Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

Introduction:

I never really asked myself the question, what was Sherlock Holmes like as a youth. Well that might have been because I had only ever read one Sherlock Holmes story. But someone must have asked this question – because they made a whole movie about it!

Summary:

John Watson (Alan Cox) arrives at his new school in London a bit nervous but ready to make new friends. The first bloke he meets is Sherlock Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) a rather aloof chap who has keen powers of deduction. The two become good friends, and spent their spare time hanging out with Elizabeth (Sophie Ward) and her oddball uncle Professor Waxflatter (Nigel Stock). But Waxflatter is embroiled in a mystery as one by one former colleges die under mysterious circumstances. Holmes and Watson start to investigate, but soon find that the answer to the mystery is tangled in a web of revenge, cultists and a mind almost as keen as the one possessed by “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Good Points:

• The script and the acting for Holmes and Watson are well executed
• The production for Victorian England is top notch
• The musical score by Bruce Broughton is a forgotten gem of the 80’s

Bad Points:

• Hard core Holmes fans are going to shudder in horror at the changes to the characters
• Has a serious 80’s Spielberg touch to it
• Not so much a mystery as it’s more of an adventure film

Overall:

While the plot maybe outrageous and the coincidences laughable, this movie has a wonderful spirit of fun to it. The whole relationship between Holmes and Watson and how it may have been forged in their youth is handled really well. It carries the movie past the more ridiculous moments. As far as pure entertainment goes, this movie is a solid pick.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 5

Sound: 4

Music: 5

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total: 4

In Depth Review

There’s an odd set of connections between “Young Sherlock Holmes” and “Harry Potter”. First off, both films feature a supporting antagonist named Dudley. Chris Columbus wrote the screenplay for the 1985 film and directed the first two Harry Potter films. Both films take place in and around a boarding school. Both films have a Victorian feel to them (especially obvious in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”). Both films feature insane cult leaders bent on revenge. Ok, maybe I’m stretching it a bit, but I always found it funny that whenever I hear the name Dudley the first thing I think of is the slimy jerk in “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Let me get this out of the way. I grew up with this movie. My sister and I really enjoyed watching it as kids, and it was on regular rotation on our VCR back in the day. We liked the adventure, the bizarre hallucinations and the fact that there was a dog named Uncas in it. So it’s a bit tough for me to view the film completely objectively. So if this review sounds a bit too fond… well you know why.

The main issue I see raised against this film is Chris Columbus’ over the top script. It isn’t good enough for Holmes to solve murders, these have to be completely insane murders conducted by a Egyptian cult that practices their death religion in a giant wooden pyramid. The movie never takes the leap into fantasy. The strange imagery you do see is because the victims are hallucinating. But the film really stretches credibility when you see a huge bald killer chasing kids through a cemetery while wielding a sword. No one notices this or thinks it’s odd?

But check it out, Columbus wrote this screenplay right after he wrote “Gremlins” and “The Goonies”. Steven Spielberg was on the production credits for all three films, and I think its safe to say that he had some input into how the story was going to play out. It explains why this film could easily be called “Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of Doom” a name a few critics gave it. Or maybe you prefer “Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Death” which is the films name in some international markets. That oh so 80’s Spielberg touch is all over the film, even if Barry Levinson was helming it.

Levinson does a good job with the film balancing the large set pieces and special effect heavy scenes with the intimate character scenes between Holmes, Watson and Elizabeth. The character interaction is essential for the film to work. Holmes and Watson must have that warmth and understanding of each other’s talents or else it will feel wrong. Rowe and Cox do a great job, each one nailing their characters as well as creating a valid friendship. Sure the Watson of this film is more Nigel Bruce than David Burke, but it still works well. On the other hand Ward is a little flat as Elizabeth. The part is underwritten, but Rowe’s reactions to her make the connection between them work.

The supporting cast is very good all around. Of special note is Freddie Jones as Chester Cragwitch. This poor man is saddled with a large chunk of exposition, but his great voice combined with his off beat performance makes it all work. Also key to the film is Anthony Higgins as Professor Rathe, Holmes fencing teacher and mentor. Rathe seems to really like Holmes even when events take a turn that pits them against each other. When things get serious, Higgins is able to turn the man into a much darker character, one consumed by hate and willing to do anything to achieve his ends. It’s a good villainous performance.

