Sherlock Holmes

Rating: ****

In deference to Holmesian purists, there is something really engaging about Guy Ritchie’s spin on the famous Victorian detective. Sure, Ritchie’s about as subtle as a brick through a plate glass window, but I’d much rather see a classic character like Sherlock Holmes remade by someone with a bold, new innovation than someone preoccupied with paying homage to what’s come before. So to begin with, bravo Mr. Ritchie because your Holmes is like nothing done before with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most well known creation. And while we’re at it, let’s also give a bravo to Ritchie for putting something to film where the story makes actual sense, because if there’s one thing that this filmmaker’s past works have in common it’s that you can never explain what they’re about in 500 words or less.

Comparatively, the plot of Sherlock Holmes is that much more simplistic, which is sort of odd given the character’s renown for solving crimes by picking up on the smallest details. When the infamous mystic and Satanist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) seemingly returns from the dead, Scotland Yard employs Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) and his long standing associate Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) to figure out how Blackwood was able to manufacture his resurrection and stop him from realizing his fiendish plot, whatever it is. Complicating the case is the reappearance of Holmes’ longstanding nemesis/love interest Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), a con woman acting on behalf of a certain shadowy professor. Another complication is Watson’s pending marriage to Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly) and his moving out of 221B Baker Street.

Like Ritchie’s other films, character wins in Sherlock Holmes. Downey’s Holmes is mad as a hatter, a speed freak always chasing a high except in Holmes’ case that high is a perplexing case to solve. Without a case, Holmes sinks in to depravity, bare-fisted brawling or odd scientific experimentations. It’s hard to tell, is he crazy like a fox or just crazy. Watson gets the duty of being more down to Earth then his partner, trying to pursue a somewhat normal life with a wife and home, a fate Holmes desperately is trying to dissuade Watson from. The script plays up Watson’s background as a military man, and an accomplished professional in his own right outside his work with Holmes. This Watson is no mere lackey, but Holmes’ true partner in crime solving, which makes for a much more interesting, and volatile, dynamic.

The story itself is trying to serve a number of masters. On the one hand it’s an original tale told in the typical Holmes’ style where the great detective pursues every minute detail and at the end reveals the chain that led him to close the case. The there’s the supernatural/occult angle, which, admittedly, I could have lived without. But what it did was throw a dash of cold water on what might normally be considered a Holmes story without resorting into obvious crossover territory like having Holmes track down Jack the Ripper, for example. Finally, one can see the writing on the wall that what’s wanted here is a franchise opportunity. The not-so subtle yet still unobtrusive inclusion of Prof. Moriarty (whose face is never seen) is proof of that. Despite the divergent interests, the film is still remarkably entertaining, assuming of course that you can get over the fact that this isn’t your father’s Sherlock Homes.

Basically, if you can get forgive Ritchie for making this Holmes more like one of his pop culture decedents like House and Monk rather than the gentlemanly British actors that portrayed him previously like Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone, you’ll have a good time. This Holmes is nothing if not energetic and eager to please, and obviously marking the first time that Guy Ritchie’s tried to make a movie that a mass audience can enjoy. And enjoy it you will because if there’s one thing that Ritchie knows how to do it’s stage great action. That may not be what Sherlock Holmes means to you, but admit it, if it had been another guy in a deerstalker cap ordering around an old fat guy you would been just as disappointed.

The Young Victoria

Rating: ***1/2

If anything else, The Young Victoria offers us a unique look at the life of the longest reigning monarch in the history of the Britains by focusing on her, well, youth. An interesting place from which to launch a film from, but the thing of it is, aside from the acting and the production design I’m not sure what separates The Young Victoria from several other great king/queen-in-the-making stories. But as a devoted monarchist, I have to admit that though as unoriginal as the story’s conceit may be, despite the fact that it was based on real life, there is something truly compelling in this film by C.R.A.Z.Y. director Jean-Marc Vallée from a script by Academy Award winner for Gosford Park, Julian Fellowes.

