Search

» » Sleuth (1972)

Short summary

Andrew Wyke is a famous and successful author of detective novels. Milo Tindle comes to him with a strange request - that Mr Wyke divorce his wife so that Tindle can marry her. Mr Wyke is not particularly perturbed by this - he and his wife have drifted apart and he is having an affair with another woman anyway - but uses the meeting and Mr Tindle's request as a chance to play a game, a game with potentially deadly consequences.

The laughter coming from the "dummy" Jolly Jack Tar is that of Sir Laurence Olivier.

Sir Michael Caine was so very much beside himself to be working with Sir Laurence Olivier, that he didn't even know how to address him. Eventually, he broke down and just asked. Olivier replied, "Well I am the Lord Olivier and you are Mr. Michael Caine. Of course, that's only for the first time you address me. After that I am Larry, and you are Mike."

This movie only had two stars. The rest of the cast listing was made-up names.

The Edgar Allan Poe award on Andrew Wyke's (Sir Laurence Olivier's) mantel was the one given to Anthony Shaffer for his play "Sleuth". Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz also won an Edgar for 5 Fingers (1952).

(At around one hour and twelve minutes) The photograph raised up the wall to replace the one shot by Andrew is of Dame Agatha Christie.

To confuse potential movie-goers who were unaware that the tricky plot of the play, upon which this movie was based, involved only two characters, several pre-release stories, (including one widely-syndicated on-set interview by Rex Reed), suggested that this movie would feature a lot of cameos by unnamed stars. In a 1993 interview for "Films in Review", Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz claimed that the names of the extra non-existent red herring characters in the credits, were members of his wife Rosemary Mathews' family.

John Addison was nominated for an Oscar for his music score. However, he was not originally among the five nominees when the nominations were announced. He was added to the list after the score for The Godfather (1972) was deemed ineligible.

(At around forty-seven minutes) When tossing the chess pieces to the floor, Sir Laurence Olivier cuts the palm of his hand very badly. You can see him look down at his hand, put his handkerchief in his palm, and put his hand in his jacket pocket. He then finishes the scene. Forty years later, Leonardo DiCaprio had a similar experience, while filming the dinner scene in Django Unchained (2012), in which he accidentally cut his hand on some broken glass.

The reason Sir Alan Bates thought the role was "beneath" him, was that he walked out of the stage show at intermission, after believing that his character had been killed when Andrew "shot" him at the end of the first act.

Alec Cawthorne received an "introducing" credit.

Last theatrical movie of Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz.

Sir Michael Caine was the third choice for the part of Milo Tindle, after Albert Finney (who was deemed too plump), and Sir Alan Bates (who turned down the role).

In Andrew Wyke's cellar, a life preserver from the R.M.S. Mauretania is seen hanging from a wooden post. Built in 1906, the R.M.S. Mauretania was a luxury ocean liner owned by the Cunard line. She was a sister ship of the R.M.S. Lusitania. For thirty years, the Mauretania carried upper-class passengers between London and New York City. When she was scrapped in 1935, the Mauretania's first class reading-writing room was moved to Pinewood Studios in London (where the cellar scenes were filmed), and became the studio's board room.

Joanne Woodward's likeness was used for the painting of Marguerite Wyke.

The original stage production of "Sleuth" by Anthony Shaffer opened on Broadway on November 12, 1970. It originally starred Sir Anthony Quayle as Andrew, and Keith Baxter as Milo, ran for one thousand two hundred twenty-two performances, and won the 1971 Tony Award for the Best Play.

(At around one hour) The line "you're just a jumped-up pantry boy who doesn't know his place" is repeated almost verbatim in the song "This Charming Man" by The Smiths, 1982. Lyricist and singer Morrissey has always been fascinated by English pop culture and class issues, and several working-class English actors and actresses of the 1960s (including Terence Stamp, Rita Tushingham, and Diana Dors) appear in the role of "cover star" on The Smiths' albums.

This is one of only nine movies to receive more than one Academy Award nomination for Best Actor. In this instance, Sir Laurence Olivier and Sir Michael Caine were so nominated. The other seven movies were Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), for which Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, and Franchot Tone were nominated, From Here to Eternity (1953), for which Montgomery Clift and Burt Lancaster were nominated, The Defiant Ones (1958), for which Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis were nominated, Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), for which Maximilian Schell and Spencer Tracy were nominated, Becket (1964), for which Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton were nominated, Network (1976), for which Peter Finch and William Holden were nominated, The Dresser (1983), for which Sir Tom Courtenay and Albert Finney were nominated, and Amadeus (1984), for which F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce were nominated. Of these actors, only Schell, Finch, and Abraham won the Academy Award for Best Actor for their relevant performances. Finch was posthumous.

The two London street name signs in Andrew's cellar are references to crime mysteries; Baker Street was the fictional residence of Sherlock Holmes, and Berner Street was the real-life scene of a Jack the Ripper murder.

(At around five minutes) The statue of the troglodyte guitarist in the maze of Andrew Wyke's (Sir Laurence Olivier's) house, also appeared in the nightclub, in Play It Cool (1962), and in Rudi's Bar in The Human Jungle (1963) season one, episode six, "A Friend of the Sergeant Major".

Sir Alan Bates was offered the role of Milo, but turned it down after walking out of the play, believing the role to be "unbecoming of an actor of his stature".

(At around one hour and five minutes) When Andrew goes and answers the ring of the doorbell, you see him walk past two pictures of the former King Edward VIII, later the Duke of Windsor on a wall. The Duke of Windsor died during the making of this movie and the production team added a historical touch to mark this event by including pictures of the late Duke.

The only movie that year to be Oscar nominated for Best Director, but not Best Picture.

Included among the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", edited by Steven Schneider.

In addition to Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) and Give 'em Hell, Harry! (1975), this was only one of three movies in which the entire on-screen billed cast received Oscar nominations. (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) featured two unbilled bit players as roadhouse employees, but neither of them were nominated.)

"Eve Channing" is a combination of "Eve Harrington" and "Margot Channing", the two main characters in Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz's All About Eve (1950). "Higgs" is the name of the dead body in Tom Stoppard's play "The Real Inspector Hound", a parody of Dame Agatha Christie-type mysteries. "Alec Cawthorne" is also the name of a movie writer for the BBC. The name Alec Cawthorne is virtually an anagram for "Or Michael Caine". To achieve the spelling, flip the "W" in Cawthorne upside down to get the "M" in Michael, and separate the horizontal and vertical lines in the letter "T" to get the two "I"s needed, one in Michael, and one in Caine. The rest of the letters fall naturally into place.

