Law is lovely not for performance.

Opening 15 minutes: quite promising, an interesting dialogue-based film with a minimalist, theatrical vibe. Remainder of the film: ridiculous trash. As usual with these "cleverer-than-you" films, the double crossing and bluffing all becomes terribly tedious, long before the credits roll.

Kenneth Branagh's direction imitates De Palma's multi-angled voyeurism, but the trite visual tricks interrupt the clipped language and tense interaction that are British theater's domain.

Only found the original in bad quality so I figured fuck it let's watch the remake then as the film's premise sounded like something I might like. Disappointing.

Bloated, pretentious remake of a great film. It's one thing to make a bad film. It's another to already have the source material and still screw it to pieces. Not sure what Pinter's homophobic, nonsensical ending has to do with the first 7/8's of the film. While the original was a clever who-done-it, this one is a brooding, arrogant why-bother. Poor Michael Caine.

To everyone involved in the production of this movie - what were you thinking?

Definitely a step down from the original "Sleuth", but this nevertheless remains a stylish, smart and compelling thriller containing some fresh twists. Caine is great (again) and Law is solid as well.

Showcase of great acting. It is as theatrical as I would expect from Branagh. Even though it is not an original story, slick set design and cinematography brings something new to the table. For the first two thirds movie is lots of fun, but that only leads to extremely disappointing wrap up. I made a mistake watching this before original movie.

46.250

An anemic cuntknuckle of a remake.

"It's tempting to call the new Sleuth a soulless remake, but that would imply that the original had a soul." - Fernando F. Croce

this atrocity is mind blowing. how can you put branagh, pinter, law and caine together and create something so slow-paced, boring, repetitive and mind-numbing as sleuth 2007? despite being someone who has not watched the original, i had my hopes up high. what i found was a disgrace. certainly something honorable was attempted here, but what happened instead was a claustrophobic mess of repeated patterns. an abundance of twists, no context and no pretext make a crappy movie. here's the proof.

Listen, I haven't seen the original film. Therefore, as a viewer with nothing to compare this to, I found it to be an enjoyable little film. Caine is the main reason I chose it - as I'm loving the man more and more these days - and he doesn't disappoint here. I will agree with detractors, though: the homoerotic subtext at the end feels shoehorned in and out of place. I'll see the original, and likely prefer it, but I hold no ill will towards this flick.

unexpected slackware

awfull written, quite poor directed. man i like pinter - guess it is nice to watch in a theatre.

A two man show with lots of twists and turns. Movie starts pretty well with Law and Caine taking shots at each other but as the movie goes on the plot becomes more and more stupid. The ending is really a let down.

grande prova d'attori, stupefacente law, ma grande anche la dentiera di caine. resta il grande dubbio sul finale. perché quel gesto???

While the first half is a poor but passable remake of the 1972 original, Pinter -- that's NOBEL PRIZEWINNER Harold Pinter, in case you forget -- decided to tack on the ending of an entirely different film, fill it with homoerotic subtext that feels like it's being delivered via a combination of enema bulb and sledgehammer, all the while seeming proud of the fact that he never read or saw Shaffer's play. Added to Jude Law's stilted acting, the film collapses under its own ego and awfulness.

Poor remake of an excellent film.