#39: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939) June 12, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Crime, adaptations, 4 stars, 1930s, Adventure, 2008, Mystery, Sherlock Holmes , 4 comments1939 | Alfred Werker | 79 mins | DVD | PG
Never mind waiting two or three years for a sequel these days — after the 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles was a box office success, Fox had a sequel out just five months later! I reviewed that first Rathbone/Bruce film back in February, promising an irregular series reviewing the further thirteen pictures the pair starred in. Well, I’ve finally got round to watching the second, and while I was a tad harsh on the first I found myself enjoying this one more.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes pits the titular detective against his arch-nemesis, Moriarty, in what’s really speaking a relatively weak plot — most depressing of all is how easily Moriarty’s plan to distract Holmes almost succeeds. But never mind that! There’s rain-lashed, fog-drenched Victorian London streets! Brutal murders by foul foreigners! Dastardly plots against the crown! Galloping carriages! Romantic subplots! A smattering of comedy! A song-and-dance number! (No, really, there is.) And a final shoot out… in the Tower of London! You can’t escape the joyous feeling that this was designed as pure entertainment, literally including something for everyone.
Bruce’s Watson may bumble about too much for the purists (me included, more often than not), the murder plot lacks proper explanation (the production notes on Optimum’s DVD pleasingly expand on this), Rathbone’s characterisation of Holmes may be a touch too friendly… but by then I’m just nitpicking. This sequel is atmospherically, entertainingly and excitingly executed, and that’s plenty good enough for me.
#38: Field of Dreams (1989) June 9, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Fantasy, Sport, adaptations, 4 stars, 1980s, 2008 , 5 comments1989 | Phil Alden Robinson | 103 mins | TV | PG / PG
I’ve never made much of an effort to see Field of Dreams, for a couple of reasons. Aside from its famous mantra/catchphrase (”if you build it he will come”), the only things I’d heard were it was mawkishly sentimental and was about Kevin Costner trying to build a baseball pitch for a ghost — which doesn’t sound particularly exciting and is about sport, something I’m not very fond of. Of course, as anyone who’s seen it will know, I was a tad mislead on that last point, as the glorified rounders pitch is built in the first 20 minutes. What follows certainly has its fair share of sentimentality, but I wouldn’t call it mawkish.
In fact, it’s almost unremittingly pleasant. The lack of anything hard-hitting is no doubt why some have such a dim view of the film, as “nice” has become synonymous with “not very good” in modern parlance (I blame Primary School teachers desperate to increase vocabulary). Field of Dreams won’t shock you, it likely won’t make you think very hard, and any moral message or meaning it has is positive and reassuring… but what’s so wrong with that? The plot keeps moving, refusing to be bogged down in navel-gazing or star-gazing. The story is also too unusual to be marred by any serious degree of predictability, though some events are of course easily guessed, but the mystery of how the various elements would come together kept my attention throughout. Crucially, it doesn’t labour its sentimentality or batter you round the head with morals or meanings. It’s hardly ambiguous, but nor is it over done.
Field of Dreams may not be astounding filmmaking — it’s not especially complex, radical, thrilling, thought-provoking, intense or revolutionary, nor terribly serious or terribly funny, nor indeed wholly original — but it is nice. And I mean that in a good way.
#35: I Am Legend (2007) June 2, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Action, Drama, Sci-fi, 2000s, adaptations, 3 stars, 2008, remakes , 1 comment so far2007 | Francis Lawrence | 96 mins | DVD | 15 / PG-13
This review contains major spoilers.
Will Smith stars in this adaptation of Richard Matheson’s classic sci-fi novel from the director of Constantine. The latter is a film I personally enjoyed (and which features a relatively early appearance of the currently prolific Shia LaBeouf) but received some mixed reactions on the whole. By a broadly similar token, I Am Legend has received a fair share of negative reviews, though my opinion is a little more divided.
Things go very well for the first half. It’s nicely paced, concentrating on a depiction of one man’s loneliness taken to the extreme. The script, and Smith’s acting, handle the material well. The deserted and destroyed New York looks as stunning as the trailers promised, while the CGI animals that roam it are as good as any. The flashbacks that punctuate the film are well executed too, drip-feeding clues to what happened while maintaining some mysteries of their own. There are some other good sequences: Neville’s exploration of a pitch-black Dark Seeker-infested building is tense, and the death of his pet dog — his one remaining companion — is moving, even if it was given away in the trailer. That scene is effectively played and shot, showing only Neville’s face as he is forced to euthanize the diseased animal by suffocation.
Sadly, this is where things begin to go down hill. The Dark Seekers — the film’s vampires/zombies/whatever — are crafted with pretty good CGI, but they’re still not life-like enough to work. If it were a mindless blockbuster they would’ve been more at home, but as it’s managed to be an effective drama they feel entirely out of place. It’s true that real actors couldn’t have managed the physical feats the creatures are made to pull off, but do they really need to do those things? I suspect not. The film also leaves several holes in the Dark Seeker’s actions — for example, they copy Neville’s trap, a move apparently beyond their intelligence, but the film neglects to explore why or how they did this.