User reviews


  • comment
    • Author: Levion
    When Britain does it right....no one can come close to it! This was just such a movie. A filmed version of Anthony Shaffer's own wonderful stage play, the brilliance needed to sustain 138 minutes attention between just two people in three or four rooms of a single house - should not be underestimated. Olivier is in his element as the upper crust land-owner who invites Alfie-esque hairdresser Caine to his mansion, simply to acknowledge his wife's infidelity with him and to inform Caine that he is messing with the wrong guy.

    The dialog driven plot is probably beyond the grasp of most younger viewers, but is a veritable revelation for those seeking to be entertained on a grand scale. As important a player as anyone else, the house itself and its many wondrous artifacts are simply stunning. How the tables are turned and the roles reversed? Without doubt, one of the greatest films ever made.

    As for Alex Cawthorne's stunning performance as Inspector Doppler, what can I say? Its almost as is he wasn't there!
  • comment
    • Author: Domarivip
    Sleuth is based on an outstanding stage play by Anthony Shaffer. Sometimes, a work which succeeded on the stage doesn't transfer well to the big screen. Movies like Equus and Dangerous Corner - which were a delight in theatres - lose their power under the close scrutiny of a film camera. Sleuth is not a failure. It retains its stagebound plot, characters and dialogue, but somehow manages to be totally engrossing as well.

    Part of the joy is due to Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. The two giants of Britsh acting don't chew the scenery in an attempt to out-shine each other; they complement each other quite brilliantly and turn in two of the finest screen performances you could ever aspire to see. Olivier plays elderly author Andrew Wyke, an obscenely wealthy, well-educated and devious man. Caine is Milo Tindle, a charming, ever-polite young hairdresser. Milo visits Andrew to ask for his blessing in marrying his estranged wife. Although Andrew seems fairly open to the idea of giving away his wife (after all, they despise each other) he still feels stung by her exit, so he engineers a cruel game to humiliate Milo. But who is playing a trick on who?

    The dialogue is terrific, but it needed terrific actors to get the best out of it. Caine and Oloivier do a fine job. Ken Adams' set design turns Olivier's gorgeous palatial house into a dazzling mansion of madness. The tinkly music by John Addison creates a playful yet ever-so-slightly uncomfortable mood. Joseph L. Mankiewicz directs perfectly, getting maximum suspense from his staging of scenes and thoughtful choice of camera angles. The twists are superbly disguised, especially the awesome "shock" climax which will blow you away. See Sleuth - it's one of the best!
  • comment
    • Author: Jeb
    My parents saw "Sleuth" on Broadway, during its original run, just a year or so before this film was released. Watching the movie I can see how it would make a good play, but by the same token, it is not a translation that feels slow, or wordy, or unsuited to the screen. The adaptation is excellent, without "opening up" the play too much. If you're a fan of mysteries, you'll be intrigued by the performances and the script. Joseph Mankiewicz's direction isn't terribly flashy, but subtle and well-done.

    Laurence Olivier stars as Andrew Wyke, a famous mystery novel writer. Milo Tindle (Michael Cane), comes to visit him one weekend; asking for Andrew's wife's hand in marriage. But things aren't as simple as they first appear. Andrew wants something in return from Milo. And then again, maybe he doesn't.

    The film unfolds slowly and patiently; you almost feel like the film's sentient and realizes how juicy its secrets are, holding on to them for as long as possible. There are numerous twists and surprises in the film; and even if you see one or two coming (as I did), don't expect to get it all right until it's over. It's best not to know at all what is going to happen, so I'll leave you with no more clues.

    I enjoyed nearly every moment after the initial meeting between Milo and Andrew. Once Cane and Olivier really get going in their scenes, the film never looks back. They are exceptional in their performances, and deservedly earned nominations for Best Actor Oscars.

    So who wins? Does anyone win? Is it a game with a winner at all? Oh just go rent it already!
  • comment
    • Author: Thetath
    To me, "Sleuth" is a demonstration of the problem with the Oscars (certainly a problem in 1972, and perhaps now also). The problem was that, even before the casting was done for the film of Mario Puzo's "The Godfather," everyone knew that whoever played the leading role was going to receive the Best Actor Oscar, irrespective of the performance. To rate Brando's performance above the performances of Caine and Olivier that year is nothing short of ludicrous. All I can say is thank God that at least Joel Grey received the best support Oscar for "Cabaret" that year.

    I first saw Anthony Schaffer's play on the London stage about two years prior to the release of the movie. The leading roles were taken by Paul Rogers and Donal Donnelly, two fine English actors who were superb in these parts. I remember thinking what a difficult thing it would be to make a film of this, but I was sure that someone would try it and make a mess of it. How wrong I was!

    I note that "Sleuth" comes up as #250 in the IMDB top 250. I recently selected my top 100 and it comes up at #55. This is a magnificent movie that keeps one on the edge of the seat for its entire length. The performances of the two leads as they play the same game a number of times is stunning. Here is the man acknowledged as perhaps the greatest actor of the 20th century, and here is the Cockney up-start Caine (famous for his "kitchen-sink" roles such as in "Alfie") matching him at every turn and often soaring above him.

    But in saying all this, I need to put in a plug for perhaps the finest supporting performances ever delivered. Alec Cawthorne, a man few have heard of outside "Sleuth," is mesmerising as Doppler, while John Matthews and Eve Channing, although having very minor parts, imbue every nuance of their performances with ethereal splendour.
  • comment
    • Author: Thorgahuginn
    A very entertaining "thriller" about a wealthy mystery novelist named Andrew Wyke (Olivier), who invites Milo Tindle (Caine) - working-class owner of a chain of hair salons - to his sixteenth-century mansion to discuss Milo's affair with Wyke's wife. Instead of being angry, he seems to be delighted and proposes an ingenious robbery scheme that will benefit both men. Soon, the two men find themselves locked in an ingenious and devious duel, but who gets the last laugh on whom?