The film’s story begins in 1836. The future queen is 17 and, unbeknownst to her, is about year away from ascending to the throne. Young and headstrong, the Princess Victoria (played by Emily Blunt) refuses to sign papers that would allow her mother the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson), and through her Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong), to rule in Victoria’s stead once the King dies. But when King William (Jim Broadbent) does pass on, Victoria eagerly accepts her calling and takes the throne. Despite her new found power though, Victoria finds herself being pulled by all sides to work for their political benefit, not the least of which is her chief advisor, Prime Minister Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). At the same time, Victoria contemplates marriage with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), son of the Belgium’s King Leopold (Thomas Kretschmann), who’s pushing for the union to strengthen his own position.

What’s strange is that despite all this going on it’s almost as if the film just scraped the surface of this woman’s life. Perhaps that’s the consequence of being Queen for over 75 years, but in its way, just as the movie feels like its at the place where the story really begins, it comes to end. The blanks are filled in with a rather odious number of title cards at the end, so many that it almost felt like there was going to be a pop quiz on Queen Victoria before leaving the theatre. On the other hand, the script goes into a lot of detail about those tumultuous first few years with all the political slights and negative reaction from the people. Who knew that the decisions over who’s made a lady of the Queen’s court could be as divisive as choosing a Supreme Court Justice?

Actually, the script does a good job of laying out these minor controversies and how they became blown out of proportion in a politically sensitive time. Vallée, for the most part, is able to build appropriate tension and intrigue as the young queen is pushed and pulled between all the various forces involved. This is also where Blunt gets to shine. She manages to convey Victoria’s strength and defiance while still allowing instances of vulnerability and self-doubt. Under a lesser actress those qualities might have all been played too broadly to be believed or to be taken seriously, but Blunt finds a nice balance and is able to engender a lot empathy and pathos. I wish the same could be said for Friend’s Prince Albert though because while the advertising pushes their great love as a plot point, in the actual film it seems more like an after thought.

What’s weird is that the film still tries mightily to make the romantic storyline relevant. Naturally you can’t ignore it, but the meticulousness of all the political issues is no match for the rather simplistic romance where, as portrayed in the film, saw Albert hang around the palace just long enough so that he definitely stood out as the most committed of all marriageable options. In other words, he was there. Blunt and Friend are cute together though, which may be all you need to get by so far as the romantic subplot goes. Meanwhile, the detail and vision of this relatively brief period in Victoria’s life seems ready made for something more like a TV miniseries rather than a limiting two hour movie. Having said that though, there is a spell to The Young Victoria that has a pleasing effect. The film may not be original, but it is wholly enjoyable regardless.

An Education

Rating: ***1/2

There’s something sketchy about the new film An Education. It’s certainly not the acting, which led by a cast of British thespians including Alfred Molina, Olivia Williams, and Emma Thompson, is impeccable. Everything, from the cinematography, the 60s looking production design and the art direction, are all top-notch. The plot follows a smart and talented young woman with a promising future that starts to date an older man who seduces her with… Oh. There we go. But it’s okay because the older man is really quite charming and handsome and played by Peter Sarsgaard, right? And no Virginia, this is not a post-modern spin on Lolita.

The girl is 16-year-old Jenny(Carey Mulligan) who studies hard in school, plays the cello, and dreams of journeying to Paris one day only to be interrupted in her daydream by the nerdy boy that crushes on her. A chance meeting one day with Mr David Goldman (Sarsgaard) opens up a new world of possibilities for Jenny, ones that have nothing to do with her prudish and overbearing father (Molina), and her stuffy teachers (Williams, Thompson). The debonair David shows Jenny a world of hot jazz, cool beat poetry and the laissez-faire lifestyle of professional rip-off artists. As Jenny gets more deeply involved with David, her schooling becomes less and less important as she’d rather be tripping the light fantastic with her older beau.

