*some spoilers follow*
I dutifully hoofed it to Manhattan to see "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" because I'm a big fan of director Mike Hodges' previous work, including the classic "Get Carter," the rather good "Croupier," and the sporadically amusing "Flash Gordon." I had read some lukewarm-to-bad reviews of this, his latest effort, so I was prepared to be a bit disappointed. What I wasn't prepared for was a virtual remake of "Get Carter." Both films involve a tough criminal (okay, Owen is an ex-criminal here) who returns home after a long absence to investigate the death of his brother. In both films, this vengeful character quickly irks the local crooks, who have a vested interest in keeping the brother's death hush-hush.
Trouble is, "Get Carter" is a better film in virtually every respect. There's nothing particularly wrong with "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" (except maybe that meaningless title), but it just can't live up to its predecessor. There's plenty of mood here, and great characterization, and solid acting, but it simply doesn't rate as a classic. And so, for a Hodges fan, it's disappointing. Strange, eh? I'll bet that people who come to this film cold, with no expectations, will like it better.
I want to argue against one common criticism of this film, however. Some critics have branded it "slow," but generally speaking, I find that this label is inaccurately applied and often meaningless. The film is not "slow," it's atmospheric and methodical. I wasn't bored. Of course the pacing could've been faster, and if a lesser director was behind the camera, maybe I would've been bored. But I was pretty invested in the story, so my attention was held. When critics or casual viewers say that something is "slow," they generally mean that they weren't interested in the story, not that the pacing was off. These days, a slow pace is actually a welcome relief from the music video antics of a hyperactive film like "Van Helsing."
"I'll Sleep When I'm Dead" commits only a couple of major sins that really have nothing to do with pacing. The character of Owen's brother is simply too skeevy and obnoxious to garner much sympathy from the audience. Too many key scenes are left out (I wanted to see Owen's reaction when he was told about his brother's death). And the open ending needs to be filed under "nice try, but doesn't work." These flaws do detract from the film, but they don't cripple it.
Oh, and it's not quite as good as "Get Carter." But it ain't slow.