    With the right ingredients film-making can seem so easy. The cast consists of just two actors, Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, but with these heavyweights, it's hard to go wrong. Playwright Anthony Shaffer (FRENZY, THE WICKER MAN) wrote a brilliantly ingenious script with crackling dialog, and veteran director Joseph L. Mankiewicz (A LETTER TO THREE WIVES, ALL ABOUT EVE), who knows all the cinematic tricks and has an uncanny aye for detail, manages to avoid this "play" from becoming static in any way. It was to be his last film, and what a grand way to say goodbye to cinema. A real treat from start to finish. Highly recommended!

    Camera Obscura --- 10/10
  • comment
    • Author: Celak
    In England, the Italian English hairdresser Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) is invited by the successful writer of detective stories Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) to visit his isolated house. The lower class Milo is the lover of Andrew's wife, who is used to have a comfortable life, and he intends to marry her. Andrew proposes Milo to steal his jewelry simulating a burglary. Milo would make a fortune selling the jewels to an intermediary; and Andrew would be reimbursed by the insurance company and would not pay alimony. However, the whole situation was part of an evil game. When Milo vanishes, a detective visits Andrew to investigate what really happened that night, when deadly games are disclosed.

    "Sleuth" proves that a great screenplay, an outstanding director, two top-notch actors and four scenarios suffice to make an excellent movie with four nominations to the Oscar. The intelligent and wit theatrical story has amazing lines and twists in a duel of cat and mouse between two icons, and has not aged. My vote is nine.

    Title (Brazil): "Trama Diabólica" ("Diabolic Plot")
  • comment
    • Author: Dodo
    Sleuth is, without doubt, one of the finest thrillers ever made. It continually keeps you on the edge of your seat and you never truly know where you are. This is an excellent thing for a thriller to do as it ensures that you will keep watching for that all important next plot development. The plot itself follows a man named Andrew (played by Lawrence Olivier) who is a big fan of playing games. He invites the man that has run off with his wife; Milo (Michael Caine) to his house, and while there, he entices him into a plot to steal his wife's jewels so that he can avoid the taxman, and so that Caine can accommodate his new found girlfriend's overly expensive tastes. To give anything else of the plot away would be running the risk of spoiling what is a fascinating piece of cinema, so I will leave the plot details at that. The plot meanders in a way that is hard to pin down; the film remains ambiguous all the way through; nothing is ever what it seems, and that is what makes Sleuth a cut above many detective mysteries.

    This movie stars two super-heavyweights of the British movie industry; Lawrence Olivier and Michael Caine. The film requires the two to be on screen for nearly the full duration of the movie, so it is obviously essential that they perform to a high standard; and I can confirm they most certainly do just that. The chemistry between the two is outstanding. The way that the sublime dialogue bounds back and fourth between the two is simply a pleasure to watch; and is more entertaining than a lot of movies that are made simply for entertainment purposes. The two do have a tendency to get a bit dramatic at times, there's is a particular sequence in the cellar that springs to mind immediately on that front; but the over-dramatics add to the atmosphere of the film. The film is very different and over the top in it's style anyway; it plays out almost like a moving detective novel, and the fact that both actors have a tendency to camp it up gives the movie something that it would not have had otherwise. The film is based on a stage play by Anthony Shaffer, and this is evident throughout the movie as it plays out just like a stage play on the big screen. The only film that I can think of that is similar to Sleuth in this way is Alfred Hitchcock's 'Rope'. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, who also made the classic All About Eve, very astutely directs this film. I would even go as far as to say that the direction here is better than it was in All About Eve; Joseph L. Mankiewicz's use of the camera is amazing and you can tell throughout the film that this is an auteur at the absolute top of his game. Overall, Sleuth is one of the best films ever made. It is amazing just how brilliant a film can be with a miniscule cast and a brilliant script, and if only for that fact alone; Sleuth is a film that you need to see.
  • comment
    • Author: Doriel
    The beginning and the end of the movie take place on a stage:a mortal feud between two characters,played by two splendid actors ,directed by one of the giant of American cinema.It's hard to speak of the screenplay without spoiling the suspense,the action-packed story,the surprises waiting for you every step of the way.The two belligerents are diametrically opposite:Sir Olivier plays a local squire,full of disdain and smugness,he's wealthy and claims a noble pedigree.Michael Caine is what the French call "nouveau riche",the most despicable breed of man to his proud opponent :worse,he 's still working,as a posh hair-dresser at that!Both are oozing hatred ,and behind the automatons,we feel the tempers rise .Height of contempt,Olivier disguises Caine as a clown!Anthony Shaffer's tour de force is rendered with gusto and virtuosity.It' s a pity that it was to remain Mankiewicz's last work.
  • comment
    • Author: Shazel
    The stars have a ball with this exceptional adaptation of the award winning play from Anthony Shaffer, directed by Mankiewicz. Mystery writer Olivier invites his wife's lover, played by Caine to his lavish country home - perhaps to propose a scheme that would benefit both of them. Ah, but what's the real purpose. Stay poised and ready for thrills as both stars lead us through a devilishly cunning script, filled with a crackerjack conclusion. Both stars and their director were Oscar nominated.
  • comment
    • Author: Truthcliff
    Brilliant film about two men (Oscar nominees Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine) who meet at Olivier's house and go over an elaborate scheme to keep Olivier's fortune when his wife (about to divorce him to be with Caine) leaves him by staging a robbery performed by Caine. The strangeness does not stop there though as the two men each have personal motives and the twists and turns become dizzying as the movie progresses. Laurence Olivier is truly magnificent here, as he almost always was. Michael Caine, only 39 at the time, holds his own and that is far from an easy thing to do in a production like this. Joseph L. Mankiewicz's brilliant direction makes a film that could have been very dull into a stunning cinematic experience that stands tall against other films from the 1970s and all other decades for that matter. 5 stars out of 5.
  • comment
    • Author: DarK-LiGht
    Agreeable mystery based on successful play about a cat and mouse game . Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) is a famous writer who lives in a luxurious mansion . He loves games and theater invites his wife's lover to meet him . Wyke is a successful novelist , a master of menace , the number one bestseller author from Baron Books . There arrives Milo (Michael Caine) , a hairdresser who seeks to convince the former for signing the divorce papers and Andrew in seeking avenge on his detested and unfaithful wife . Andrew and Milo setting up a battle of wits with potentially deadly results . An ultimate game is being played on its audience .