The large set pieces including the ones revolving around the ceremonies in the pyramid are staged well and filmed with skill. The sets and location shooting in general is top notch and really adds to the film. But Levinson makes sure the action sequences are clear and easy to follow. But one of my favorite sequences is when Holmes accepts Dudley’s challenge to find a lost statue. Levinson takes us all around the school editing together a montage of deduction that leads up to the resolution of the mystery. Combined with Bruce Broughton’s score, it’s a great scene.

Broughton isn’t known to most moviegoers and that’s a shame. He’s done some wonderful work, especially in the Western genre (his scores for “Silverado” and “Tombstone” are excellent). But this is one of the few times he delved into this type of adventure scoring and he does an amazing job. He takes some of the styling of John Williams and combines it with a very English tone and creates a superb musical adventure. There are two main themes that appear in the film, one that surrounds the mystery sequences and seems connected to Holmes. The other is linked more to the friendship sequences and seems connected to Watson. These two fuse together to create a wonderful musical cue that can be enjoyed during the end credits. I also have to mention the choral powerhouse of the Ceremonial chant that is heard twice in the film and is warped into the villain theme by the end of the film. Great stuff. I heartily recommend this score to fans of big adventure music in a John Williams style. This is an 80’s classic.

This was a visual effects movie in many respects and most of it’s notoriety today is based on the fact that the first completely computer generated character was created for this film. During one of the hallucination scenes, a stain glass window of a sword wielding knight leaps from the window to threaten a priest. Back in 1985 this effect was jaw dropping. On top of that all kinds of other effects were used, including stop motion creatures as well as traditional blue screen and miniatures. Using this vast array of effects keeps things from looking too over top and lets them blend into the film.

Here’s what it boils down to: the film is fun. It was made to entertain and it does just that. All the production elements work well together and while it wears its oh so 80’s heart on its sleeve, it never really was shooting for anything more than that. I recently revisited the film and had a blast watching it again. Yes nostalgia played a part in my enjoyment, but I also think that this is just a well-made adventure film. If you’ve never seen it, give it a shot. At the very least you’ll enjoy a great musical score and see some pioneering visual effects from the day. At the most you’ll have a great movie to watch on a wintery weekend.

Please Murder Me (1956)

Introduction:

It's time for another trip to the 100 Mystery films and time for Raymond Burr. When I popped in the disc I was surprised to see Angela Lansbury getting top billing. Parry Mason and Mrs.. Potts in a 50's noir? Sounds like this could get good.

Summary:

Attorney Craig Carlson (Raymond Burr) breaks it to his best friend Joe Leeds (Dick Foran) that he has fallen in love with Joe's wife Myra (Angela Lansbury). Joe is calm about the whole thing and says he needs a few days to think over a divorce from Myra, so she can be with Craig. A few days later, Joe is found dead and Myra is the main suspect. Craig ends up defending Myra, not revealing that the two were having an affair. But the trial is just going to the first obstacle for Craig, because the more that comes out about Myra, the darker their future becomes. Eventually circumstances will drive Craig to say, "Please Murder Me".

Good Points:

• Solid acting by the three leads
• The second half of the film provides an interesting premise
• Some of the noir camera work is effective

Bad Points:

• The resolution to the trial stretches all kinds of credibility
• The story mis-uses flashbacks
• The print I saw was in poor shape with major sound issues

Overall:

This is a solid mystery flick. The acting really helps keep the story moving especially when the story goes that extra step too far. The trial revelation actually had me chuckling. But the decidedly dark path the film takes in the second half was surprising and refreshing. It's a shame that the print was so bad, it ended up affecting some key dialogue scenes, and hurt my enjoyment of what otherwise is a good film.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 2

Sound: 2

Music: 2

Script: 3

Acting: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

In Depth Review:

To be honest the appeal of this film are the performances by Raymond Burr and Angela Lansbury. Fans of either of the two should check this out to see some interesting work by them. Burr seems to be warming up for Perry Mason which he ended up working on a year later. Lansbury was still a few years from "The Manchurian Candidate" where she played a sinister role as well, but she's just as effective in this film. The bulk of the film rests on Burr's shoulders and he carries it off well, convincing as the lawyer as well as the lover. When he realizes the depths that Myra has sunk to, the affect is startling. He plays the part of the broken man very well and we see the cold desperation in his eyes for the remainder of the film. Lansbury isn't in the film as often, but makes the most of her scenes, playing a role that requires her to be a woman pretending to be something quite different than what she is. What is interesting is that Myra's desperation mirrors Craig’s but for different reasons. When she finally cracks at the end she does it well.

