Mr. Holmes (2015)

Ian McKellan as a Holmes at the end of his life, living alone in a cottage in Sussex, grudgingly (on both sides) cared for by his housekeeper (Laura Linney) and her precocious kid (Milo Parker). Holmes, long since weary of the version of himself everyone knows from Watson's stories (we only ever see Watson as a blurry outline or his hands writing) and the various adaptations thereof, is determined to write the truth of his final case, from 30 years ago.

If he could only remember it clearly.

The movie moves between the present, as Holmes befriends the kid (or vice versa) and struggles with age and its related problems, and two different times in the past. One is the final case, which they cut to and from as the memories crystallize in Holmes' mind. Sometimes it's blurry, other times it's crystal clear, brightly lit, sunny skies. McKellan walks straight, head high, clothes neat, well-composed.

Then it's back to the present, where he's slump-shouldered, wearing loose knit sweater-vests and looking very ruddy in the face. He holds his mouth slack at times, too, when his mind is especially scattered, in a way that reminded me unpleasantly of my grandmother's final months. A lot of the present scenes are set inside the cottage, with low ceilings and muted lighting. Nothing's as vivid as the past glory was.

The other flashbacks are to his just completed trip to Japan. He's in pursuit of a plant which is said to help with dementia and arthritis, but the young man helping him has ulterior motives related to Holmes' past. Holmes initially has no recollection of the specific event, and when he does remember, I'm unclear why he was involved at all. It does offer a chance, in the present, to apply a lesson he'd learned from his final case but hadn't properly internalized.

Milo Parker plays Roger as clever and curious and full of dreams that don't necessarily align with the realities as his mother sees them. He peppers Holmes with questions, and McKellan gives Holmes the air of a man looking for someone to pass something of himself to. So a kid eager to learn, even if the Mr. Holmes he sees doesn't match the Mr. Holmes he read about, is a godsend.

Linney gets what could be a thankless role - the responsible one, at times caring for two stubborn children - but she gives the audience glimpses of a woman who knows she can't fill the void of Roger's deceased father, knows her own limitations, but is trying her best within those limitations. There are several scenes where it feels like she's on the verge of crying, but not letting herself do it in front of Roger.

Young Sherlock Holmes

Not sure why my dad had this saved as something he wanted to watch. The movie feels the need to run a brief thing at the beginning and end that basically, "Yes, we know this doesn't match the canon established by Doyle's stories, just go with it will ya?" Film equivalent of Silver Age DC's "imaginary story" tag.

Holmes reads notices about two people committing suicide for no apparent reason, and decides there must be foul play. Even more so when one of his mentors ends up the same way. It turns out the victims are being dosed with some hallucinogenic via blowdart, and seeing all sorts of crazy crap. The serpent heads on a guys hat rack seem to come to life and coil around him. Watson is attacked by a crypt full of sweets, although they try to shove themselves down his throat rather than eat him in revenge. Feels like an excuse to show off the finest in mid-1980s special effects, or some props they must have had lying around from an early treatment of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

The mystery is no great shakes. Granting that Holmes is not anywhere near the observational genius he'll become at this point, the movie feels more like a high adventure trying to use a half-assed mystery to get to the action set piece. It's really more a matter of how Holmes and Watson are going to overcome the long odds they're up against as two teenagers with no backup.

It's fine as far as a movie about Holmes and Watson meeting as adolescents and solving their first case together goes. The movie does the bit with nods to significant characters or costuming. Holmes already annoying Lestrade all the time, Watson buying an antique pipe that he gifts to Holmes later, Holmes trying to learn the violin and being annoyed he hasn't mastered it after 7 minutes or something. No early examples of Holmes taking illicit drugs, unless his getting dosed with the hallucinogen is what started him on his path of taking opium.

The Italian Secretary - Caleb Carr

A friend was planning to give it away and asked it I wanted it. I said sure, figuring I can always donate it to a library later if I don't want to keep it. As it stands, I don't think I've read anything of Carr's since The Alienist, which my dad gave to me back in the misty days of junior high. I can't tell you if I enjoyed that book or not, since I probably read it grudgingly, as that was my default response to pretty much anything my parents offered or requested at that time.