Instead it moves on to the arrival of some more survivors. Quite where they came from, or how they got into the supposedly isolated Manhattan, is another inadequately explained set of circumstances. After they arrive, the film’s climax comes out of nowhere. It’s as if the screenwriters ran out of ways to keep things going so just bunged on a big climactic action sequence. And what happens in it is pretty silly too, especially Neville’s self sacrifice — why not get in the Magic Safe Hole too and then chuck the grenade out? Perhaps he just has a death wish by that point. It would seem most of the audience did. There’s also a pathetic epilogue, and an even worse final line that attempts to make sense of the title.
I Am Legend is something of a disappointment. The considered and effective first half gives way to an increasingly nonsensical second, marred by numerous flaws that stack up til a near-laughable conclusion comes from nowhere. I’ve been told that the ‘alternate theatrical cut’, with a handful of additional scenes and a new ending, is marginally more effective. I’m sure I’ll watch it someday and share my thoughts. For now, I Am Legend’s two halves of differing quality just leave it in the middle of the road.
#33: Throne of Blood (1957) May 29, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Drama, Akira Kurosawa, 5 stars, adaptations, 1950s, 2008, world cinema, Historical, Shakespeare , 1 comment so far1957 | Akira Kurosawa | 105 mins | DVD | PG or 12
Kurosawa moves Macbeth from Scotland to 16th Century Japan in this retelling of Shakespeare’s infamous Scottish Play. I’ve heard this described as a loose adaptation — perhaps those reviewers have never read the play. Kurosawa sticks very closely to the structure of Shakespeare’s version of the story (though based on real events, Shakespeare changed key details), often choosing to adapt it scene-for-scene. It works well in the new setting, with some of the themes — honour, respect, betrayal — perhaps becoming more understandable when placed in samurai culture. Kurosawa changes other elements too — character names are understandably localised, there’s only one witch, there’s no version of the famous “Is this a dagger which I see before me?” monologue, and so on. It’s not all omissions however, as Kurosawa adds imagery and symbolism of his own. Again this helps to place the story in its new context, but also covers the loss of Shakespeare’s original language (a major sticking point for some critics).
Beyond the Shakespearean similarities (or lack of), there’s much to see in Throne of Blood — literally, thanks to the atmospheric cinematography. Most of the exteriors are doused in fog, and while this is sometimes over-done (an extended sequence of Washizu and Miki riding in and out of it goes on too long) it also makes for some amazing moments, such as when the trees of Cobweb Forest drift menacingly forward. The interior of the forest is suitably oppressive and scary too, the perfect location for encountering a witch. Kurosawa was inspired by Japanese Noh theatre in his construction of the film, so there are a lot of longer shots that allow the characters to be blocked as if on stage. It’s not overly theatrical, thankfully, and works suitably.
Cinematic techniques are not entirely abandoned however. The most memorable is the banquet scene, in which Washizu sees Miki’s ghost: we see Miki’s empty seat, the camera tracks forward to a shocked Washizu, then back to reveal the ghost of Miki sat at his place, before tracking and panning around the room to follow Mifune’s brilliant performance. It’s an infinitely more effective reveal than any amount of jiggery pokery with dissolves or CGI could provide. Similarly, Washizu’s iconic death scene — in which hundreds of arrows puncture him and the surrounding walls — is impressively achieved (using real arrows), including one seamless shot when an arrow pierces his neck.
Macbeth is my favourite Shakespeare play — it’s a great story, with great themes, imagery and language. Throne of Blood obviously loses some of this, but it doesn’t matter in the slightest — Kurosawa has constructed an excellent and well-conceived retelling with a few of his own flourishes.
A note on the classification: the UK DVD from the BFI is rated PG, classified in 1991. A few months after the DVD’s release in 2001, the film was re-submitted to the BBFC and received a 12. Quite way the rating was raised isn’t explained, and copies of the DVD still bear a PG on the cover.
#30: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) May 21, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Musical, Tim Burton, Crime, 2000s, adaptations, 4 stars, 2008 , 1 comment so far2007 | Tim Burton | 112 mins | DVD | 18 / R
Tim Burton and Johnny Depp collaborate for the sixth time (as the DVD’s blurb is so keen to point out) for a film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s musical adaptation of the classic tale of the titular barber who slaughters instead of shaves and sells the resultant meat to all of London in the pies of his accomplice, Mrs Lovett.