Two other actors deserve mention. Foran's role as Joe is small but vital to the film. His interaction with his business partner Lou (Robert Griffin) and Craig gives the audience enough to determine how they feel about the circumstances of his murder. These scenes are necessary for the first half of the film to work well and Foran does a very good job building an interesting character. The other role is of the artist Carl Holt (Lamont Johnson). When Craig first meets him we are unsure what kind of man he is, but Lamont plays him as a genuine nice guy, one who has no clue what Myra is really like. He bonds with Craig and it causes events in the second half to shift in a new direction. Again, without a solid performance in this role, the finale of the movie wouldn't work.

As I mentioned the script needs all the help it can get. The basic ideas are fine, and they make for an entertaining and dark little movie. It's the particulars that sink the script. I've mentioned the trial a couple times and for the most part it’s handled well. But the resolution is pretty bad. Craig's revelation that he is sleeping with his client would get the case tossed from court, instead it frees Myra? Um, I don't buy that for a minute. Beyond that there are other story items that just fall apart if you look at them too closely. The script needed another couple passes to smooth out the rough edges. But the characters are intriguing enough to keep me involved.

The technical elements all suffer a bit. The noir looks is effective, but at the same time doesn't really do too much to the mood of the film. A few moments work better than others, especially in the second half. But for the most part you've got decent enough visuals and sound. But the print just hurts the whole thing. Some scenes are way too dark or murky, and the dialogue in many scenes in the middle portion of the film is really difficult to hear. And some of the key lines required me to do some creative lip reading to make it work. The music is a mixed bag, ranging from effective to annoying. This is typical from composer Albert Glasser who worked on a lot of films for Bert I. Gordon. In this film he uses what sounds like a Theremin and it stands out pretty badly, not adding to the film much at all (as opposed to Bernarrd Herrman's work in "The Day the Earth Stood Still").

The direction is a mixed bag. Some of the shots are composed well with some good lighting and tension work building well. It's difficult to judge some of the editing because the print is so damaged in places that actual frames are missing, but for the most part you can see that it was put together fairly well. Director Peter Godfrey knew enough to step back and let his actors work, maybe providing some guidance here and there. It's very good, but one thing keeps things from really clicking and that is the use of the flashbacks. It just makes the story feel convoluted instead of clean and simple. I've seen others say that this structure was influenced by "Double Indemnity" the classic noir. This may be the case, but the film doesn't need it, and it actually ends up being annoying when we cut back to Craig narrating his story. If this element had been cut the movie would have been better for it.

This is a movie that works in spite of some major handicaps. But the actors pull you in and keep you interested in the characters. It's makes for an entertaining evening of noir, but if you aren't willing to deal with the poor sound and visual quality - I say skip it. For anyone else who wants to see Burr and Lansbury, I recommend it.

Check out what James Lileks thought of the movie here.

The Black Cauldron (1985)

Introduction:

For the longest time all I know about Disney's "The Black Cauldron" was that it was the black sheep of the animated film family. It failed in the theaters and Disney hated it so much that they refused to release it ever again in theaters or on video. But at the end of the 1990's, Disney relented and released the film on VHS and DVD. Did this film deserve to be smothered and hidden away?

Summary:

Taran (Grant Bardsley) is your typical assistant pig keeper who yearns for adventure. He gets his chance when the diabolical Horned King (John Hurt) discovers that Hen Wen is a magical pig who can reveal the location of the Black Cauldron. Once the Horned King has the cauldron in his possession he can create and invicible army of undead to sweep the land. Taran is tasked to with protecting Hen Wen, but things go very wrong and he begins a quest to find her. Along the way he meets the magical princess Eilonwy (Susan Sheridan), the flusterd bard Fflewddur Fflam (Nigel Hawthorne) and the obnoxiously cute Gurgi (John Byner). Will Taran and his friends be able to stop the Horned King from finding and using "The Black Cauldron"?

