Review of Clue (1985) by Rebecca H — 01 Jul 2009

That's the movie, not that game, in case you're confused. These days they'll adapt anything, but it seems this trend has been going on for longer than I thought. Clue is the film version of the board game Cluedo. Or at least, the American version of the board game, which would explain some of the pointless changes. Strangely, the film doesn't follow the plot of the game. In fact, it is just an excuse to be silly, and really doesn't need to be the film of the game at all.

It's a weird, convoluted plot, made weirder by the relatively simple plot to the source material. Six strangers are invited to a mansion for dinner and locked in. Here there is a butler Wadsworth (Tim Curry), a maid and a cook. Then Mr Boddy (Lee Ving) turns up. It turns out he is blackmailing them all, and Wadsworth has brought them together so that Mr Boddy can be stopped. This backfires when Mr Boddy suggests they kill Wadsworth, and none of their sordid secrets have to be revealed to the police, and he gives them each a weapon. This also backfires, when someone decides to kill Mr Boddy instead. So, someone in the house is a murderer and they've got to figure out who did it before the police, who Wadsworth has already called, arrive. Only no one trusts anyone, and the bodies keep mounting up.

There are several repeated jokes (one including some dog poo) that are painfully unfunny. So this is what you've got. A bunch of flat characters, repeating unfunny material in a bizarre plot. It's not fun.

Then, as the film continues, it changes its mind and decides it will be a fun, pacey farce and then as cringeworthy as it is, it is an enjoyable ride. This seems mainly thanks to Curry who is charismatic and thoroughly entertaining throughout as Wadsworth.

Shame about the ending. Endings. Since the game can have a different solution each time you play it, so the film has three endings. Three? Why three? That's not enough to be funny, but it's too much to care. And none of the endings work satisfactorily. Ending two is the lamest. Ending one the most convincing, but in order for some of the film to make sense, some of ending three is needed. However, I'd still go with ending one for preference, because it has the only memorable and/or funny final line.

So, in conclusion, I need to watch this film again, to decide whether it falls into my initial 'this isn't funny' reaction, or my later 'hey, this is fun' reaction. At the moment, I'd recommend if you have an evening spare, play the game instead.