Everyone's saying how much Caine's disguise was too transparent, and I'm just over here by my lonesome, recalling how this scene absolutely turned my world upside down when I watched it.
If this magnificent film has a weakness, it would have to be the 'illusion' of Milo's 'disguise' as Inspector Dopler. Too often Milo's dulcit tones slip into "Not alot of people know that.", "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" etc,etc...That and the difficulty in diguising Mr Caine's unmistakable eyes and bone structure. But the biggest flaw is why the audience has never seen this amusing and quirky actor before! But after the 1st viewing it no longer matters. FANTASTIC!!!!
Caine's face and voice are so recognisable that the make-up and performance can't fully disguise them. The make-up holds up better from certain camera angles than others. The performance is great, but those Caine vocal cords are like fingerprints. You would need to cast an unfamiliar actor to genuinely get away with this. Jude Law in the re-make has the same issue.
@genesis098123 Agreed! I can't praise the original enough. I'll never watch the 'remake' again, but I've watched the original countless times. I was certainly not being critical, merely a perfectionist. It's in my top ten - probably Number One! BCNU...
I know it would never be agreed upon but in film they could actually get away with another actor, i.e., a third actor, to play Inspector Dopler. Have this third actor heavily made-up and possess a natural physical resemblance to Michael Caine. Yet, since it is indeed a different person it would be easy for the audience to believe this is not Michael Caine. Have the actor even adopt some of the inflections and intonations of Caine to foreshadow subtly the big reveal. Yet, it would unmistakably be someone other than Caine. Then, have this actor pull rubber off his face . . . and for the reveal, cut. Substitute back in Michael Caine. "Cut on motion" and show it's back to Michael Caine. A seamless cut in the editing room and nobody would catch the substitution I think it would work and audiences would assume it was Michael Caine in disguise all along. Otherwise, as it now stands, it's too obvious that it's Michael Caine in a transparent disguise.
@stevejailbirdmatt well they did made it very clear that it wasnt a remake but other adaptation of the play, but i think like you, this is the kind of movie you can watch hundreds of times
@stevejailbirdmatt but the make up is still superior to the 2007 version. before i saw this one i thought that that one was an ok movie, but the original make it look awful
@genesis098123 We should organize the 'Sleuth' Original Movie Appreciation Society'. (S.O.M.A.S.) Even if it WOULD only have 2 members! Very best wishes to a like minded soul. );o)
Everyone's saying how much Caine's disguise was too transparent, and I'm just over here by my lonesome, recalling how this scene absolutely turned my world upside down when I watched it.
I planned to see this with my family but accidentally got spoiled *AND THE TWIST STILL SHOCKED ME!*
Grazzie Mille
If this magnificent film has a weakness, it would have to be the 'illusion' of Milo's 'disguise' as Inspector Dopler. Too often Milo's dulcit tones slip into "Not alot of people know that.", "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" etc,etc...That and the difficulty in diguising Mr Caine's unmistakable eyes and bone structure. But the biggest flaw is why the audience has never seen this amusing and quirky actor before! But after the 1st viewing it no longer matters. FANTASTIC!!!!
Yeah but did you spot that first time round?
Caine's face and voice are so recognisable that the make-up and performance can't fully disguise them. The make-up holds up better from certain camera angles than others. The performance is great, but those Caine vocal cords are like fingerprints. You would need to cast an unfamiliar actor to genuinely get away with this. Jude Law in the re-make has the same issue.
@genesis098123 Agreed! I can't praise the original enough. I'll never watch the 'remake' again, but I've watched the original countless times. I was certainly not being critical, merely a perfectionist. It's in my top ten - probably Number One! BCNU...
I know it would never be agreed upon but in film they could actually get away with another actor, i.e., a third actor, to play Inspector Dopler. Have this third actor heavily made-up and possess a natural physical resemblance to Michael Caine. Yet, since it is indeed a different person it would be easy for the audience to believe this is not Michael Caine. Have the actor even adopt some of the inflections and intonations of Caine to foreshadow subtly the big reveal. Yet, it would unmistakably be someone other than Caine. Then, have this actor pull rubber off his face . . . and for the reveal, cut. Substitute back in Michael Caine. "Cut on motion" and show it's back to Michael Caine. A seamless cut in the editing room and nobody would catch the substitution I think it would work and audiences would assume it was Michael Caine in disguise all along. Otherwise, as it now stands, it's too obvious that it's Michael Caine in a transparent disguise.
@stevejailbirdmatt well they did made it very clear that it wasnt a remake but other adaptation of the play, but i think like you, this is the kind of movie you can watch hundreds of times
@ genesis. See my earlier comments at the actual movie link......
@stevejailbirdmatt but the make up is still superior to the 2007 version.
before i saw this one i thought that that one was an ok movie, but the original make it look awful
@genesis098123 We should organize the 'Sleuth' Original Movie Appreciation Society'. (S.O.M.A.S.) Even if it WOULD only have 2 members! Very best wishes to a like minded soul. );o)
Make that three