In this case, Carr has eschewed stories set during Teddy Roosevelt's tenure as New York City police commissioner in favor on a Sherlock Holmes tale. Mycroft Holmes requests Sherlock and Watson travel to Scotland, where two men involved in the upcoming renovation of the west tower of Holyroode - where Mary, Queen of Scot often stayed until a man named Rizzio, the Italian secretary in question, was murdered by people who didn't want Mary hanging about any dadgumed Catholics - have been found dead, stabbed many, many times. Holmes confounds Watson by not immediately dismissing the notion that the ghost of Rizzio has something to do with it all. I will admit I was also confounded because having Holmes admit the possibility of the supernatural seemed as out of place as having Scooby-Doo contend with real werewolves and ghosts of space aliens, rather than cantankerous people in goofy costumes.

As it turns out, and as Holmes explains near the end, he meant something different than Watson (and I) thought, but Carr still seems to hint at there being a spirit running around the house, and that it was getting involved in the whole mess for some reason. I've no idea why it would get involved, nor does the book offer an explanation, though horror movies have taught me the best explanation is, "ghosts are jerks". Stop bothering innocent living people, innocent dead people!

The story breezes by; I read it in an afternoon, and it didn't seem to cover more than two or three days. Holmes seemed to know basically what was going on by the time they reached the castle, and put the remaining pieces together by that evening. It wasn't a terribly difficult mystery, seeing as I had most of it figured out before the end. I did make a mistake on how they shattered the bones of one of the victims, but on the whole, things were straightforward. I wouldn't consider it essential reading for a Holmes fan or, a fan of mysteries in general.

The Seven Percent Solution

As my dad was at least as dissatisfied with Game of Shadows as I was, he suggested we watch The Seven Percent Solution last night. I may need to make a "Sherlock Holmes" tag at this rate.

This one is a little odd, since it involves Holmes eventually teaming up with Sigmund Freud, after Freud spends some time treating Holmes for a coke addiction. It also takes the approach that Moriarty was not some massive underworld genius, but is instead responsible for one act that has earned Holmes' ire. It wasn't what I was afraid it was going to be, which was good, I guess?

As Holmes begins to come out of his worst stages of addiction, he gets drawn into the matter of one Madame Devereaux, another patient of Freud's who narrowly escaped abduction. So the second half of the film revolves around the attempt to save her while struggling with the occasional cravings for smack.

It's a well-done movie, other than the swordfight on top of the train looked very obviously fake. I thought Holmes' addiction vanished startlingly fast near the climax, but perhaps that's for the best. It might have seemed a bit contrived to have it kick in at some critical moment, and I suppose we can take it to mean that once Holmes was drawn into the case his mind was sufficiently diverted. The bit of the film I found most surprising was Robert Duvall as Watson, which is not a role I'd necessarily see him in. Not that he hasn't played the sage sidekick plenty of time, but Watson's a bit more refined than most of the roles I associate Duvall with. Though I could see Duvall playing a Watson similar to Jude Law's version, easily slipping into rough and tumble drinking and gambling.

Nicol Williamson does an excellent job as Holmes, even if it took me some time to adjust to a blonde Sherlock. He has a lot of twitchy, manic energy early in the film, but there's a period in the middle where he has this listless melancholy. The slump of the shoulders, the quiet, slow movements, but there's this had to describe sense of his being drawn in on himself, after spending the opening third of the film filling each scene with his presence.

Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows

Watched this Monday night. Maybe it was just me but too much slow-motion. Especially during that artillery barrage in the forest. It wasn't anywhere near the amount there was in say, Sucker Punch, but I found it much more annoying here. But I had no expectations Sucker Punch would be good, while I at least hoped A Game of Shadows would be. Those hopes were not realized, let's say that.

I wasn't watching intently the whole way through, but that's part of the problem. The movie failed to grab my attention sufficiently so that I wouldn't be more interested in what I was reading on the computer simultaneously. I thought they overdid it with the costumes Holmes wore, and just too many explosions. I think I'd have preferred more sneaking about, less blowing stuff up and running about madly.

It's not all bad. I like Jude Law as Watson. His air of long-suffering keeps Holmes from being completely insufferable, because there is someone to point out that Holmes' is rather self-absorbed and prone to not really concerning himself with others' feelings. It's that thing about there being someone to point out the character's bad behavior I was complaining about yesterday. At the same time, Watson is also clearly a good friend to Sherlock, and not such an uptight sort that you can't want things to go well for him. If he were too stiff and full of himself, we'd want Holmes to jerk him around even more, deflate him some. But Watson's a pretty relaxed guy given the opportunity, so I end up rooting for him.