    This lighthearted suspense/mystery based on a hit play from Anthony Shaffer and being well adapted ; dealing with games-playing mystery novelist played by Olivier leading his spouse's lover performed by Caine into diabolical trap . The original stage production of "Sleuth" by Anthony Shaffer opened on Broadway on 12 November 1970. It originally starred Anthony Quayle as Andrew and Keith Baxter as Milo, ran for 1222 performances and won the 1971 Tony Award for the Best Play . This is a deliciously sardonic and witty movie and excellently starred by a magnificent protagonist duo ; both are the peak of their game in this dazzling film . This interesting movie is plenty of twists and turns and stunning surprises . Splendid and fascinating performances , a real Tour De force for two stars . Michael Caine was so very much beside himself to be working with Laurence Olivier, that he didn't even know how to address him . However , Michael Caine was the third choice for the part of Milo Tindle after Albert Finney , who was deemed too plump, and Alan Bates , who turned down the role . The film only had two stars - the rest of the cast were made-up names . In addition to Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) and Give 'em Hell, Harry! (1975), only one of three films in which entire on-screen billed cast received acting Oscar nominations . Packs a jolly and adequate soundtrack , including a haunting, remarkable musical leitmotif by John Addison , who was nominated for an Oscar for his music score. Colorful cinematography by Oswald Morris as well as appropriate production design by Ken Adam .

    Remade many years later as ¨Sleuth¨(2007) by Kenneth Branagh starred by Jude Law and again Michael Caine as Wyke ; including modern production design and set on a stark house , monitored with high tech . However, it is inferior the first version that was a directed by Joseph L Mankiewicz, in his last film . In the similar style was subsequently filmed 'Deathtrap' by Sidney Lumet with Christopher Reeve, Dyan Cannon and also Michael Caine. Rating : Good, delicious from start to finish. It's a great and enjoyable fun.
  • comment
    • Author: Halloween
    It is often said that when a film version is made of a famous play that either the material is not suitable for the big screen or that, when film-makers have tried to counter this by virtually shooting a stage performance (e.g. Othello, Butley and The Homecoming), the result is flat and cold.

    With Sleuth, the play is converted 'cinematically' very effectively; the direction is fine, the production design and the acting, in particular, are superb. But for all this, the film still doesn't work as well as it should and this, surprisingly, is in the actual writing of the screenplay rather than the shooting of it.

    Before going any further, this does contain spoilers of a kind, you have been warned...





    As soon as the character of Inspector Doppler appears, despite efforts to disguise this in the opening credits, it is blatantly obvious that he is Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) in disguise and you would HAVE to be short-sighted not to notice. What can be easily achieved on stage where the audience is at a distance from the performers simply cannot be done on screen where the actors are under much closer scrutiny. This completely ruins the key moment of trickery in the entire play and we sit there waiting to see if Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) will notice what we noticed straight away. Then we are supposed to be surprised when 'Doppler' reveals his true identity.

    What is even more dismaying is that the solution to this problem is so straightforward. If a third actor had been used to play Inspector Doppler then no one would suspect a thing and then when the moment of truth emerges, the film can cut to Michael Caine disguised as the third actor just as he removes the mask.

    It may not be 100% convincing but at least it will fool the audience for as long as was originally intended.

    This would have made a decent film much more effective and enjoyable and justice would have been done to a great play.
  • comment
    • Author: Ka
    ****SPOILERS!!!***** I really wanted to like this movie. I'd long heard it was one of the best mystery thrillers ever made, and its near unavailability on DVD made it especially tantalizing. So when I finally stumbled across a copy today, I was thrilled. I had studiously avoided reading anything about the plot, so I had no preconceptions about the movie, beyond that it was supposed to be good.

    What a disappointment!! Now, I'm not saying it was a total waste of a movie (note the 6/10 rating I give it), I just can't remember the last time a movie so let me down. The plot was, at turns, ridiculous and predictable. The jewelry thief plot was absurd: how could Caine's character have been roped into that mess so easily? Wouldn't he have wondered why Olivier's character was not going to go out somewhere so he'd have an alibi during the "robbery"? Why was Caine's character so inconsistent during this scene -- one minute he's cynical and suspicious about the whole thing, an instant later he's gleefully dressing up as a circus clown and doing pratfalls off a ladder? And how about the next section of the movie -- the moment I saw Inspector Doppel, it was clear that this was a person in make-up. I was not immediately sure that it was who it turned out to be, but I thought of the possibility right off the bat. The whole movie proceeded this way. I guess people in the '70s were a bit more trusting of their movies; today, after "The Sixth Sense" and its innumerable imitators, it takes a bit more than a bad make-up job to pull the wool over an audiences' eyes.

    The look and feel of the film were dated and stage-bound. Manckiewicz made some great movies, but I found little of his customary skill here. The incessant cutaways to the ugly dummies and automatons were very grating.

    As for the acting, well...I'm not going to be popular for saying this (though I imagine my whole review up to this point won't be very well received), but I don't see what the big deal is with Olivier and Caine here. Well, Caine does pretty well (excepting his mugging for the camera while in the clown suit), but Olivier comes across as a bit shrill. And his horrible accents..! I've pretty much trashed the film to this point, but it does have redeeming qualities. In spite of the above, it's a mildly entertaining movie, and the dialogue is well-written: I can imagine that it's a pretty quotable movie.

    Anyways, I would say it's a take-it-or-leave-it movie. Entertaining enough, but vastly overrated, and not something you should go out of your way to see.
  • comment
    • Author: Memuro
    Andrew Wyke is a rather vain author of detective fiction who discovers his wife is having an affair with Milo Tindle, a younger man. Andrew invites Milo to his country retreat and proposes a mutually beneficial solution, but can Milo trust him ?

