Sleeping Dogs

A title like 'Sleeping Dogs' should already tell you it's not going to be a high-octane thriller and some of the complaints about the slow-burn pace of this film may have missed the point regarding its very solid tonal consistency. It's an 'old' film by design. This is reflected in the casting, the murder/whodunnit trope, the 'mystery' incidental music and the dated style of storytelling with the reveal at the end. There's nothing wrong with any of the performances, particularly Russell Crowe's portrayal of a man who knows he's past his peak and harbouring concerns about the reliability of his memory. Tommy Flanagan also manages fine in a larger role but I couldn't decide if Karen Gillan was intentionally overdoing it or just did a spectacular job of playing a control freak nutcase. Sleeping Dogs may not appeal to everyone but if you're over 50 (and no longer a gladiator) you'll likely find it relatable.

Sleeping Dogs is a new crime mystery directed, written and produced in part by Adam Cooper. He makes his directorial debut with this film. He also has some experience as a screenwriter for films such as Allegiant and Assassin's Creed.

Roy Freeman (Russell Crowe) is an ex-detective who had to quit his job because he suffered from Alzheimer's. When a prisoner is threatened with the death penalty, he asks Roy to take another look at his case and hopefully find enough evidence to prove his innocence and save his life.

Despite his poor memory, Roy tries to revisit and revive the ten-year-old case. This is how he ends up in a crime web full of brutal actions and dark secrets, in which he must decipher the real truth.

Just like Russell Crowe's character, as a viewer you try to keep up with what happened in the ten-year-old case. This way you can try to solve the matter yourself. The crime web just contains many events and different characters, some of whom are suspects or victims. Everyone also brings their own story with hints, although some hints sometimes contradict each other. Due to the Alzheimer's complaints of the main character and all these different storylines and hints, you do not always get all the traces clearly. Despite the many twists and the main character's poor memory, the real perpetrators of the crime can still be guessed. As a result, all the mysterious aspects of the mystery can be a bit disappointing in the end, because the answer was so easy to guess.

However, they have unnecessarily chosen to add special drugs and science fiction-like medical gadgets to the story, which causes the film to lose some of its realism. In addition to these non-existent things, the film responds nicely to real things and data surrounding the human brain. If they had just stuck to the real stuff, the movie could have been more interesting.

Russell Crowe comes across well and realistically as an older detective who can no longer always trust his own memory. Other cast members also play well on the mysterious aspects of the mystery. With most of them you don't always know whether or not they can be trusted and whether they play victims or perpetrators in the story.

The movie is just average, things like music, cinematography etc. It's not bad but nothing new or special. The plot is a bit convoluted which will either keep you engaged or annoy you depending on your mood.

Solid performances from the main players, particularly the creepy yet sexy professor guy.

Russel Crowe is the main character, a retired detective with a new/old case. It's basically a mystery detective story with some added drama psychology elements.

The biggest problem is one has to keep ones attention to know what is happening but it's mostly just dialogue and Mr. Crowe asking people stuff which leads to new discoveries so he goes and asks some more.

Many of the facets of this story could have been transplanted to the film noir period of the mid-20th century, and bar the occasional reference to technology (which could have otherwise been replaced for something of those times), this movie could have been set then (LA Confidential, anyone?). But it's not, its setting is contemporary. But I couldn't help but think that I would have liked to have seen this movie, and this cast, in a 1940s film noir. A glam Gillan would have been particularly good!

A drunken ex-cop, with memory loss due to alzheimer's, has had an experimental procedure that may help his condition. He gets approached about an old case he worked on, but cannot recall, and where the convicted man is near to his execution date.

Hiding his condition, out of a mixture of pride and knowing that he would not be seen as competent by those asking for his help, he meets the advocate and then the death row inmate, and believes the convicted man's claims of innocence in the murder he was jailed for.

Despite his condition, the ex-cop decides that the case is worth looking at again. No doubt he also thought that the mental exercise might do him some good - as would doing something useful be to his sense of pride (I state for anyone who can't see this premise as plausible).

As the ex-cop looks into the matter, he not only starts to see other possible suspects to the crime, but starts to regain his own memories, as his experimental medical procedure starts to work.

Large elements of the story are shown in flashback, from the point of view of a manuscript, written by one of the characters involved, as well as shorter flashbacks as the ex-cop gradually recalls his own past. Again, this is reminiscent of film noir, where a character may explain what happened and the movie shows it.

Russell Crowe is convincing as the drunken ex-cop with a shredded memory that is starting to come back to him. Tommy Flanagan is solid in support as his old-partner (he needs more character roles so we can see him more often) and Karen Gillan can now add 'femme fatale' to her acting resume.

This movie is better than most people seem to be saying. It's well told, the central cast are all solid and the story should keep you interested until the end.

It is however an end that not everyone may care for and has a penultimate confrontation scene that I found too contrived.

It's not the most engrossing film and is another one of those thrillers that is more cerebral than it is fast moving, but has interesting characters and an interesting enough plot to reach the end.

If you're hoping for a Russell Crowe action flick, you'll probably be disappointed. This isn't as good as "The Next Three Days", for example, but it's good enough to get Crowe and two of Scotland's best acting talents together on screen.

If you don't like film noir, or are expecting a fast-paced thriller, you may not like this.

Summary: Not bad, not brilliant either. Worth a watch (with the above provisos).

Well, what can I say? This film is a captivating ride from beginning to end. With a solid directorial debut, it skillfully incorporates elements reminiscent of classics like Murder by Numbers and Oldboy. Throughout the narrative, I found myself fully engrossed, a rare feat that kept me glued to the screen without the usual urge for a smoke break. While it draws inspiration from various films, its unique blend creates an intriguing and immersive experience. For aficionados of crime thrillers and murder mysteries, this film is definitely worth adding to your watchlist.

If you're a film junkie like myself then you'll appreciate the time and effort that Adam Cooper and everyone else put in to make this happen.

I enjoyed it. Not my place to say where it could have been improved. It is what it is.

Thank you.