That bit with Holmes and the mountain pony, where they played the theme from Two Mules for Sister Sara, that was an interesting choice. It was funny, but it definitely came out of left field on me. It's fortunate my dad was there, or I'd have been driven mad trying to recall where I heard that music before. Wonder what possessed Ritchie to do that.

Murders Most Foul. Also Hilarious

Rope is a film Hitchcock supposedly did in one take. The entire film, which is pretty impressive. He had multiple cameras running simultaneously, and when it was planned to switch from one to another, he had both cameras zoom in on something. A character's back, the chest the dead body is hidden in, something that would fill the screen so it was obvious there was a switch going on.

I don't know if there was a particular point Hitchcock was trying to make, or if it was an interesting exercise he wanted to try. Just to see if he could, perhaps? Like that issue of Byrne's Alpha Flight, with the Snowbird fighting the all white creature in a snowstorm, perhaps. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised that the murders would take to the notion that a superior person is above the standard morality, and can kill as they see fit, while ignoring the obvious question of who determines one's superiority, but surprised I was. I suppose I considered that such an obvious flaw it was hard to believe guys as smart as Phillip and Brandon (and Rupert, since he was the one who engrained the idea in their heads) were supposed to be wouldn't have discerned it.

The other movie on the docket was Without a Clue, with Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley. Kingsley plays Dr. Watson, who in this film is the deductive genius, and Caine plays an actor Watson hired to play Sherlock Holmes, who is really a figment of Watson's imagination. Several years into this arrangementm they've worn on each other's nerves. Holmes tired of all the little facts he must memorize to repeat, Watson tired of Holmes' drinking, gambling, and other vices. But the British mystery enthusiasts of the time, much like superhero comic fans today, don't want new stuff, so watson's idea to publish stories of "John Watson, the Crime Doctor", goes over like a lead balloon. Throw Moriarty out to destroy his arch-foe and wreck England's economy, and there you go.

It's an highly entertaining film. Caine does have excellent comic timing, and the ways he and Kingsley go about carrying their little ruse is highly amusing. I especially like that Holmes will wander the crime scene with his magnifying glass, appearing to inspect things closely to draw LeStrade after him, which leaves Watson free to look for actual clues.

Films That Attempted To Entertain Me Over Vacation

There were several, so let's dive in.

Drag Me To Hell - Maybe the horror genre isn't for me. Maybe we shouldn't have watched the unrated, director's cut. There were several scenes that made me nauseous (usually they involved vomiting), but nothing actually scared me. I couldn't decide if I was supposed to sympathize with the old gypsy who placed the curse on the plucky young bank employee who refused a third extension on the gypsy's mortgage to prove she was cutthroat enough for a promotion, or the plucky young bank employee. I wasn't going to sympathize with the gypsy, since I didn't buy her spiel about being shamed by the girl (the gypsy chose to beg on her knees for an extension, so the way I see it, she shamed herself), but the girl went against her instincts and denied the extension solely for a promotion, so maybe I'm supposed to think she had it coming. The fight in the parking garage was alternately hilarious (use of a stapler) and disgusting (gypsy trying to bite the girl only her dentures were knocked out when she hit the dash, so she was just gumming the chin. Shudder).

The ending did surprise me. Not that I expected a happy ending, I thought it would be harsh in a different way.

Shutter - OK, I only half watched this. I think Unforgiven was showing on AMC, so I kept leaving the living room to watch that on a TV in one of the bedrooms. What I saw didn't interest me much.

Star Trek - I don't know what my expectations were for this film. It was entertaining enough. I liked Quinto's performance as Spock, Simon Pegg was funny, I was surprised to see Charlie Bartlett playing Chekov, though I can't decide if we needed the accent. It only seemed to be there for the purpose of one joke, so probably no, at least to the extent it was portrayed. Basically, all the actors worked for me, more or less.

I would have liked to see Kirk have more time to argue with Spock at the academic overview hearing. It's a simulation you aren't supposed to win, so why does it matter that Kirk cheated to beat it once? When he didn't cheat, he lost twice, so what's the big deal? All the time travel stuff actually made sense to me, which is a nice change. I don't mind the threat being a time-traveling Romulan miner out for revenge either. Star Trek does time travel stuff all the damn time, so it's not as though it's an unusual plot device.

