|
The Big Sleep [Region 2] Posters
Photos Art
Search for Posters Art Prints, photos and get
results from all the many categories from Amazon including
books, videos, dvds, toys, video games, and more.
|
|
|
Posters Art
Prints Photos collectables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If for some reason you can't find what the
poster or art print your looking for try using the search boxes
below
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Rating:  -
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
Rating:  -
There are probably as many reasons as there are people remaking films. Probably the two most compelling reasons are that the film-makers believe they can 1. make money or 2. do better.
While Michael Winner is an excellent director for the most part, he might have only achieved the first objective. Might because people like me are Chandler fans enough to rent the film and see what it's like. I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy this film. I really wouldn't recommend watching more than one time--and once really is enough, trust me.
There just wasn't any magic in this remake. Setting the story in England didn't work. Worse, moving the time forward to the 70's with all the wonderful decor and music touches was just gauche. While I like Robert Mitchum, Bogie was a tough act to follow and he just didn't make it. There was very little spark between the cast members, either. Robert Mitchum (Phillip Marlowe) and Sarah Miles (Charlotte Sternwood) had zero chemistry.
James Stewart made a different General, but the original character of the man was lost.
Okay, coming to the end of this, I can think of one reason to watch this film. Hollywood folks who consider making a remake should be required to see how one should not be done. I think the only reason why this film has not landed in total obscurity is because some people actually are big enough Chandler fans to give it a try.
Rating: -
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.
Rating:  -
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.
Rating: -
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.
|