    Sleuth is a real treat. It's ingenious, it's very funny and it features two pretty unforgettable performances from the inimitable leads. It's based on a play by Anthony Schaffer (who also wrote Frenzy and The Wicker Man) and it's just a peach of an idea - a simple revenge story dressed up as an elaborate prank which then cleverly transmutates into a treatise on class struggle. It has a big midway twist which the jaded may criticise as either unfair or obvious without really appreciating how much fun the subsequent mayhem is. Caine and Olivier both milk the intrigue and the drama for all they're worth, one-upping each other with rustic accents and pratfalls, and sparring like two prizefighters over the soliloquies. Both are outstanding although for me Caine pips it, not least because their casting bears no small resemblance to their characters; Olivier was near-gentry (an uncle was a Baron) and lauded with every acting accolade and exclusive status possible, whilst Caine grew up in the East End and earned everything he got the hard way. Olivier is a good sport to play an ageing prima donna with empty boasts of his sexual prowess and he is very funny at times, but Caine's performance is much more natural, richer and thoughtful. It's also a revelation in that just two actors can play a whole movie and it never gets dull or needs any other storytelling devices - Robert Altman and Richard Attenborough take note. The story is so deliciously twisted that there are plenty of opportunities for mugging, but both stars reign it in a bit, with lots of sly little moments like the scene where Milo waits in vain to get a turn in the game of snooker. The other great aspect of the movie is Ken Adam's nutty production design; Andrew's house is a spooky old Victorian folly with a dungeon of a cellar, a hedge maze in the garden and a cavernous living room crammed full of creepy automata whose jerky movements reflect their owner's self-deluded illusion of puppet master. Mankiewicz was an interesting guy who began as a writer in the thirties then moved into production and is best known for directing All About Eve and Cleopatra. This was his final movie, and I think his best. Remade (with substantial changes) by Kenneth Branagh in 2007, with Caine playing Wyke and Jude Law playing Tindle.
  • comment
    • Author: Tenius
    When it comes to movies, I'm pretty stubborn. I realized that there was a remake of this film with one of its original stars and Jude Law, but I chose not to see it because like with every film that has to suffer through a remake, I wanted to see the original (the fact that I had heard it hadn't made it to DVD hadn't eased my stubbornness). So there I was at Blockbuster, and what did I see? THE ORIGINAL "SLEUTH" ON DVD! Needless to say I snatched it right up, and I couldn't wait to watch it. While it's a good film, and succeeds at being unpredictable (a rarity), it left me with something to be desired.

    Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) is invited over to the house of Andrew Wyke (Laurence Olivier) to discuss the divorce of Andrew's wife Margurite, who is also Milo's lover (a fact known by Andrew). But since both of them know that Milo can't afford Margurite's spending habits, Andrew offers Milo a solution that will leave both he and Milo very happy. And so begins a series of twisted games where the stakes grow increasingly higher.

    There are two problems with "Sleuth:" pacing and Caine. "Sleuth" is at times very talky, and it causes the film to drag. Caine and Olivier take advantage of the material the best they can, but they can't help the film from being slowed down by the excess dialogue.

    When I say that there is a problem with Caine's performance, I must tread lightly and be very vague, because it's only in one scene, and to describe it would give away one of the film's biggest surprises. But apart from that scene, Caine is terrific with Olivier.

    Olivier clearly has a lot of fun with this role. At times he is an eccentric old man, but at others he is a force to be reckoned with, and Olivier switches from one side of the coin to the other flawlessly.

    It would be unfair to blame director Joseph L. Mankiewicz for the pacing, since there is so much padded dialogue that Mankiewicz can't do much to rectify the situation. While one could argue that a lot of dialogue can be a drawing point, playwright/screenwriter Anthony Shaffer is no Quentin Tarantino (in fact, he's closer to David Mamet's "Glengarry Glen Ross"-not a good thing). And Tarantino was never this wordy anyway.

    But Mankiewicz does solid work with "Sleuth." He adapts the play so that while it is never a filmed version of a stage play, it stays true to its stage roots. I liked how he used the toys and dolls that are all over Wyke's house to enhance the creepiness of the play, but again, the dialogue is so wordy that it counteracts everything Makiewicz tries to do to ratchet up the tension, so the film seems longer than it should be.

    Normally a film is inferior to its source material. It's a wonder to find a film that is hampered by it.
  • comment
    • Author: Malaris
    Sleuth is about playing games on one another- sinister, bizarre, but ruthlessly witty and almost charming games- and it's maybe more-so about the depths to which masculinity may be displayed in the most conniving but mannered manners. The premise is simple, sort of: Milo (Caine) is invited by Andrew (Olivier) to his sprawling estate, and the detective-fiction writer questions Milo about having an affair/planning to marry his wife. But there's a twist: Milo will steal his wife's jewels, sell them, and both reap the rewards via insurance payoff for Andrew and clean get away for Milo. At least, this is what is first thought of, crazily enough. This is just the beginning of a back-and-forth display of gamesmanship by two evenly matched men who can't leave un-humiliated for long.

    Schaffer's play, and subsequent screenplay, play on the idea of these two generations of men- Andrew's refined, regal, seemingly upstanding if definitely eccentric old-timer, and Milo's new-wave, half-immigrant youngun- coming together over a battle of wills in the guise of mind-f***ing. What's even cleverer, and which the director Mankiewicz (his final great feature) latches onto, is the mood of the setting, the various figures and puppets and animatronics like some kind of creepy 1950s Disneyland attraction, and how they almost work into the thick of things as their 'audience', cutting back to them every minute or so. And every line of dialog, every little nuance and trifle and rise and fall of the game at hand, is brilliantly charged for actors to latch onto and make it their own times 100.

    And it goes without saying one can't get better, if you want pure gold movie performance from Britain, via Olivier and Caine. If anything, though some might disagree, Caine may possibly win out as giving the better overall performance (which is saying something), but this doesn't mean Olivier is off his game; on the contrary he relishes Andrew in the first half- when he's dealing the wicked game at Milo- and the second when the tables are turned. If you're idea of two character playing psychological and plot-driven cat-and-mouse isn't your idea of a good time, don't go near it. But if you're looking for something that's pure black comedy done with a delight that few films can muster, and even leans towards the lighthearted here and there, this is your movie. It also features the a truly creepy closing.
  • comment
    • Author: Fenrikasa
    If Sleuth isn't the best thriller ever made, I'm sure it's at least the funniest, smartest and best acted. With a very small cast, of which Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine are the main protagonists, perfectly directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, using a screenplay by Anthony Shaffer (and how wasn't he nominated for an Oscar too?), and with a humorous main theme provided by John Addison, Sleuth succeeds in becoming one of the most perfect thrillers in cinema's history.

    Milo Tindle (Caine) travels to Andrew Wyke's mansion to discuss the affair he's having with Wyke's wife. Wyke (Olivier) is a famous author of detective novels and he lives a fantasy life in a fantasy house populated by mechanical toys (or automata, as he calls them), puzzles, parlor games, his awards (an Edgar Allan Poe Award no less!), and other jovial objects that show what an eccentric and inventive person Wyke is.