Good Points:

• Disney attempted a new look with the animation
• The voice acting is well done and fitting to the story
• Avoided shoehorning musical numbers into the story

Bad Points:

• The script is very rough and needed another draft or two
• A few sequences are executed poorly, forgetting other characters are present
• Never really grabs the viewer

Overall:

This was Disney's animation team experimenting and attempting to shake the doldrums they had fallen into since Walt's death. It's a worthy effort, but never really takes off. Blame should not be placed on the darker tone of the film or it's fantasy setting - but on a script that is in desperate need of polish. Had the script been better, this film might be remembered with more fondness. As it is, it is more of a curiousity for animation enthusiasts.

Scores (out of 5)

Animation: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Voice Acting: 4

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 3

Total: 3

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010)

Introduction

My wife started reading these books and really got into them. I read the first and was surprised how good it was. It had a fun mix of Greek mythology, humor and adventure. I figured you could make a really entertaining movie out of this. But I also feared that it could go horribly wrong. Let’s see what happened.

Summary:

Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) just found out he’s the son of the sea god Poseidon (Kevin McKidd). Turns out that all the Greek gods and monsters are real and still hanging out in our times. But things aren’t going so well for the Olympians. The master lightning bolt of Zeus (Sean Bean) was stolen and he is certain that Percy is the culprit. Now Percy has to team up with Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) daughter of Athena and Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) a satyr to find out who really is “The Lightning Thief’.

Good Points

• The cast seems game to have some fun – especially Uma Thurman
• A couple key moments from the book are well executed
• Some cool visual effects for the mythological creatures

Bad Points

• The script is missing a lot of the humor from the book
• Much of the magic and wonder is missing from the movie
• Never pulls the viewer in

Overall

What a missed opportunity this was. Even if I’d never read the books I’d wonder what happened here. The mythological elements are toned down, the humor is bland and almost all the character and quirkiness from the books is missing. The result is a humdrum adventure that has some pretty moments but is lacking anything to draw you in. The cast does a good job, with Joe Pantoliano and Uma Thurman stealing their scenes with relish. But the script is so limp its all for naught. Stick with the books.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 3

Music: 3

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.

Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women (1968)

Introduction:

Last time the 100 Sci-fi Classics gave us “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. This time there are women involved. Ok, but last time the woman had a beehive and looked sedated. What? We get Mamie Van Doren this time? Sign me up!

Summary:

A rocket expedition to Venus ends up crash landing. Little hope is given for Dr. Kern (Georgi Tejkh), Allen Sherman (Yuri Sarantsev) and the robot named John (John Bix). Still a rescue expedition is sent out to find them comprised of Andre (Gennadi Vernov), Hans (Georgi Zhzhyonov) and Commander Lockhart (Vladimir Yemelyanov). Little do they know that the inhabitants of the planet are women who worship a strange reptilian god. They are lead by Moana (Mamie Van Doren) and she doesn’t like Earthlings much. Can our heros survive the “Voyage to Planet of Prehistoric Women”.

Good Points:

• Is filled with all kinds of adventures
• The special effects range from “not bad” to mind-bendingly goofy
• Mamie and the girls wear “interesting” outfits

Bad Points

• Some of the characters are aggressively annoying
• A confusing dub script renders logic useless at times
• Rendered even more dull by the new sequences with the ladies

Overall:

Ouch, did this one hurt. Ok, it’s basically reused footage from “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet” but edited even worse than before. New footage with a half naked Mamie and girls adds visual interest, but makes the movie plod even slower than it originally did. All the fun of the previous film is sucked away leaving a husk of a film. Need a Mamie Van Doren fix – don’t bother with this.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Acting: 2

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 1

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In Depth

You know I really don’t have much to add. Check out my review of “Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet”. I’ll wait till you read that over.

Ok, now that you know what that film was like imagine the movie cut up with a chainsaw. Then imagine someone adding a horrible voice over providing inane narration. Then imagine a long opening montage about space travel over models of spacecraft done just to pad the film. Finally imagine Mamie and her girls wandering around a rocky beach looking bored, high or bemused.

