Showing posts with label Sherlock Holmes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sherlock Holmes. Show all posts

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Sherlock Sunday: Matt Frewer vs. THE Woman

A Royal Scandal (2001)
Starring: Matt Frewer, Kenneth Welsh, Liliana Komorowska, R.H. Thomson and Robin Wilcock
Director: Rodney Gibbons
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Frewer) is retained to recover compromising photos of one of Europe's crown princes (Wilcock). The case is complicated by the fact that the photos are in the possession of Holmes' old love/adversary Irene Adler (Komorowska) and that the British government and Holmes' brother Mycroft (Thomson) want to get their hands on the photos as well.


"A Royal Scandal" is a so-so Holmes tale that merges "The Bruce-Pardington Papers" with a loose adaptation of "A Scandal in Bohemia." It's a made-for-TV movie that wastes no time in getting started and keeps the pace nice and brisk as it unfolds and makes sure that the viewer is never bored--assuming the viewer is in the mood for a Holmesian-style mystery. The way Holmes deals with betrayal and dishonesty by those he cares about (and whom he thought he could rely on) is an interesting aspect of the story. That, along with the Victorian espionage intrigues--echoes of last week's Sherlock Sunday entry, "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes"--is one of the more entertaining aspects of the film, but it isn't enough to make up for the weaknesses.

The film's problems lie primarily with the casting, and, to a lesser degree, with the scripting.

As fun as Matt Frewer usually is to watch in most roles he's played, he makes a weak Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't have the arrogant intensity of Basil Rathbone or Peter Cushing's Holmes, he doesn't have the boyish exuberance of Ronald Howard'd Holmes, he doesn't have the emotional intensity of Robert Downey Jr or Christopher Plummer's interpretations, nor even the limpwristed feyness of the one presented by Robert Stephens. He doesn't bring any larger-than-life qualities to the character, something which seems to be a necessity for a successful screen-portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. A giant such as Holmes need to have something to seperate him from the masses of humanity, and Holmes as portrayed by Frewer has nothing.

The script is also something of an issue. Holmes is one step behind his adversaries for the entire story. Although many cinematic tales of Holmes deal with him being bested--especially when Irene Adler is involved--few have him so completely in the dark as he is during this tale. Even after the case has been resolved, it's clear that although Holmes figured out the puzzle and mostly identified all the players correctly, he at no time had the initiative and he was successfully manipulated from beginning to end. All in all, a disappointing adventure both for Holmes and for the viewers.

The rest of cast is as bland as Frewer. Kenneth Welsh's Watson has very little screen time, but what he has is forgettable. Not only does Watson have very little to do in the story, but Welsh is completely unremarkable in the role. Liliana Komorowska makes an attractive Irene Adler and brings enough sexy charisma to the role to make it believable that Holmes might fall in lust with her, but the part itself feels underwritten and empty--and her tendency to carry around an unloaded gun is a very silly habit for a character who deals with lethal criminals and spies on a daily basis.

"A Royal Scandal" is a forgettable entry in the Holmes. The Five I am giving it is about as low a Five as possible without making it a Four. I'm being generous with the film because it did keep me entertained, but only just, and because it's all-around technically competent. But it's a film you can safely skip.




Sunday, February 14, 2010

Sherlock Sunday: 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'is the most overrated Holmes film?

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Starring: Robert Stephens, Colin Blakely, Geneviève Page and Christopher Lee
Director: Billy Wilder
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Holmes and Watson (Stephens and Blakely) endeavor to learn the identity of a woman suffering from amnesia (Page) after she is dropped off at their apartments at 221B Baker Street. They soon find themselves drawn into a mystery involving a missing Belgian engineer, Holmes' politically powerful brother Mycroft (Lee) and the Loch Ness Monster.


"The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" features an ill-implemented attempt at presenting a more vulnerable and human Holmes. During the film's first half hour, Holmes expresses discomfort at the way Watson's writings have turned him into a star and laments that he feels obligated to run around in a deer stalker hat and tweed cloak because that is how artists protrayed him in Strand magazine. Comments made by Watson in this early part of the film also seems to imply that he as exaggerated some of Holmes' exploits and characteristics.