But David Golman carries a secret, and it’s a secret so obvious that the only way that you won’t be able to see it coming is if you’re an infatuated teenage girl living in 1960s Britain. But sarcasm aside, An Education is a rather astute satire with decent chuckles and a couple of moments both heartbreaking and heart-warming. The difficulty for me in watching this movie was trying to comprehend the message. Was there a message? Teenagers can be silly? Sure, you may hate your responsibilities, all the hard work, testing and such, but those successes are far more substantive than following a stranger with candy. Really, director Lone Scherfig, tell me another one.

Granted there’s not a lot of depth here, but maybe I’m looking for things that aren’t supposed to be there in the first place. One can’t fault the fact that An Education is rather entertaining. A diverting piece of 60s glam cinema with an engaging cast anchored ably by a young star with a lot of talent and charisma. Alfred Molina is appropriately stuffy and befuddled as the dad, but he also gets to show some dimension and some vulnerability too as he realizes he’s played no small part in his daughter’s future trashing machinations. Molina’s probably my favourite actor in this film, but it’s a tight horse race.

But some of the credit for An Education’s appeal goes to young Carey Mulligan, who manages to convey the spiralling depths of naivety and the post screw-up weariness to be convincing as Jenny from beginning to end. This film is hers and its no small feat for a young actress to play convincing on all sides. I’m still sure about the creepy overtones, but maybe that’s the difference between eras and the bias there in. Watching An Education I could help but think of Chris Hansen and ask, “Haven’t you seen To Catch A Predator?” To which Jenny would probably say “I beg your pardon.” Where’s Hansen when you need him?

Pirate Radio

Rating: ***

Be it ever so delayed, the latest ode to 60s rock, Pirate Radio has finally opened in theatres. And although its coming of age message to rock and roll all night and party every day is clear, it doesn’t exactly offer anything new to the meaning of those words. To its detriment, this film is a mishmash of such hackneyed rock and roll catchphrases like “rage against the machine”, “they don’t make ‘em like they used to”, “people everywhere have got to be free”. Then what you’ve got is a new cake made from the recipe used in several past similar films. Pirate Radio’s saving grace is that it does a better job at being clichéd than let’s say Detroit City Rock or Airheads. It also has a stellar cast, and an infectious anarchy-in-the-UK-fuelled enthusiasm.

The year is 1968, and in the kingdom of Great Britain, you’re lucky to get one hour of rock and roll on the public airwaves. Enter so-called “Pirate Radio”. Of course, by today’s standards, being a musical pirate means being a pariah, distributing music that you have no right to distribute simply because you can. Strangely enough, the pirates of Pirate Radio weren’t that much different. Much to the frustration of government regulators, they used a ship in the North Seas to broadcasted unadulterated rock and roll to the English masses 24 hours a day. I guess the major difference is that the 1960S Pirate Radio pirates had an actual boat, while the 2000s pirates ave their dorm rooms and basements. But at least the noble spirit of their 60s brethren lives on.

Apparently, Pirate Radio is based on a true story. But truth is relative, and I can’t honestly say how much of Pirate Radio I believe. Though I have little doubt that if you got a bunch of free-wheeling disc jockeys on a boat that Animal House-like frivolity would ensue. And what characters we have on the pirate radio boat? There’s the cynical though hard-rocking leader of the motley crew The Count (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the mysteriously debonair Midnight Mark (Tom Wisdom), the informational newsman 'On-The-Hour' John (Will Adamsdale), and the reclusive Bob Silver (Ralph Brown) on overnights. Captaining this ship of fools is the always sardonic Quentin (Bill Nighy), whose godson Young Carl (Tom Sturridge) arrives on the Radio Rock ship as either a punishment from his mother, or As her way of pushing him to meet his absentee father.