Having watched this so close to the previous film, I found this extremely boring. Maybe if a few months had passed, I would have enjoyed it a bit more, so I gave it better scores than I really felt. The Russian portions of the film are still pretty impressive, but the editing really butchers this one. I say avoid it.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Introduction:

When I caught the trailer for this movie I was a little disturbed. Sherlock Holmes beating the crap out of people? Quick cuts? Robert Downey Jr. nude and handcuffed on a bed with only a pillow hiding little Bobby from us. Um, who’s idea was this.

Then I saw that it was a Guy Ritchie film and it all made sense.

Summary:

Famous London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) track down and apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) a murderer who’s actions are driven by the occult. Before Blackwood is hung he vows that he will return and that Holmes will be unable to stop him. Soon enough the prophesy comes true.

To complicate matters further the lovely con artist Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) returns to London and enlists Holmes help in a different matter. As the mystery thickens Holmes discovers that he has multiple adversaries out for him. Will he and Watson survive long enough to stop Blackwood?

Good Points:

• Downey Jr. and Law make a good team
• Period detail and atmosphere are effective
• Ritchie keeps things moving

Bad Points:

• Sherlock Holmes the super hero?
• Rachel McAdams felt out of place
• Ritchie gets a bit too creative for his own good

Overall:

Forget your typical mystery and prepare yourself for Holmes in a more James Bond type role, and you’ll actually have a good time. All the production elements are top notch and make for a good popcorn movie on a Friday night.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In Depth Review:

The more I thought about it, the concept had merit. Sherlock Holmes is a character that gets revisited on a regular basis, like Dracula or James Bond. Why not bring him back and try something a little different. With Guy Ritchie aboard it would at least be interesting to look at. Robert Downey Jr. could bring a lot to the part. Lets take a look at the results.

The main idea behind this film is to take Sherlock Holmes: detective and turn him into Sherlock Holmes: superhero. The script does this by widening the threat of Blackwood. Instead of being a simple murderer he’s now into world domination. He even makes your typical Bond villain monologue explaining his evil plan.

The script also introduces a buddy picture element. Watson wants to wed the lovely Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), but Holmes is unable to reconcile this. Holmes needs Watson, not only as a partner, but also as a friend. Watson needs Holmes as a friend, but also as a source of adventure. This dynamic results in some of the funniest parts of the movie. Each man does his best to outmaneuver the other and make it look like he’s not trying to outmaneuver him.

The actors know exactly how to play the parts. Robert Downey Jr. locks onto Holmes typical eccentricities, but adds a spin of mental instability. This man’s mind is in constant overdrive. Without a case to focus on, he becomes a shut-in constantly searching for new mental stimulus. Holmes can be a bit annoying, but Downey Jr. allows us to see deeper into the character.

Jude Law surprised me the most as Watson. According to my wife (who enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes stories in her youth) Law is one of the best Watson’s she’s seen, very close to his literary version in appearance and demeanor. I found his performance to be very warm and engaging, a perfect counter to Holmes and a vast contrast to the standard take on Watson as the buffoon.

Mark Strong certainly has presence as the diabolical Lord Blackwood. He appearances are kept to a minimum but when he’s on screen he projects menace. But I never felt that he was a real threat to Holmes. Just like most Bond villains, we know pretty early on that he’s not as clever as he thinks he is.

Rachel McAdams is a bit of a puzzle for me. Her character is interesting. Her acting is fine. She looks great in the costumes. But for some reason I was pulled out of the film when she was on screen. Maybe it was the American accent (explained away conveniently enough), or maybe she’s one of those actresses that doesn’t seem to fit in period films. Her part isn’t especially large, but it is important and it did end up affecting my enjoyment of the film.

The rest of the movie falls in line to make the superhero angle work.

The setting is dank and dirty reminding me more of Gotham city than the typical film representation of Victorian London. There is an added realism to the city from the sets down to the costumes. On top of that the movie has a grey color scheme, giving everything a slightly washed out look. This makes the explosions and blood stand out a bit more.