However, as the film unfolds, this approach is dropped and it slips into a story-telling mold that was established with the Basil Rathbone-starring series from Universal Pictures during the 1940s, with Holmes abusing Watson at almost every turn yet still insisting that he's his friend. It's not the clever and unique approach that some reviewers paint it as.

Perhaps this is because they don't get past that first half hour. It was a description of that half hour from a friend whose taste I trust that made me move this film up in my review stack, because her description of Holmes starting a rumor that he and Watson were a committed gay couple sounded intriguing.

Sadly, like the idea of presenting a more human Holmes, the gay rumor angle ends up going nowhere in the picture as a whole. It's little more than an extended bit of sketch comedy within the picture, and as a story element perhaps one of the most aggregious examples of Holmes behaving like a jerk toward Watson for no reason whatsoever other than to let the viewer develope an intense dislike for Holmes and cause one to wonder why on earth Watson continues to consider him a friend.

This would have been a stronger film if that first half hour had been strongly edited, with the entire business involving a Russian ballerina and Holmes pretending that he and Watson were gay lovers had been dropped. It's material that has nothing to do with the rest of the story and it adds nothing positive to the overall portrayal of Holmes or Watson.

This would also have been a stronger film if a more suitable actor had been cast to play Holmes. I never thought I would see a more effeminate version of the character than the one portrayed by Christopher Plummer in "Murder by Degree", but Robert Stephens has proven me wrong. Plummer's Holmes comes across like more macho-than-macho when viewed in light of what Stephens did.

The rest of the cast, however, does a good job--and Stephens isn't bad once one gets used to the simpering, limp-wristeed interpretation of Holmes--although there does seem to be a tendency to overact. Both Page (and the mystery woman) and Blakely ham it up just a bit too much in some scenes. It's expected from Blakely, as his Watson is pure comic relief, but Page should have dialed back on the melodramatic stylings once or twice.

If you enjoy the general tone of the Basil Rathbone Holmes, I think you'll like this one, even if you'll often find yourself wondering how much better the film would have been if Holmes had been better cast. You'll like it even more if you enjoyed the humorous approach found in the Ronald Howard-starring television series. What you won't find, however, is the alleged genius of writer/director Billy Wilder. Overall, this is an average presentation of the Doyle's classic characters with some glimmers of what could have been a great film shining through here and there. If only Wilder had been a little more aggressive with his reinterperation instead of falling back onto familiar and safe territory that had been thoroughly explored during the 1940s and 1950s.





Trivia: Christopher Lee is, so far, the only actor to portray both Sherlock Holmes (in "The Deadly Necklace") and Mycroft Holmes (in "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes").

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Sherlock Sunday: The Woman in Green

The Woman in Green (1945)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Hillary Brooke, Henry Daniell and Matthew Boulton
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Inspector Gregson (Boulton) turns to Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) for help in solving a series of grisly mutilation murders. Holmes soon discovers the murders are only part of a much larger criminal enterprise... and that his old foe Professor Moriarty (Daniell) may have returned to London.


"The Woman in Green" is not one of the best of the Universal Pictures' Holmes movies, but even so it's obvious why so many fans believe the Basil Rathbone Holmes is THE Holmes. Pains were taken to make Rathbone and the set of 221B Baker Street like living manifestations of the famous Sidney Paget illos from Strand Magazine and those efforts go along way to making this film fun to watch. Rathbone's Holmes is also very no-nonsense and task focused, always straight to the point; with the exception of his occasional ribbing of Watson, there is none of the humor present in so many other portrayals of Holmes.

But speaking of Watson, he is the weak point in this film, as he is in just about every one of the Holmes films from Universal. Nigel Bruce does a fine job as being comic relief as the bumbling, dimwitted Watson, but one continues to wonder why Holmes would keep him around, because he causes more problems than he solves. Is it just so Watson can pick up the tab for dinner now and then? Perhaps Watson is going senile, and Holmes keeps him around out of love and respect for the way he used to be? As excellent and accurate as the portrayal of Holmes in these films is when compared to the Doyle stories, Watson is completely off target.