    The art direction in this movie is one of the best I've ever seen in a movie. If the purpose of art direction is to fill the movie with those objects that give depth and authenticity to the movie even if they're not part of the story, to recreate worlds that suit the characters, to express themes, then the art direction in this movie is spot on. One look at Wyke's living room and all one needs to know about him comes instantly. Furthermore, this is one of the rare movies where the art direction plays a very large role, as the objects around them are used, abused, referred to - they pretty much become another character, and I'm sure the people in charge of it had a lot of fun during the movie.

    So Milo wants to marry Wyke's wife. Wyke isn't much too bothered but he wonders how Milo, a humble hairdresser, expects to support a woman used to luxuries. Wyke proposes a plan that'll suit both: Milo steals the jewels in the mansion's safe, sells them and gets rich; Wyke, who's insured the jewels, merely has to collect the insurance money. It's perfect and harmless. Wyke has everything planned and instructs Milo in every step of the plan. It all seems perfect until Wyke does something unexpected and the movie reaches the first of its many twists. From here on the movie becomes unpredictable, but never loses its wit and humor.

    In the end, the movie uses the thriller to explore questions about class difference, as Milo and Wyke represent two different worlds: Milo, descendant of Italian immigrants and a working-class man, and the aristocratic Wyke. Their confrontation goes beyond women, for Wyke it's an attack on his persona and all he represents as a member of a dying breed of people who can't stand people like Milo rising above their humble conditions.

    The confrontation between Olivier and Caine is unforgettable. Watching these two giants of cinema trying to upstage each other on screen is one of those experiences we seldom see in cinema. It may have to do with the fact that the movie is based on a play, making it quite theatrical. The dialogue is intelligent and verbose - I'm constantly surprised by Wyke's wide vocabulary.

    The movie is also quite artificial, in the best sense. Sleuth, for me, represents the purpose of cinema as an art form: not as a dull representation of reality (like those pseudo-documentaries that pass off as movies these days - The Hurt Locker, for instance - which by being so impartial and documentary have nothing to say about anything at all), but as a space to extrapolate, to let imagination run wild, to create situations that wouldn't happen in real life but nevertheless shed insight into human existence. Watching Sleuth today, one sees how insignificant and monotonous cinema has become, which only makes jewels like Sleuth the more important.
  • comment
    • Author: Teonyo
    This is the type of film I really like: twisted tales of mystery and deceit featuring great actors who like to slice the ham thick. I wanted to like SLEUTH. No, I wanted to love SLEUTH. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, squaring off in a murderous battle of wits: What's not to love?

    SPOILERS.....

    But, I was very disappointed the first time I saw SLEUTH, and subsequently have seen it four or five more times to no avail. The film is clumsy and hokey and as smart as it thinks it is, it is really pretty dumb.

    To succeed the story relies on characters who are alternately brilliantly diabolical and just plain dumb. For a film of this sort to work, the audience can't be in on the scam. We have to believe the film is going one way, when it is actually going another. Sleight of hand, as it were. Any storyteller can make one character fool another; it takes skill for someone to honestly fool his audience.

    I even know exactly when the film started going astray. When one character suggests that another disguise himself as a burglar by dressing up as a circus clown. That's dumb. Worse, is when the other character does so. That's just plain stupid.

    It becomes apparent that the robbery scheme being discussed is bogus. One character is lying to the other, and we know it -- and we know he should know it as well. We see through the gambits, the disguises and the lies, but the characters who are supposed to be smarter than us, don't. Worse, the film keeps announcing that it is being clever and pulling scams. See how smart I am! See what a fool you are for being fooled! Now shut up while I fool you some more. SLEUTH is too obvious; it wears its cleverness like a neon sign.

    And it is a small point, but what was with director Joseph Mankiewicz's repeated cutaway shots to laughing clowns and smiling puppets? Once or twice it is stylish; but repeatedly it seem like a desperate attempt to jazz up the story or, worse, an attempt to cover up sloppy editing. Whatever, it was a constant annoyance.

    This film has a companion piece called DEATHTRAP. They have similar themes and gimmicky plots and both star Michael Caine. DEATHTRAP is considered the poor cousin of SLEUTH. I disagree; DEATHTRAP may lack the over-the-top theatrics of SLEUTH (which, in itself, is not a bad thing) but it is more than just clever, it is tight, sly and truly surprising. Everything SLEUTH isn't.
  • comment
    • Author: Vudojar
    Which is how I felt about several other movies I reviewed, because I felt they were the types that required seeing them on stage with live actors for them to work. On the stage, you see the whole setting and all the characters in a scene simultaneously, and you can see actions and hear intonations that cannot be transmitted on any recording. On video, there are various cuts and scene changes, you see one person talking while not the other's simultaneous reaction to the dialog, etc.

    So how is the movie itself? The story is about an elder, wealthy, eccentric British man who is the author of a very successful detective character series and a mansion full of antiques and toys, and he invites a man of Italian descent who has risen from poverty to become a moderately successful hairdresser. But this isn't a social visit; the hairdresser is the author's wife's lover, and the author says at the beginning that he knows about it. Not that the author could be morally outraged; he himself has a Finnish porn star lover of his own. So what is the author's intention? The hairdresser is supposed to fake a robbery of breaking into the mansion and stealing jewels from a safe, the idea being that the hairdresser could fence the jewels for money, while the author collects the insurance. The hairdresser follows the other's instructions, but is clearly annoyed by the author's way of doing things, such as being forced to wear a clown suit.

    In the process, though, the author suddenly pulls a pistol on the hairdresser to reveal his true plan-to kill the hairdresser because he caught him breaking into and robbing his mansion. Not merely for the affair, but for the fact that the author despises a jumped-up poor person of Italian extraction. The hairdresser weeps with terror, and we hear the gunshot.

