Glittery (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
glitteryv) wrote2025-11-05 11:23 am
glitteryv) wrote2025-11-05 11:23 am
Entry tags:
Fannish 50 S3 Post 51: The Big Sleep - 1978 version (Noirvember)
The Big Sleep (Hoopla)
This is for the 1978 version of the movie that's based on Dashiell Hammet's noir novel by the same name.
I'd say that the most popular adaptation of that story is the 1946 one--which is the first adaptation--with Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe and Lauren Baccall as Vivien Rutledge nee Sternwood. That's a movie I've watched a lot of times, and one I own in physical and digital formats. I love it backwards and forwards. As for the book…I read it almost 20 yrs ago and the most I can say is that it's v. much of its era. Obvs, certain things were softened for the 1946 movie due to the censorship code thingie that was in effect at that time.
But, when I found out that there's a 1978 version, my curiosity was piqued.
FTR, it follows the same premise as the book and the 1946 movie so, if you've read the novel or watched the Bogart film, this movie is mostly on track with those two.
The premise is abt Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum), a private detective that gets hired by General Sternwood to assist him in a blackmailing case against the Sternwoods. At first, Marlowe thinks it's going to be easy. However, the more he gets involved, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I'd say that the best things abt this movie are James Stewart as General Sternwood and Robert Mitchum as Phillip Marlowe. They're both FANTASTIC actors who bring their A-game to a movie that's…not so great. Because Mitchum's got a laconic, slightly rebellious persona, I don't mind the fact that he's in early 60s at time of filming while, in the novel, the same character is in his early 30s. FTR, Bogart was in his late 40s in his version. So, yeah, Mitchum's a bit older BUT he's got the vibe and the presence.
Annnd that's pretty much it for the positive. This is a hella terrible movie, LOLsob. #SadTrombone
Do I have any criticisms?
For reasons I don't think anyone can explain, the setting was moved from California to London? Also, the only USians are Phillip Marlowe and the three remaining Sternwoods.
Secondly, the casting is just BAD outside of Stewart and Mitchum. No one else can act or, at least, embody the characters they're supposed to be portraying. Frex, there's Agnes, a secondary character that's still a little important to the overall plot. She's a secretary who is v. memorable in the 1946 version (played by Sonia Darrin in an uncredited role.) In the 1978 movie, she's played by Joan Collins. Even with her trampy vibes (per the character), she's not convincing enough.
As for the rest of the cast, well, their range goes from "super mediocre" to "oh, you poor soul. Who told you that you can act?"
The problem is that there are certain key scenes that are meant to be impactful, but the viewer can only laugh. Their acting is THAT crummy.
Also, since this is from the late 70s, there are several scenes of topless women (whether in photos or in a scene.) And, for reasons (I guess), every female character either decides to walk around without a bra OR they wear the equivalent of a handkerchief so their boobs are always bouncing around. Finally, the two main female characters (the Sternwood sisters) tend to mainly wear see-through tops just because. The violence is more in your face than expected. Many close ups of ppl with gunshot wounds, blood, etc. Finally, there are some 15-20 minutes toward the end of things that never happen in the novel. It goes somewhere but IHNI where that is.
One thing that surprised me was that this was the second out of two Phillip Marlowe movies starring Robert Mitchum.
Do I recommend this? No, LOL. It's a waste of time. LIke, Mitchum and Stewart try to do the best they can do, but it's not worth it. I'm giving it a 0.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Don't even bother cuz there's none.
Le trailer
This is for the 1978 version of the movie that's based on Dashiell Hammet's noir novel by the same name.
I'd say that the most popular adaptation of that story is the 1946 one--which is the first adaptation--with Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe and Lauren Baccall as Vivien Rutledge nee Sternwood. That's a movie I've watched a lot of times, and one I own in physical and digital formats. I love it backwards and forwards. As for the book…I read it almost 20 yrs ago and the most I can say is that it's v. much of its era. Obvs, certain things were softened for the 1946 movie due to the censorship code thingie that was in effect at that time.
But, when I found out that there's a 1978 version, my curiosity was piqued.
FTR, it follows the same premise as the book and the 1946 movie so, if you've read the novel or watched the Bogart film, this movie is mostly on track with those two.
The premise is abt Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum), a private detective that gets hired by General Sternwood to assist him in a blackmailing case against the Sternwoods. At first, Marlowe thinks it's going to be easy. However, the more he gets involved, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I'd say that the best things abt this movie are James Stewart as General Sternwood and Robert Mitchum as Phillip Marlowe. They're both FANTASTIC actors who bring their A-game to a movie that's…not so great. Because Mitchum's got a laconic, slightly rebellious persona, I don't mind the fact that he's in early 60s at time of filming while, in the novel, the same character is in his early 30s. FTR, Bogart was in his late 40s in his version. So, yeah, Mitchum's a bit older BUT he's got the vibe and the presence.
Annnd that's pretty much it for the positive. This is a hella terrible movie, LOLsob. #SadTrombone
Do I have any criticisms?
For reasons I don't think anyone can explain, the setting was moved from California to London? Also, the only USians are Phillip Marlowe and the three remaining Sternwoods.
Secondly, the casting is just BAD outside of Stewart and Mitchum. No one else can act or, at least, embody the characters they're supposed to be portraying. Frex, there's Agnes, a secondary character that's still a little important to the overall plot. She's a secretary who is v. memorable in the 1946 version (played by Sonia Darrin in an uncredited role.) In the 1978 movie, she's played by Joan Collins. Even with her trampy vibes (per the character), she's not convincing enough.
As for the rest of the cast, well, their range goes from "super mediocre" to "oh, you poor soul. Who told you that you can act?"
The problem is that there are certain key scenes that are meant to be impactful, but the viewer can only laugh. Their acting is THAT crummy.
Also, since this is from the late 70s, there are several scenes of topless women (whether in photos or in a scene.) And, for reasons (I guess), every female character either decides to walk around without a bra OR they wear the equivalent of a handkerchief so their boobs are always bouncing around. Finally, the two main female characters (the Sternwood sisters) tend to mainly wear see-through tops just because. The violence is more in your face than expected. Many close ups of ppl with gunshot wounds, blood, etc. Finally, there are some 15-20 minutes toward the end of things that never happen in the novel. It goes somewhere but IHNI where that is.
One thing that surprised me was that this was the second out of two Phillip Marlowe movies starring Robert Mitchum.
Do I recommend this? No, LOL. It's a waste of time. LIke, Mitchum and Stewart try to do the best they can do, but it's not worth it. I'm giving it a 0.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Don't even bother cuz there's none.
Le trailer
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[staff profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user_staff.png){kind=small}
![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}