IMDb > Where Sleeping Dogs Lie (1991) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Where Sleeping Dogs Lie More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 15 reviews in total 

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A film that missed the target, just

Author: kate2000 from California
12 August 2001

This movie should have been great.

The acting is great. The locations are excellent, as is the photography, editing and so forth.

The premise is clever, the opening scenes of the script intriguing, and the actions of the characters logical given the circumstances. A few scenes are riveting, and the sequence of events, at least for the first half of the movie, captures your attention completely.

My feeling is that the film was cut, to the point where we are left with only the basic storyboard. The ending is questionable, probably because there are missing pieces of information.

Hopefully, the whole film was shot, and someone will go back and re-edit the final version someday. Or perhaps I am filling in a script that was not revised enough - who knows? But my gut feeling is that this film could have been quite extraordinary.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Not so surprising film

Author: LatigoMeans from Harrisburg, PA
17 November 2004

There are three reasons to watch, and enjoy, this film... Sizemore, Sizemore and Sizemore.

Dylan McDermott is alright and all, beefcake does nothing for me. A dozen guys could've played this part. A half dozen would've made something of it. Sharon Stone... anyone could have played her part, and she acted as if she was proving just that. She looked good doing it, no surprise. A little slow moving and the plot is very predictable but a nice ending semi-twist.

It is Tom Sizemore's performance that makes this film worth watching. I always liked this guy but he does a good-to-great weirdo in this movie.

7 out of 10... Too generous?? To each his own.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Helping the author write a masterpiece

Author: jotix100 from New York
27 December 2005

"Where Sleeping Dogs Lie" would have been a much better film had the director and writer tightened the screen play in which it's based. Charles Finch, the director, and Yolanda Turner, the writer, tried to put some life into the film with mixed results.

The story of Bruce, a writer that is house sitting a mansion that has seen better days, offers a lot of possibilities. Bruce made the discovery about a murder that has taken place in the house. To make matters worse, he agrees into taking a lodger, the creepy Eddie Hale. The viewer realizes right away where the story is going. The result is an uneven movie that has some good elements and with another creative team it might have been more interesting.

Dylan McDermott is Bruce, the writer. Tom Sizemore has more opportunity playing the strange Eddie Hale, who is the key to the mystery surrounding the mansion and what happened in it years ago. Sharon Stone is seen as a literary agent that wants to dare Bruce into producing a masterpiece.

"Where Sleeping Dogs Lie" is a curiosity piece that is mildly engrossing.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

This one sneaks up on you

Author: hawk-58 from California
7 February 2002

Sure, it's slow on action, but what atmosphere! I really enjoyed this movie the first time around, when I wasn't really paying attention, so I watched it a couple more times on cable. This was the first movie where I had really seen Tom Sizemore and known who he was, and he was absolutely chilling. I thought the interplay between Sizemore's menacing character and McDermott's kind of confused, innocent character was a lot of fun. Poor Dylan. He had no idea what he was getting into when he let that guy into his house, did he? I think the Sharon Stone sequences looked kind of tacked on - not that she didn't brighten up the screen - and I agree with other comments that the plot could have been tightened up, but overall I find it a haunting, very entertaining movie that should have gotten a lot more attention than it did at the time of its release. It didn't show up on cable until several years later. I liked it so much I picked up a copy on eBay and would highly recommend it to anyone who likes creepy suspense films.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: 2Pluto from San Francisco
10 March 1999

This is a film that has you thinking about it later on for a few days. You can't seem to get it out of your mind. I found it absolutely enjoyable. The storyline and the acting is terrific. Suspenseful and intoxicating.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A thriller that simmers to the boiling point.

Author: Michael O'Keefe from Muskogee OK
3 February 2001

Most will find this movie slow and sluggish. There really is not a lot of action, but plenty of dialogue and suspense. An out of work writer (Dylan McDermott)house sits a vacant mansion, where he decides to write a book about the wealthy family that was murdered there. His agent and former lover(Sharon Stone) tries to shame him into submitting a masterpiece novel for publication. The stalker/murderer who slaughtered the family arrives and ends up helping McDermott write in detail.

My favorite scene is where the tantalizing Miss Stone lifts herself up out of the swimming pool to smooch McDermott. A second viewing will help you make sense of this dark drama.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Great cast, OK story!!!

Author: Doc_Who from VACAVILLE, CA, USA
19 October 1999

This movie is about a writer who moves into an old house to write a novel. He is played Dylan McDermott(Three To Tango). During the movie, he accidently invites the killer of a family to live with him. Eventually he goes crazy and gets himself some help. You can see Sharon Stone in this movie a agent of a the writer!!So once again , great cast!!Pathetic story!!If you like Dylan, you can see him shirtless in the beginning!!!Tom Sizemore(Bringing Out the Dead) also co-stars in this movie!!

Was the above review useful to you?

Failed psycho-thriller

Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
19 November 2015

WHERE SLEEPING DOGS LIE is one of the least well known of the psycho thrillers that filled cinema screens in the early 1990s. The reasons for this obscurity become obvious when you start watching, because this is poor stuff indeed; it commits the cardinal sin of a thriller in that it's thoroughly boring, with hardly any incident or indeed mystery to keep it going.

The story is about a young writer (AMERICAN HORROR STORY's Dylan McDermott) who moves into a supposedly haunted old mansion and befriends a drifter (Tom Sizemore) who comes to stay. Sizemore can usually be relied upon to deliver interesting performances, and indeed is the most interesting thing about this movie, but sadly the calibre of the writing is so poor that this is near-unwatchable for the most part.

In an attempt to capitalise on current trends and popularity, Sharon Stone (BASIC INSTINCT) appears in the rather extraneous role of the writer's literary agent, although her appearance only serves to add some minor titillation and lots of dull, talky scenes which pad out this never-ending thriller that lacks both thrills and suspense.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Slow, obvious thriller.

Author: gridoon
10 April 2004

The script telegraphs all of its "surprises", the direction is strictly by-the-numbers and Dylan McDermott is a bland lead. There are only two noteworthy elements in this movie: the dangerous, edgy intensity Tom Sizemore brings to his role, and a couple of steamy moments provided by Sharon Stone, who was then at her best-looking phase; at one point she actually says to McDermott: "Don't fret, you 'll get the check in a week and you can have me now". Now that's what I call a GOOD DEAL. (**)

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Meh and meh and meh

Author: opieandy-1 from United States
22 February 2016

A compete and utter snoozefest. Reminded me of a dozen similar but better- executed movies from the 80s to early 90s. The lack of action did not portend suspense. It just lulled me to sleep.

My scale:

1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre"

6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again

7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons

8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others

9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings

10 - A Classic (6 of 430 movies have received this)

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history