke, Caine gives a great performance but Law's performance in Caine's original role of Milo Tindle is a bit lacking. It's not a bad one by any means. He just goes a bit too far over the top in some respects. Considering that Law previously played the title character in the 2004 remake of Caine's 1966 film "Alfie", he is making a career out of succeeding him in roles. They should have cast him in the remakes of "Get Carter" and "The Italian Job"! In all seriousness, I liked the fact that the silly and distracting thing with the clown costume was removed. However, the homosexual themes were far more interesting when they were kept comparatively subtle in the first half as opposed to the unambiguous attempt at seduction in the second half. The exclusion of the Tea subplot was a mistake and this version's ending is weaker as a result. Oh, and it would have been nice if the underrated Alec Cawthorne had reprised his role as Inspector Doppler, called Inspector Block in this version, as was originally intended but he was unavailable. The cameos by Branagh and Pinter were nice though.Overall, there's nothing terribly wrong with the film but it is fairly bland and boring. The original was far too long at 138 minutes but this one still drags at 88 minutes. In both cases, the concept is far more effective than the execution, which is a shame.

Absolute misuse of two amazingly good actors. I am quite disappointed with both of them, to take up such a role so beneath themselves. So much of drinking in the movie made me nauseous. I wonder what were they doing in the same bed together? I have seen Michael Caine in wonderful roles - I felt the acting was below the mark(was't convincing).I kept wishing they could go out and get some fresh air. Didn't like some of the shots taken either, few scenes don't even show their faces or are too close to an actor's face. Better movies to watch, you can skip this one!(especially if your an ardent fan of Jude) M.Caine did a good job in "Now you see me" although it was not a role to die for. I was quite take back when touch each other not so much as touch mind you! The ending could have been so much better. If I had a gun I would have shot both of them myself!

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