Ritchie does a lot of interesting things with the camera, especially when he jumps into Holmes head. During certain fight sequences, we see Holmes plan out his attack in detail. The camera shows each action in deliberate slowness as Holmes explains why he’ll attack and what the affect will be. Then the attack is executed in a stutter of real time and slow motion. It’s an interesting approach that gives us a peak into the mind of our lead character and punches up the action scenes.

The rest of the set pieces are filmed with skill, keeping everything clear while moving the sequence forward at a crisp pace. The sound effects play a big part in these sequences providing pop to keep things exciting.

Hans Zimmer who provided Batman with his most recent musical scores is on hand for this film. It’s an eclectic blend of musical styles, straying far from the more classical approach we’d expect. It lacks a true super hero theme, but it works wonderfully in the film, supporting the action as well as the quieter moments.

The movie felt a little too manufactured. It tired hard to be something new, a little too hard. Maybe if it had toned down the style a bit, let us settle into the world a little more, I would have found it more engaging. Part of this may be Ritchie’s direction, but I’m not sure if I’m sold completely on this concept of Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes as a superhero is an interesting idea and the concept works better than I thought it would. This makes for a solid nights entertainment, but it’s not a knock out of the park.

Study in Scarlet (1933)

Introduction:

I'm familiar with Reginald Owen from his work on "The Christmas Carol". I was intrigued by the idea of him taking on Sherlock Holmes. I'm not familiar with the original story that this film is based on, but things start off with murder - so the film makers are at least on the right track. Lets see how this latest offering from the 100 Mystery Classics box set stacks up.

Summary:

When a widow comes to Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) complaining that her husband died and all of his estate was going to a mysterious group called The Scarlet Circle, Holmes is intrigued. Turns out he already has suspicions about the sleazy lawyer Merrydew (Allan Dinehart). The plot thickens as more deaths occur and the lovely young Eileen (June Clyde) may be a witness. Holmes tracks down clues, dons disguises and even draws a pistol in his attempt to save lives and solve the mystery of the "Study in Scarlet".

Good Points:

• Retains the personality and feel of Sherlock Holmes from the works of Doyle.
• Moves at a pretty good pace
• The ending held a few surprises

Bad Points:

• Some of the humor falls flat
• Owen's portrayal makes Holmes too cold
• Watson seems to be a third wheel for most of the film.

Overall:

This movie presented an intriguing mystery that did a good job of putting a good twist at the end. It was easy to spot the villain, but I didn't figure the entire mystery out. A few of the comic sequences didn't work for me and ended up slowing the film down a bit, but other than that this is an interesting take on the classic character. Worth seeking out if you can enjoy 30's style mystery.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: n/a

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In-Depth Review

While I've never been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, it's hard to not to be familiar with his adventures and perhaps seen some of his film or television exploits. My wife is the one who's read all of the Holmes stories and is fairly familiar with most of the incarnations of the detective. But she had never seen Owen's take on the character.

The first thing she pointed out was that Owen has Holmes smoking the type of pipe described in the books. The familiar curved pipe does not appear in the stories and was an addition made by a famous stage production. This was continued by Basil Rathbone in his movies and became the accepted type of pipe used nearly all incarnations of the character. But this 30's version uses the straight pipe from the books. Don’t you feel better now that you know that?

Things continue in that fashion from there. Owen makes Holmes brusque, calculating and a bit on the snobby side. He moves around the sets looking for clues like a hunter, moving from place to place with precision and determination. While he doesn't taunt Dr. Watson (Warburton Gamble) or treat him like an imbecile, he does give off an air of superiority. He basically treats Watson like an apprentice of sorts. It's an interesting portrayal, and one that isn't too far from what I'm familiar with. My only issue is that this incarnation of Holmes may be too cold and even intimidating at times. Not the kind of man you'd feel comfortable hiring. I find Rathbone's take on the character a bit more engaging.

For the most part the rest of the cast is good. Dinehart provides us with a sleazy villain that you just want to get nabbed. If he had a moustache, he'd be twirling it. Gamble isn't given too much to do as Watson, but he doesn't play him like an idiot (as I've seen in several incarnations), so that's a step in the right direction. On the other hand, he doesn't really help too much either. He's just kind of there, taking up space. June Clyde is all right as Eileen Forrester, our damousel in distress. She's bland, but again, there isn't much for her to actually do. I was honestly surprised to see Anna May Wong playing Mrs. Pyke. It's not often you see actual Asian actresses in 30's movies. She's cast as the femme fatale, unfortunately she's not very good in the role.