    Several days later, a policeman arrives about the disappearance of the hairdresser. He points to several bits of evidence that suggest that the author had killed him and tried to hide the body. The author gets unnerved, and finally the policeman takes off a rubber mask-he was the hairdresser is disguise. The author is initially amused, but the hairdresser wasn't-he endured the trauma of thinking he would actually be killed (the author used a blank, the hairdresser had fainted, and after awakening had wandered away). The hairdresser then humiliates the author by mocking his fictional detective, and saying that his Finnish lover told him that the author was sexually impotent. He then makes the author look for clues that could incriminate him again before the real police arrive-except they don't. The hairdresser has truly provoked the author-what will be the reaction?

    The big problem with the whole story is that everything is pretty predictable. We knew the "policeman" was really the hairdresser a mile away, for example. Also, the ending was unconvincing. Surely the hairdresser wasn't going to destroy himself just to get back at the author?

    There are better tension dramas to watch.
  • comment
    • Author: Wishamac
    "Sleuth" (1972) starring Lord Laurence Olivier (1907 - 1989) and Sir Michael Caine (1933 - ), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz (1909 - 1993) is a 2 man "tour de force" stage play presented on film, shot mostly at a famous English restored 15th century manor house mansion called "Athelhampton Hall," owned in 1972 by Joseph Cooke, then a member of the UK Parliament.

    Here are details about Athelhampton Hall in England (comments about the "Sleuth" movie follow).............

    ---------------------

    The hall is a Grade I listed 15th-century privately owned country house on 160 acres (65 ha) of parkland. It is now open for public visits.

    An internet "virtual tour" is possible by visiting WWW.Athelhampton.Co.Uk/ Sir William Martyn had the current Great Hall built in about 1493. A West Wing and Gatehouse were added in 1550, but in 1862 the Gatehouse was demolished.

    Sir Robert Long bought Athelhampton House in 1665 from Sir Ralph Bankes. In 1684 an attempt was made by the court to sequester the estate from the then owner, James Long Esquire (son of Sir James Long, 2nd Baronet), to recover a debt, but this seems to have been unsuccessful. The estate passed down through the Long family to William Pole-Tylney-Long-Wellesley (Viscount Wellesley, later 5th Earl of Mornington), who sold it in 1848 to George Wood.

    In 1891, the house was acquired by the antiquarian Alfred de Lafontaine, who carried out restoration to the interior and added the North Wing in 1920-21.

    At the same time de Lafontaine engaged Inigo Thomas to create one of England's great gardens as a series of "outdoor rooms" inspired by the Renaissance. 20 acres (8.1 ha) of formal gardens are encircled by the River Piddle, and consist of eight walled gardens with numerous fountains and pavilions, plus a balustraded terrace, statues, obelisks and vistas through gate piers. Great Court contains 12 giant yew pyramids set around the pool by the great terrace.

    The lawn to the west has an early 16th-century circular dovecote, and the south terrace features a vast Magnolia grandiflora and a Banksian rose. Pear trees cover the old walls and support roses and Clematis.

    Athelhampton has been owned by three generations of the Cooke family, the present owners. It was the setting for the 1972 film "Sleuth".

    ---------------------------

    The movie lasts almost 2 1/2 hours and is hard to watch and get enthusiastic about in spite of the very good actor work of the two movie stars who are the only actors seen in the movie.

    The lovely "Athelhampton Hall" setting is sort of the "third actor" in the show, and is one of the reasons the movie's pacing is slowed down (a small part of the movie was shot in London movie studios, but I would guess less than 10% was).

    Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine are always worth seeing....they are two of England's best movie actors, and the problem parts of the movie are greatly forgivable simply because of the good work the two stars provide.

    That said, there are indeed many "problem parts" of "Sleuth" (1972), and the characters presented by the writer are not interesting or sufficiently endearing to justify the long time the viewer is asked to spend with them.

    It is important to like the stars of any movie, and that includes villains, and people who engage in villainy.

    Neither of the 2 main (only) characters in "Sleuth" (1972) is sufficiently likable to keep viewers interested, regardless of the superb job Olivier and Caine do with what they are given.

    Laurence Olivier probably owned a large percentage of the movie....Michael Caine was just beginning to act in movies he also owned ("Get Carter" [1971] was the first movie Caine produced and owned, partly).

    "Sleuth" (1972) shows off Olivier's actor talent, which Olivier was no doubt happy with....and since he was the boss of the production, questions about the movie being a big "ego trip" for Olivier were probably not raised, neither, likely, were objections to the movie's shortcomings....too long, too slow, too obvious, not well written in many ways.

    What the viewer and movie historian are left with is the fact that "Sleuth" (1972) is a very important and famous movie starring two of the most important movie actors of the 20th century, and at the same time, it is a mediocre movie in many ways.

    It is technically and historically interesting, and not more.

    For people (I am one) interested in "stage plays made into movies which remain interesting historical examples of well done stage plays," this movie is worth knowing about and seeing at least once.

    BTW, stage plays like "Sleuth" (1972)....a play made into a movie..is arguably an art form which many people agree probably died around 1980....see the excellent documentary titled "Broadway: The Golden Age" [2004] which presents this view.

    Any movie which stars Laurence Olivier is important (also true of any movie starring Michael Caine), and therefore, "Sleuth" (1972) is important......but this doesn't mean it's a good movie.

    "Sleuth" (1972) is a bad movie with good qualities and excellent actors.....not the same thing as a good movie, sadly.

    ---------------

    Tex (David) Allen is a SAG-AFTRA accredited movie actor.

    Email him at [email protected]
  • comment
    • Author: I love Mercedes
    I was lucky enough to catch the stage version of "Sleuth" in London as a teenager in 1974. It was - and still is - the most involving and entertaining mystery play I've ever seen (kudos 30 years later to the two actors whose names I no longer recall). So when I saw a video version of this play in 1990 or so, I was anxious to see if the snap and pop of the stage play would carry over to film. Boy, did it ever. In spite of the enormous bite of my budget, I gladly spent the $20+ to have it, and watched it several more times in the intervening years on a slow weekend late at night.

    What prompted this review in 2007 was that the Mystery channel revived it a few nights back, and even though I already have a VHS copy, I stayed up to watch it. (That's how much of a fan I am). The best part was that Paramount supplied the "closed caption" feature, and so I was finally able to catch the full meaning of a few phrases that had escaped me over the years (especially when Wyke calls Tindall a "jumped up pantry boy who doesn't know his place." I had thought Wyke called him a "pansy boy", but "pantry boy" makes much more sense now that I understand the landed English gentry's attitude towards the immigrant class.)