But despite the highly capable and talented comedic cast, along with that wonderfully derisive British wit, Pirate Radio doesn’t really have anything new to offer. There’s a lot of talk about these being the best days, and how young people will fight the power to write, make and listen to great music. Stop me if you’ve heard this one, as the old joke goes. There really seems to be no underline organization to the film’s story, instead it watches like a hodgepodge series of problems, interpersonal dilemmas and misunderstandings. Much of the plot centres on government official Sir Alistair Dormandy (Kenneth Branagh), and his loyal toadie Twat (Jack Davenport) who are willing to use any means at their disposal to try and shut down Radio Rock. Unfortunately, the rebels and the authorities are so physically separated by land and water that their interactions fell disconnected from each other, as if they are players in two different movies.

But you know what? That’s okay, because I laughed a lot. The actors are great, and they get to throw out some great lines. Not to mention the fact that the film’s Titanic-like climax is filled with equal parts humour and drama. True, Pirate Radio won’t win any points for originality. Nor will itt win any added favour for its vintage rock soundtrack, since these songs can all be easily reconstructed with some diligent iTunes shopping. But I did enjoy the characters and their party-hearty attitude. Pirate Radio is like a British WKRP in Cincinnati, only on a boat. Darned if you can remember the plotline, but I’d wager that you will remember that you had a good time watching it.

Hot Docs - Ascension with Plane Days

Rating:

Ascension – 3 stars
Plane Days – 4.5 stars

It’s sometimes easy to forget that a lot of the firsts in space were set by Russians. From the first artificial satellite to the first man to orbit the Earth, the big R next to the names there stands for Russia, not Republican. But jokes aside, Russia, or make that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, was deadly serious about beating the US to orbit and then the moon. The publicity value of their success and the secretive nature of the country even gave rise to a conspiracy theory that the Soviets abandoned several cosmonauts in orbit, entombed in their space capsules when unable to return to Earth, in order to avoid embarrassment.

No crazy conspiracies are addressed in Ascension, but we do get an unusual and uncensored look at the early days of the Soviet space program thanks to some previously unseen footage and training films, compiled together with other interesting nuggets from director Pavel Medvedev. From test footage of Soviet rockets that either explode on the launch pad or fall out of the sky, to the various dogs and monkeys subjected to atmospheric and stress tests to gage the biological effects of space travel, Ascension is a fascinating look at a bygone era of space travel. And the footage seems remarkably preserved as well, adding to that feeling of found treasure.

As a bit of a sci-fi geek and a person interested in the early history of space flight, much of the footage in Ascension could be classified as just one Easter Egg after another. The remarkable access procured by Medvedev can have you at one minute be horrified by a terrible rocket failure then be bowled over by the adorableness of dogs in space helmets and then back to horrified when you learn that the dog died after seven days in orbit because they didn’t know how to bring him home. But the film loses some of its focus by throwing in clips of modern NASA missions and bizarre bits of experimental animation, which although awesome, really had nothing to do with space exploration.

If Ascension is guilty of being a little scatterbrained, then its companion film Plane Days is a suitable counterpoint for its focus. The short film follows a kind of day in the life of the plane spotters at Heathrow airport in London, and before you ask, let me stop you: plane spotters are just like bird watchers, only with planes. They have books and checklists and work together as spotters. Some go as pairs or small groups, while others form these kind of large hunting parties. While one pair sits in a parked car in a lot next to a runway, a very large group is lined up in a field on the other side of the airport, cameras in hand like a gaggle of paparazzi.

Mostly retired folks, you can either see the plane watchers as an interesting post-retirement hobby worth learning more about, or the frightening shape of things to come. While I don’t get it, I dig that they do, and as the film wore on I smiled as one of the watchers spots something new coming for a landing and reaches for his notebook excitedly. You laugh as one group takes a break and enjoys some wine in picnic wine glasses out of the back of one watcher’s car. And the film’s shot in a way that if you hadn’t read the synopsis before hand, you’d have no idea what these guys are getting so excited over. And actually, by the time the credits roll, you’re getting kind of excited too.