One of the interesting points is that "A Study in Scarlet" is actually a contemporary take on Holmes. That means the movie takes place in 1933, so all the Victorian trappings are gone. All the men are wearing fedoras and the ladies look very nice in their depression era hats. Maybe this was done for budgetary reasons, and it proves an interesting point that Holmes as a character can work in any environment. For the most part the production level is solid visually, it's just a little odd to not have those Victorian touches.

The sound is a little rougher. Most of the time dialogue was clear, but there seemed to be issues with the microphones picking up every little creak in the set or squeak of a boot. This could make a few scenes tough to hear. On top of that, there is no score outside opening and closing titles. This is typical of 30's movies and I don't allow it to affect the score.

The script was interesting. According to IMDB, the plot for this movie has nothing to do with the actual story by Arthur Conan Doyle. Instead the writers come up with an interesting mystery that kept me guessing. It's obvious very quickly that Merrydew is up to no good. But it’s difficult to see just how he is involved. Once Holmes reveals the solution at the end, I saw how it all fit together, but the writers did a good job throwing you and Watson off the scent (but there are couple cheats here and there). The dialogue is pretty good, with the only weak part being the humor. Again with the comedy of booze. This seems to be a staple of 30's flicks and I have yet to find it funny. It shows up here and it does slow down the film a bit.

The direction is solid, with Edwin Marin keeping things moving and allowing the mystery to play out clearly enough so the audience can follow it. Things never get too inventive with camera angles or lighting, so atmosphere isn't a big deal here. It's a solid job, one that doesn't really hurt the film, but makes you wish a little style had been added.

The movie was entertaining, a good weekend movie for a lazy Sunday. While it may not be the quickest paced film, or even the most ingenious of mysteries, the final product will scratch that itch for Sherlock Holmes. Anyone looking for a change of pace should check out Reginald Owen's take on the famous detective.

James Lileks wasn't so hot on this one. Check out his review here.

The Adventures of Prince Achmed (1926)

Introduction

I ran into a review of this a few years ago and was immediately intrigued by the idea. A feature length animated film that predated Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs? I didn’t even know that was possible. But here it is, a classic of silent cinema, and one that any animation fan should check out.

Summary:

In the time of the Arabian Nights, Prince Achmed and his family are entertained by a powerful sorcerer. The sorcerer presents a fabulous clockwork horse for the Prince to try out. Well the horse spirits Achmed away to a far land, and the wicked sorcerer abducts the lovely Princess Dinarsade. Now Achmed must return home and save his sister. Along the way he will meet a beautiful woman from the spirit realm, a hideous witch, the Emperor of China, a harem full of lovely, lonely women, and even Aladdin himself. It’s a story full of fantasy and daring called The Adventures of Prince Achmed.

Good Points:

• Amazing silhouette animation with details that astound
• A musical score that creates the perfect background
• The movie throws one in visual delight after another

Bad Points:

• It’s a silent film and if you don’t like the genre you won’t like this
• Some pretty blatant and offensive racial stereotypes
• The story jumps around without a proper arc

Overall:

Looked at in context this is an amazing film. All the animation is stop motion using cardboard and lead cutouts. The use of lighting and special effects is skillful, but it’s the fluidity of the animation especially during the big set pieces that amazes. Fans of silent cinema and animation need to see this movie and enter the dreamland that was created here. Everyone else, I offer a cautious recommendation. The lack of a clear story, characters and dialogue may create a movie too slow to enjoy.

Scores (out of 5)

Animation: 5

Sound: N/A

Music: 4

Voice Acting: N/A

Direction: 4

Story: 3

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In Depth Review

I appreciate what Disney has done with animation. Walt really pushed forward the art of telling a story with animation back in the day. But Disney needs to stop claiming the title of first fully animated feature. Even The Adventures of Prince Achmed isn’t the first of its kind. But it is the earliest surviving fully animated film. With that sitting out there, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs needs to step down.