As with 2005’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the announcement of Burton as director of Sweeney Todd was one of those “well, of course” moments, despite the vastly different audiences. And with Burton come Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, naturally. But whereas the eventual product of Charlie resulted in a “that’s that done then” feeling of the inevitable, Sweeney is more of an unknown quantity for me — I’m familiar with the basic story, of course, but not this particular version. It’s a dark tale, but told here in a heavily stylised manner — no gritty realism to be found (for that try the Ray Winstone TV movie, but instead there’s bold and striking performances, design, direction, and storytelling. One is tempted to call it “theatrical”, but the direction is anything but and the actors do much more than project for the benefit of the back row. It’s anti-naturalistic in all elements, which suits both the ghoulish and musical subject matters perfectly, but is consequently not to everyone’s taste.
As for the musical elements, Sweeney is done in an operatic style — the majority of dialogue is sung and the story is almost entirely told through these songs, rather than having a couple of numbers peppered throughout (quite how they managed to edit a trailer that was both comprehensible and light on song is near miraculous). Anyone who’s seen an Andrew Lloyd Webber production will be familiar with this way of doing things. Personally, I find it a more immersive style — everyone’s singing from the word go, not disconcertingly launching into song a little way in. The cast’s voices may not be perfect (and I’m far from a knowledgeable judge), but they do the job more than adequately. Rough moments almost add to the film’s style, and the cast’s acting abilities more than make up for them anyway. One casting oddity is Anthony Head, who turns up for a sole inconsequential line. He may not be a regular film actor, but surely he’s bigger (and certainly better) than a glorified extra? He’s not even listed in the end credits. I smell deleted scenes… (A bit of IMDb reading reveals I’m right. Sadly, these aren’t included on the DVD.)
The other striking element of Sweeney Todd is its look. London here is a dingy monochrome metropolis, interrupted only by fanciful fairytale-coloured fantasies like the song By the Sea, and, of course, gallons of vibrant spurting blood. Wisely held off until relatively late in the film, when the blood comes it is all the more shocking. And from that point it flows like wine — or, more accurately, squirts like a stamped-on ketchup bottle — in perfectly judged amounts: it gushes far more than you’d normally see but, because Burton never pushes it to the mad excess that Tarantino did in Kill Bill, it remains on the disturbing side of believable. The stylised theatricality of it almost makes you question the high classifications, but the underlying morals and sheer bloody volume ultimately justify them.
Yet there’s something missing from Sweeney Todd. I can’t work out what it is — perhaps the numerous numbers Burton cut or trimmed have unbalanced proceedings slightly, in some frustratingly ephemeral way? — but despite all this praise and only vague criticisms I’m certain it’s a four-star film. A very solid four, to be sure, but it doesn’t achieve enough to pass higher.
#29: Henry V (1989) May 18, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : War, adaptations, 4 stars, 1980s, British films, 2008, true stories, Historical, Shakespeare, remakes , 1 comment so far1989 | Kenneth Branagh | 132 mins | DVD | PG / PG-13
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, as I delve into a second version of Henry V in as many (viewing) days. (I dread to think how many reviews of this film began with a similar quote-based pun.) Inevitably, having watched them so close together, this is as much a comment on the relative merits of Branagh’s and Olivier’s interpretations of Henry V as it is a review of Branagh’s film in its own right.
Branagh’s version opens with almost a direct homage to Olivier’s, though with an important difference. Olivier opened with the Chorus’ narration on a stage ; Branagh opens with the Chorus’ narration on a film set. Rather than wasting half an hour with this conceit (as Olivier did), Branagh pushes into the ‘reality’ of the story before another actor has even entered. And his reality is much more real. The film looks as if it’s lit by candles and daylight, the castles and tavern are rough and dark, the battlefields muddy and grimy; everyone gets dirty and bloodied by the fights. On the whole it’s a grittier and more realistic version. Yet there’s room for more than that. The story still seems concluded at the Battle of Agincourt, but the proposal scene no longer feels tacked on. In fact it’s now laugh-out-loud hilarious, with Branagh and Emma Thompson demonstrating the undeniable chemistry that would help make Much Ado About Nothing so good a few years later. Unlike Olivier’s fluffy limp to the credits, this is an entertaining round-off to the plot.
The fact I’d never seen a version of Henry V before Olivier’s ostensibly gives Branagh’s the benefit of a better understanding on my part. Practically, it matters little that I saw Olivier’s first, as the more modern and film-friendly performances in Branagh’s version mean that, while Olivier’s allowed me to broadly follow the majority of what was happening, Branagh’s gives more access to the nuances of both plot and character. He’s aided in the latter by the inclusion of scenes deemed inappropriate for a World War 2 propaganda film: in one, Henry and co confront three traitors; in another, he hangs an old friend in order to make an example. Other scenes are played differently too, so that Branagh’s Henry is a more complex and morally debatable figure, unlike Olivier’s bright-eyed hero. Whatever your opinions on the two actors on the whole, these changes make for a better character and therefore a better film.