Paranormal Activity - I can't decide which ending I like better. The alternate ending leaves a bit more ambiguity about what was at work, and what it's motives were. The ending they went with is creepier, because it suggests she's out there, up to who knows what (Hopefully that won't be answered in Paranormal Activity 2: Road Trip!). I had a hard time believing Micah is such a twit, so unconcerned with his wife's emotional distress. The whole "Well, you said not to buy a Ouija board, so I just borrowed one" bit was ridiculous. I'm not in a relationship, and even I know better than to pull such a jackass stunt. His stubborn insistence they not contact the demonologist because it might make things worse, even though Katie points out it's already getting worse, was kind of sad. He wanted to be the big man, run off the supernatural hoobajoop after his girl, and calling in someone else would be admitting he couldn't cut it. He almost seemed to be in the movie solely to keep making the wrong decision.

All of us watching laughed heartily at the psychic, who upon his second visit, immediately said that he couldn't do anything and that he needed to leave. He took a step into the house and was all "I've got to leave. I'm making it angry, I have to go, but I'll try and do something to help, but I can't stay here." If you can't be inside the house, then what are you going to do to help? I managed to avoid jumping from my seat throughout the movie, but I think that was because every time they switched to the bedroom camera, I started watching the entire screen intently, determined that I wasn't going to miss any little thing that might happen. That cut down on its ability to catch me off-guard. Really enjoyable film, though I don't think it lends itself to repeat viewings.

Sherlock Holmes - I saw this twice: Once with my dad, and once with Alex. We all enjoyed it. I didn't think it was particularly Holmesy, a bit too rough and tumble, but I'm a neophyte when it comes to Holmes. I may have read Hound of the Baskervilles when I was much younger, but I don't remember it. I was eager to see it with my dad, because he's much more familiar with Holmes, and he's a history teacher, so I wanted his unput on the historical accuracy of the film. He was highly impressed with the physical surroundings, the buildings and such, and the period accurate ordinance. He thought the clothes were almost entirely wrong, except for Watson, who he said was usually dressed half-right. He also though too many of the streets were cobblestone, but that there were appropriately few hansom cabs. So in terms of period accuracy, that sounds like a "C" grade.

He felt that Downey and Law did a good job portraying the characters as they were written, but he thought they weren't very true to the earlier works. For me, Downey felt more Dr. House than how I normally think of Holmes. I kind of think of Holmes as being more precise and controlled in his mannerisms, better able to control his condescension as the moment requires it, as opposed to Dr. House who just says whatever, whenever. From things I've read online, that picture is way off, but I didn't know that going in. I like how Jude Law plays Watson, especially having watched some of the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Shelock Holmes movies (The Scarlet Claw and Adventures of Shelock Holmes) with my dad in the days after we watched this movie. If I have a choice between the two portrayals, I'll take a Watson that's not a well-meaning, but ultimately useless buffoon.

I like Downey Jr.'s Holmes, too, he was an entertaining character, but I tend to associate with the long-suffering sidekick of the jerk genius (it's the same with House and Dr. Wilson. I am eternally on Wilson's side, more concerned that things go well for him than for House). There was a scene I particularly liked, the dinner scene, before Watson and Mary arrive. As Holmes sits there, and the camera jumps to different people, the noise gradually becomes overwhelming, it made Holmes' gift seem more like a curse for a moment, an inability to stop noticing all the little details that tell you so much, even for a moment. And all the little crimes and indiscretions he notices seem so obvious, it helps explain his sinking into drug-addled depression. It's all too easy, but he can't stop himself from seeing it, so he has to wall himself off. Of course, he follows that up with his assessment of Mary, which you could be charitable and say was jaundiced by his frequent associations with criminals, but really is him being pissy she's taking his best friend away.

One thing I couldn't figure out were the two scenes were Holmes is fighting, and maps out a plan of attack which we see in slow-motion, then the attack goes off exactly as planned. I assume it's suppsoed to show his powers of observation and deduction that he can so quickly perceive weaknesses in his opponent, and predict their movements well enough to map out a long-term strategy that factors them in. But why do it twice? Once would have been sufficient, or else do it repeatedly, say against the really big guy, or Blackwood. Only twice seemed odd.