    Jesus, this is a great movie - IF you like plots involving psychological tension and a battle of wits. Yes, there are a couple of lapses in the film version that might weaken the story a bit more (the reviewer who mentions that you can't help but notice

    *****SPOILER********* that Inspector Doppler is just Tindal with makeup *****SPOILER ENDS*****

    is dead on. But it doesn't really matter after you've seen the story for the first time, anyway, and I've watched it at least six times now in the past 15 years. I just like the hell out of this production.

    The younger version of me was horrified and appalled by the denouement, but the older me -who understands disappointment and fatalism and Pyrrhic victory - now finds it perfectly appropriate and satisfying. Watching young Michael Caine hold his own with superstar Laurence Olivier also provides a special kind of satisfaction - knowing how long and storied a career Caine has enjoyed, it's a lot of fun seeing the raw talent and "juice" in the actor as he starts out.

    If you haven't seen "Sleuth" and you like psychological drama (like "Deathtrap", which is the only similar movie that even comes close to being this good), you owe it to yourself to set aside some time to see "Sleuth".
  • comment
    • Author: lucky kitten
    Meh..

    (Some slight spoilers may follow)

    Negatives: The first two "reversals" were obvious. And they chewed up most of the movie (about 80 minutes). Furthermore, even when things got going the pacing was uneven.

    Positives: Michael Caine's performance during the final hour. Also, the dialog was very good, although I personally could have done without quite so much innuendo.

    For my money, the film is significantly overrated. The intelligence of the dialog is overshadowed by its weak buildup. I'd much rather watch Rope with its hackneyed moralizing but real tension and suspense any day.
  • comment
    • Author: Gardataur
    Spoilers herein.

    This is advertised as intelligent, but that is a ruse. Intelligent films require a narrative dialog with the viewer. This has a few twists, but they come as planned surprises. And nothing here requires much intelligence or insight to suss out precisely as required. No, this is simple amusement.

    The play is amusing because it takes good advantage of acting excess, which is what this is all about. Films demand more, and master stager Mankiewicz does his best to add depth to the space, and character to the environment. There's lots of back and forth movement, in and out. There're lots of shots (too many) that try to give roles to the animated toys in the set. But there just isn't enough to work with. It is shame how Hollywood treated Mankiewicz after `Cleopatra.'

    So we are stuck with this as a way for actors to parody outrageous acting while pretending to criticize outrageous writing. One wonders if Olivier knew what he was doing or if he thought he was playing it straight.
  • comment
    • Author: Aedem
    Sleuth is a screen writing master class. Rich writer Andrew (Olivier, rarely better) invites Milo (Caine, a worthy sparring partner) to his country mansion with an offer. What starts as a heist movie becomes a psychological thriller about vengeful men trying to outplay each other.

    Now, how do you keep a story about few characters stuck in a single location interesting?

    First, conflict. The movie is drenched in it. Milo - young, handsome - is the lover of Andrew's wife. Andrew claims not to care but, from the way he glances at her portrait or casually trashes her stuff, we know better. Class antagonism sizzles. To Andrew, Milo is an upstart, a social climber - and a son of immigrants, to boot. To Milo, Andrew is a pathetic relic, obsessed with games and murder mystery novels. Two men who dislike each other and yet have to interact and cooperate - this is inherently compelling to watch.

    Second, variety. Sleuth continuously challenges the viewer's allegiance. We are never sure whom we are rooting for - both characters are, at their core, unpleasant, reptilian sickos, but they are smart and unpredictable. Situation is fluid, always evolving; they're constantly turning the tables on each other.

    Third, dialogue. Each of the two leads has his own peculiar voice. Erudite Andrew asks Milo to trash the room, as to create believable signs of struggle, and adds: "Convincing, not Carthaginian". A bitter undertone of class resentment often slips into Milo's words: "We come from different worlds, you and me... the only game we played was to survive... if you didn't win, you just didn't finish. Loser, lose all. You probably don't understand that".

    As the plot unfolds, games become the main theme of the movie. Sex as a game ("And marriage is the penalty!", comments Andrew); a criminal plan temporarily becoming a playful bonding moment for the two; class-conflict as a zero-sum game; the constant attempt to show one's superiority over the other. Then games take a darker turn - somewhere between Darwin and Freud. The sadistic pleasure of knowing you've got the best hand against a hated adversary becomes the whole purpose of the game itself.

    9/10
  • comment
    • Author: Error parents
    A wealthy detective novelist invites his wife's lover in his mansion and traps him in his clever mind games as a part of revenge. Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, both two legendary British actors, put prominent piece of performance in their puzzle-plays.

    Olivier remains exquisite to toy Caine with his intellect and gamesmanship. His superiority complex and snobbery represent the pitch- perfect image of the then British upper class society. Grandiose Olivier can not accept such defeat from a middle class hairdresser who has snatched his wife. Therefore, he plots Caine to participate in a battle of games to humiliate him utterly. Olivier is flawless to portray his pompousness and obsession to his predominance. It was actually poor luck for him to miss Oscar that year as he got Marlon Brando, The Godfather (1972), as his contender.

    However, Caine also comes ravishing in his ways of treatment in the intellectual warfare. Caine is magnetic to reply to all mockeries and humiliation, made by Olivier, though his acting can not surpass Olivier's superb appearance at length.

    Anthony Shaffer, one of the mightiest 20th century English playwrights, creates an intriguing screenplay, full of wits and aggressive humors. Both Olivier and Caine seem natural in darting each other with those witty dialogues. The setting provides a perfect theatrical tide throughout the film. Above all, there is no other option valid to admire Joseph Leo Mankiewicz for this mind-blowing charade. He is always grand at his place as a director. Additional hype arouses for Sleuth as it is Mankiewicz's last film. To conclude, this one is an obvious recommendation for all classic mystery fans.
  • Complete credited cast:
    Laurence Olivier Laurence Olivier - Andrew Wyke
    Michael Caine Michael Caine - Milo Tindle
    Alec Cawthorne Alec Cawthorne - Inspector Doppler (credit only)
    John Matthews John Matthews - Detective Sergeant Tarrant (credit only)
    Eve Channing Eve Channing - Marguerite Wyke (credit only)
    Teddy Martin Teddy Martin - Police Constable Higgs (credit only)
    All rights reserved © 2017-2024 hd.thomson-multimedia.com