It would be remiss not to mention the rest of the cast. Brian Blessed is positively restrained as Exeter, one of Henry’s key associates — you’d never imagine he could turn in such a performance if you’d only seen his recent go at hosting Have I Got News For You. Paul Schofield, as the aging French King, and Michael Maloney, as the contemptible Dauphin, help flesh out the French side more than Olivier’s version managed, as does Christopher Ravenscroft’s Mountjoy, the French herald who all but switches his allegiance. The English ranks are swelled by Bilbo Baggins, Hagrid, and the current incarnations of ‘M’ and Batman (don’t worry, the French have Miss Marple); not to mention the recognisable faces of Richard Briers, Danny Webb, Simon Shepherd and John Sessions (and no doubt others I’ve accidentally missed). Of course, a starry and recognisable cast does not necessarily a good film make, but this is a dependable lot and there are good performances all round — even if Ian Holm’s Welsh accent is somewhat dubious (though it’s a lunar leap on from the one in Olivier’s version).
And deserving of a paragraph unto himself is Derek Jacobi’s masterful Chorus, who, with just a handful of narrational lines and a big black coat, is somehow one of the coolest characters I’ve seen of late.
There’s no contest here me. Olivier’s version is an over-stylised, propaganda-inspired, outdated version of Shakespeare, whereas Branagh’s is a comprehensible, realistic, textured and, perhaps most importantly, genuinely enjoyable interpretation.
#28: Henry V (1944) May 16, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : War, adaptations, 2 stars, 1940s, British films, 2008, true stories, Historical, Shakespeare , add a comment1944 | Laurence Olivier | 131 mins | VHS | U
Or The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France, as the title card (and therefore IMDb) would have it.
The works of Shakespeare tend to be a love-it-or-hate-it experience for most people, often based on one’s social class and/or experiences at school (obviously not exclusively). Just to be awkward, I’m going to say I have mixed feelings about his plays: on the one hand, I consistently enjoy Macbeth and find Much Ado About Nothing a diverting enough rom-com; on the other, I was bored by Richard III, even when played by Sir Ian McKellen, and never got on with A Midsummer Night’s Dream (to pick just two examples for each side). I imagine most people have their likes and dislikes of course, but I often feel I fall between the the dislike Normal people have for Shakespeare and the love that Cultured people have for him.
This may seem beside the point, but it does lead to Olivier’s Henry V. Simply put, I didn’t much care for it. It failed to engage me, and I’d put this down to Olivier’s infamous staging (literally) of it. The first half hour is a recreation of the play’s first performance in 1600, complete with fluffed sound cues and heckles from the crowd. The goings-on backstage and performer/crowd interactions heavily distract from the actual text being performed, as much as anything because they’re more entertaining. Then, cued by one of the Chorus’s lines, the film moves to showing the story in ‘reality’ — except this is a reality made of painted scenery, primary-coloured landscapes, and cardboard fairy castles. It’s a deliberate effect, designed to emulate pre-Renaissance painting, but it didn’t work for me — it’s over-stylised and distracting, and if you’re not familiar with the play (as I wasn’t) getting distracted is a problem. The concept of transition from performance to reality has potential (as would the idea of presenting the whole thing on stage with crowd interactions, actually, considering I missed them when they went), but I personally feel Olivier executed it poorly. For one thing, it spends too long bedding in the feel of the stage performance before it gets round to the shift to reality.
Stylised productions can work, and excellently, but here the direction and acting are sometimes as flat as the castles. Actors arbitrarily shout some lines, hush others, and put in emphasis of dubious relevance — it’s like Shakespeare-by-numbers, the sort of production that reveres the text so much it doesn’t bother to think about it. It hampers any understanding of what they’re saying, especially for newcomers. Perhaps more fairly, the performance style is incredibly stagey. My degree-related reading suggests this is one of the earliest proper Shakespeare films (previous adaptations being silent or even less complete), so perhaps the idea of a more subdued, screen-acting style had yet to permeate such productions. Things do pick up as the film goes on: the battles are effective, and the proposal scene is more comfortably performed than the pre-war politics. That said, the story seems to be over once Agincourt is won, so by modern structural standards the hasty single-scene romance that follows feels pointlessly tacked on.
Olivier’s Henry V has received plenty of praise in its time, as well as derision, largely for its conception as World War 2 propaganda. The latter is hard to ignore, with grand speeches delivered in a way reminiscent of Churchill’s and scenes removed so that Henry’s character becomes unquestionably good — both aspects that are distinctly less relevant to today’s more complex, war-dubious world. Even leaving the propaganda aside, the performances are outdated, the design several stylised steps too far, and on the whole the production failed to engage or hold my interest. However good it may once have seemed, I think this version has had its day.
Next I’ll be reviewing Kenneth Branagh’s all-star 1989 version of Henry V, here.