Fascinating as a perverse version of the Raymond Chandler classic crime novel which is one of the quintessential film noir, this is equally as disturbingly bad as the unnecessary remake of "The Postman Always Rings Twice". Saved in small part by a fascinating cast of veterans and now practically forgotten not quite stars of the late 1970's, lead by film noir veteran Robert Mitchum. Dying elderly James Stewart is being blackmailed in regards to his loony daughter Candy Clark, and hires Mitchum to help him avoid having to pay out. Clark leads Mitchum to murder, and more intrigue befalls Mitchum thanks to the older daughter, Sarah Miles, who has plenty of secrets of her own. More weird characters come in and out of the convoluted tale which features Joan Colin's as a book store clerk who responds to Mitchum's inquiry of "Do you sell books?" with the lame retort, "What does this look like, a banana?". Richard Boone, Harry Andrews and Oliver Reed are among the other strange characters in the tale that just continuously just gets more and more perverted.Hints of pornography, homosexuality and drug abuse add to the modern twists of the plot that really don't move it forward. It lacks the romance and intrigue mixed together in the original. It seems to have been rushed together to capitalize on the success of the modern film noir, " Chinatown", which also focused on a powerful man and his strange off-spring. Candy Clark's performance is laughably over the top, and the pre-"Dynasty" Joan Collins seems a bit desperate. Like other Sir Lew Grade produced all-star films, it has a rushed sense to it, more about the quantity of names rather than the quality of the script.

WHENEVER A CLASSIC film is remade, a true classic that is, the producers are aware from the start that they will have opened that proverbial can of nails. Compatison, criticism and all sorts of charges of bloody murder are sure to follow.SO IT WAS with today's subject matter title in THE BIG SLEEP (ITC/Winkist/United Artists. 1978); but, in this case, it's not for reasons usually cited. This is our considered 'professional' opinion because the original version of THE BIG SLEEP (Warner Brothers, 1946), which featured Humphrey Bogart and young paramour/trophy wife, Miss Lauren Bacall, is very good, but never crosses that threshold into the very elite productions.WHILE IT TRULY had a lot of the potential that is required to be considered, those certain intangibles just weren't there. In short it is no CITIZEN KANE, CASABLANCA nor not even KING KONG. The Good News that it is still better than the remake.WHEN ONE EXAMINES its entirety, we discover that some of the more obvious reasons are unusually led into the witness chair in an attempt to affix blame. Hence we have the following, 'usual suspects' awaiting en queue; those being: star & featured roles, supporting cast and general fidelity to the original story and characters.CERTAINLY ONE MUST come to the reasonable conclusion that none of these factors are 'the murderer'; although there could be made a strong case against some of their being complacent and knowing accomplices.ANY PRODUCTION WHICH boasts of having two such iconic stars as this picture does is surely said to be out of the old 'starting blocks' with ease. The combination of James Stewart and Robert Mitchum (considered by many to be the best of the screen Matlowes)was a concession to both critical approval, as well as to Box Office $ucce$$!* WHAT WE FAULT as being the weak link in this movie is its setting. Had it not been transported to contemporary London, instead of to 1940's Los Angeles of Raymond Chandler's pen; it would have been a much better,interesting and more entertaining a movie.AS EVIDENCE OF what we are driving at, just take a gander at the previous Phillip Marlowe outing in FAREWELL, MY LOVELY (ITC/????/Avco Embassy, 1975) as proof.AND JUST WHY was such a change of venue or setting implemented as cornerstone of this filming of THE BIG SLEEP? We believe it was the fault of 'the Suits' in the Board Rooms of the Companies who were footing the bill.AS OFFERING THE best comparison that we can to strengthen and perhaps prove our case, we must refer to the old SHERLOCK HOLMES Series, with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.** Those stories were filmed in a contemporary (1940's) setting for one simple reason; that being, the bottom line. It was much more economical, ergo, more profitable to do it this way; rather than having incurred the extra expense of Victorian costuming, Olde London Towne sets, horse drawn carriages, etc.SO IT IS true to this Marlowe romp that present day London would be far less costly than recreating the Los Angeles of a bygone era; as was done for FAREWELL, MY LOVELY.THE PROSECUTION RESTS. your witness! NOTE: * The popularity of Raymond Chandler's cynical, world weary sleuth is evidenced by the number of major movies made in the '40's on' all done by various studios and not as a run of "B" or "Series" movies.NOTE:** These don't include THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES and THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (both 20th Century-Fox, 1939)which both starred and originated the Rathbone-Bruce team and were set as they should Be, in Victorian/Edwardian England, Scotland, Wakes and Ireland.

Michael Winner, who claims as many of the credits (I use the word loosely) as he can for this celluloid abomination, is an intriguing phenomenon. He makes dreadful films, but presumably they earn enough at the box office to persuade yet another philistine, bean-counting producer to sign him up for another assault on sensitive eyes.As a sideline, the horrendously smug and obese Winner is a restaurant critic. Some of the less respectful publications in the UK hint that Winner is so loathed by chefs that every dish he is served contains a not so secret ingredient. How can I explain? The special stuff that is added in the kitchen to Winner's sauces and soups could otherwise have been deposited at the local branch of the Sperm Bank.Does Winner think he makes good films? How did he persuade Mitchum, Stewart, Reed et al to take part in this dire production? Do superannuated movie legends have no self-respect? Surely they don't need the money. Shame on them all for signing up with him.As a standalone film, this might earn 3 stars out of ten. As an unbelievably misconceived remake of a 1940s classic (despite all the loose ends of one of the most complicated and creakiest plots ever), I'm being too generous in awarding the IMDb minimum of one star.

Most people would probably run a mile at the thought of Michael Winner getting his hands on the rights to film Raymond Chandler's masterpiece novel 'The Big Sleep'; but personally, I was rather excited at the prospect. Michael Winner may not be a great director; but his films generally turn out to be entertaining in spite of not being brilliant, and with a story as strong as this one; I felt confident that The Big Sleep would be a good film. However, as it turns out; this film is not as good as it could have been. The story focuses on private investigator Philip Marlowe. He is hired by an old man who goes by the name of General Sternwood to investigate a case of blackmail against one of his daughters. After meeting the daughters and some of the other main players involved, our hero soon comes to the conclusion that the blackmail doesn't really constitute a threat and becomes suspicious; leading to him thinking that everything seems to be more connected with the disappearance of the man's son in law, and decides to investigate that instead.For one reason or another, Michael Winner has decided to move things over to England; although the lead man remains American. This change in location has not really had an effect on the story; but it did leave Winner free to recruit an excellent roster of British stars. Among the names in the cast list are Oliver Reed, John Mills, Joan Collins, Richard Boone and Edward Fox. The film is lead by Robert Mitchum, who while not as great as Humphrey Bogart, still makes an excellent leading man and there's also enough room in the cast for an aging James Stewart. The film is a lot shorter than the earlier version of this story and Winner has really trimmed things down a lot, which means that the story is much more straight forward than it was in the 1946 film. This is not really a bad thing as it does mean that the film is easier to follow; although it also seems less expansive. The characters take something of a backseat too, with only the lead character getting any real development. Still, this is at least an entertaining thriller and I don't feel like I wasted my time watching it; although Howard Hawks' version is better.