I had actually seen something like this before. There is a unique Japanese animated series called Revolutionary Girl Utena. This is an odd show all the way around, but one of its easily identifiable features is a Greek chorus that shows up in each episode with a mini story. This chorus is comprised of silhouette girls that look amazingly like the characters from Prince Achmed. Director Kunihiko Ikuhara must have been a fan of the style and decided to use it in his anime, and it works well in the context of the whole show. But even what he did doesn’t come close to the original.

If you are going to watch this movie, you need to be ready to accept what you are seeing. The silhouette is backlit and tinted comprises the entire animations style. You can get a good idea from the pictures I’ve added here. What is also visible, even more so on a large screen is the depth of the images. Not only are all the characters made in silhouette, but all the buildings and backgrounds. Then using angled light and layering, you get a full world, one that is amazing to see. The idea that someone went to all the trouble of designing, cutting and animating all these figures and buildings is mind blowing. Even Ray Harryhausen would be impressed.

Sequences like the amazing battle between the witch and the sorcerer are jaw dropping. These two beings continue to transform into various creatures in an attempt to kill each other. It’s very similar to the battle that occurs in Disney’s The Sword in the Stone. The fluidity of the transformations is stupendous and the way these transformations take places with pieces folding in and over and growing and flipping is like a dream (and reminded me of the mutation sequences in Akira).

The The Adventures of Prince Achmed uses smoke, sparks and creative lighting effects to add atmosphere and create a true fantasy environment. Maybe that’s what I love most about this movie – its like an Arabian Nights dream come to life, with a definite art deco feel to it. The fully rerecorded musical score does wonders here. Yes it has a definite classic cinema sound, but it fits the film and helps drive the story along. Doing some research I see that other scores have been created and while I’m curious to see how these would work, I wonder if they can match the story as well.

As I mentioned there are some downsides here. The story is really haphazard, seeming to jump all around and never really connect. There aren’t really characters here, just genre stereotypes. The evil sorcerer is just rotten. The hero is bland but good. The princess is lovely but always in peril. There aren’t any surprises in the plot really, but in a way that isn’t the point. The focus is obviously on the visuals and creating the mood. Plot is secondary in this case.

What is hard to overlook are the racial depictions of Chinese and African people in this movie. Keeping in mind when this was made, its something that is pretty common in cinema, but that didn’t stop me from shaking my head and feeling a bit wary about recommending it to people without warning them.

Honestly I can’t imagine any fan of animation or silent cinema missing out The Adventures of Prince Achmed. If you can find a copy to rent (Netflix has it for digital download!) give it a try. The actual DVD contains some neat extras including a documentary that goes into detail on how the film was made. This is an impressive film and one that influenced many other creators over the years. Its also entertaining in its own right and you can’t ask for more than that.

Let the Right One in (2008)

Introduction

When this movie came out a lot of comments were made that this is how a real vampire movie should work – you know as opposed to “Twilight”. Well you can say that about a lot of vampire movies. I was still intrigued because the story sounded like it could provide some creepy moments.

Summary

Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) and his mother live in an apartment in Stockholm. Oskar has it rough; he’s bullied at school, doesn’t seem to have any friends and is at an age where everything about him seems off (middle school I’m guessing). Then Eli (Lina Leandersson) moves in and things change. Eli befriends him, but she only comes out at night and her skin is cold to the touch. Then strange murders and attempted murders start occurring in their neighborhood. Oskar begins to suspect that his new friend is much more than she appears – but is that really going to change their friendship?

Good Points

• Excellent portrayals by both child actors
• Filmed in a way that keeps things cold and creepy
• Doesn’t pull punches with vampire lore

Bad Points

• A slow moving film
• Some viewers might find the relationship too creepy
• Not enough horror for fans of that genre

Overall

The movie’s main focus is on Oskar and his relationship with Eli. The fact that she’s a vampire puts a spin on it, and the movie never shies away from what that may mean. It makes the movie more creepy and disturbing, as it should be. In the end that is the main goal of the film, to get under your skin and it does so very well. I wouldn’t call it a horror film, but something more like a dark romance. I recommend it to anyone who likes some vampires in their foreign films.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 4

Script: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

Curious about a full review, send me an email and I'll make additional thoughts to this review.