The plot of the film is original, although there's an assassination attempt on Holmes that's taken from "The Empty House," and there's some dialogue that I think was lifted from "The Final Solution." Like the majority of the other Universal Holmes films, the characters were transported to modern times (which means the 1940s), but this doesn't seem to harm them in any way. If anything, it enhances the characterization of Holmes, because it forced the costumers to ditch the ludicrously out-of-place tweed coat and deerstalker hat that so many filmmakers insist on making the character wear even while in the city.






"The Woman in Green" is one of several Holmes movies that slipped into public domain when the copyright wasn't properly renewed during the 1970s. It's available in a number of value packs (taken from copies of varying quality), but if you want to have the best image quality possible, you want to get "The Sherlock Holmes Collection, Vol. 3," which includes an excellent restoration. The other collection linked to is recommended due to its low price and the fact that you get three Rathbone films and three films starring Arthur Wontner as Holmes.

Friday, December 25, 2009

Sherlock Holmes as action hero

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Stone, Eddie Marsan, William Houston and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Downey) and his sometimes-reluctant colleague Dr. Watson (Law) most solve the mystery of a Satanist (Stone) who has seemingly returned from the dead to continue a killing spree. Meanwhile, Holmes old adversary and lover Irene Adler (McAdams) has reappeared on the scene with a mysterious agenda of her own.


The most famous of all consulting detectives gets the big budget, CGI-generated "stunts" action movie treatment in a film with actors who give far better performances than this flabby movie probably deserved.

Some reviewers have been upset by the "action movie" feel this film has, even commenting that Holmes shouldn't be an action hero. I don't quite agree with that sentiment, as Holmes always seemed like a man of action and quite willing to resort to violence when necessary. What annoys me is the pointlessness of much of the action and some of the stupidity of it.

I don't know whether it's the gigantic budget he had to work with here, or whether he's devolved as a director over the past ten years, but Guy Ritchie seemed to have a far better sense for how to make an exciting movie when he did "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in the late 1990s.

The flow of the movie, and therefore the attention to the viewer, is repeatedly disrupted by pointless side treks and plot detours, such as a long sequence with Holmes in a boxing match (a very stupid thing for a genius like Holmes to engage in, even if he is a thrill-seeker), or one where he is tricked by Irene Adler and ends up handcuffed and naked in bed (an scene mostly there for a single feeble gag). These irrelevancies might not be so bad if they added some definition to the characters, but the traits shown in these scenes are already introduced and reinforced in other far more relevant and important scenes, making the filler material like the above-mentioned sequences that much more annoying and boring. The end result is that the film has a flabby, drawn-out feeling to it.

Then there's the asinine slow-motion and absolutely annoying jerky/blurry camera work during the action scenes. It's not artistic, it doesn't enhance the suspense... it's just irritating and stupid.

The script is also not all it could have been. I've already mentioned pointless scenes, but a far bigger problem is the case that Holmes is working on. It's so much that he is squaring off against what seems to be a supernatural menace (even if that is more in keeping with Doyle's non-Holmes tales than this one) it's that the bad guys are of the "trying to take over the world" variety. What's next for Holmes at this point? Battling Professor Moriarty after he teams up with Ming the Merciless to conquer the Universe? A smaller, perhaps even more petty, motivation for the villains would have been far more suitable.

It's too bad this film wasn't helmed by a more competent director and based on a more solid script, because the approach taken by both the script and the actors to the characters of Holmes and Watson feels very much in keeping with the stories from which they originally sprang. While the nature of the adventure is pretty far removed from anything Doyle included in the Holmes stories, but Downey and Law portray a Holmes and a Watson that I think Doyle probably would have appreciated. They are far better than the celebrated team of Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce, slightly better than Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke, and standing nearly equal with my favorite on-screen Holmes & Watson team of Peter Cushing & Andre Morrell.


All in all, file this Holmes version with the Hammer "The Hound of the Baskervilles" starring Cushing and Morrell. It gets the characters right, it's very entertaining, but the storyline is a bit far from Conan Doyle. Not as far as some of the Basil Rathbone films, but pretty far nonetheless.