'Knives Out' is a great Who-Dunnit

Knives Out (2019)
Starring: Ana de Armas, Daniel Craig, Chris Evans, Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michael Shannon, Christopher Plummer, and LaKeith Stanfield
Director: Rian Johnson
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

The famous private detective Benoit Blanc (Craig) teams with the local police to untangle the circumstances surrounding the death of an eccentric mystery writer (Plummer).

"Knives Out" is fun, tightly scripted update of the classic mystery novels/detective films where most of the characters in the tale had reason to see the victim dead, and the detective politely (for the most part) talks his way to unmasking the killer through interrogations in drawing rooms. Its main location is a throwback to both Agatha Christie novels and the Dark Old House movies of the 1920s and 1930s, while its all-star ensemble cast is like revisiting the movies of this genre from the 1970s and 1980s. Yet, with all these classic elements that will fill mystery movie lovers with nostalgia, this is a thoroughly modern story.

At all times, the film treats the "drawing room detective" and surrounding tropes with a level of respect that is rarely seen anymore, but, like the best films when the genre was in its heyday, it does it with equal degrees of drama and humor as it unfolds. There are many laugh-out-loud one-liners in the film, as well as a number of funny situations (my personal favorite is when the police detective played by LaKeith Stanfield declares "That was the dumbest car chase ever.", as the mystery is at its most convoluted), but the film never mocks or gets self-ironic with its subject matter--except in cases where characters are commenting on themselves.

Another element that makes "Knives Out" a great experience is that it plays fair. All the clues to the identity of the murderer (if there even was a murderer, because the victim's death would just have been written off as a suicide if a mysterious person hadn't sent Benoit Blanc an envelope of cash to investigate) are out there in the open, and all the stray bits that somehow relate to either including or excluding possible suspects as the story unfolds, eventually come into play. Even an apparent comment made by the man who will soon be a corpse in sorrowful reflection on his advanced age and the state of his family ends up being echoed with great effectiveness in the movie's climax.

At one point, I felt "Knives Out" was playing a little too fair with the viewers, because I thought I had figured out who the killer was early on--and even as more complications were thrown in and more actual details came to light, I remained certain I had guessed correctly. A few twists later, and I no longer cared if I was right or wrong... the ride to the solution getting more and more exciting and fun (and funny), and even if I thought I had the who, I still didn't have the complete how or why. Like Blanc says at one point, in what must be the most hilariously tortured metaphor in cinematic history, "Knives Out" was like a donut with a hole, within which another donut fit but it also has a hole...

If you enjoy classic murder mysteries and "who-dunnits" with an emphasis on wit, "Knives Out" is a great way to spend a couple of hours.

Sherlock Sunday:Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper

Murder By Degree (1979)
Starring: Christopher Plummer, James Mason and David Hemmings
Director: Bob Clark
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When a citizens committee hires Sherlock Holmes (Plummer) to apprehend Jack the Ripper, he and Watson (Mason) find themselves in the middle of deadly series of plots and conspiracies to either overthrow or protect the British monarchy.


"Murder By Degree" is a film that should appeal equally to lovers of some of the darker Basil Rathbone Holmes movies, the Ronald Howard-starring television series, and even the Holmes stories themselves. It might even appeal to those who enjoyed the most recent big screen Sherlock Holmes adventure directed by Guy Ritchie. It occupies a point somewhere between the original Doyle stories, the black-and-white Holmes adventures and the Ritchie film, bringing both humor and horror to the table while reminding us that Holmes was just as much a man of action as he was a man of intellect. Like the Ritchie film, Holmes shows here that he can hold his own in a fight if called upon to do so, but unlike the Ritchie film, he doesn't engage in idioctic activities such as entering boxing contests just because.

Christopher Plummer makes a good Holmes, playing the part with an equal mixture of charm and a curious sense of aloofness. The Holmes here is a character who is always slightly apart from those around him, always seeing both sides of an issue and usually expressing a near-equal appreciation for both--at least when there are two sides to an issue. Holmes is in no way a moral relativist and he refuses to accept social norms and attitudes when they are unfair or outright evil. This is also a film where Holmes is confronted with evil and twisted morality so severe that his shell crumbles and we witness him moved to tears. This film presents perhaps the most human version of Sherlock Holmes I've encountered while still maintaining his almost suprahuman powers of deduction and observation.

James Mason likewise makes a decent Watson, even if I feel like he is written as being a little too dense at times. In general, Watson here is the perfect image of a late 19th century British gentleman with all the strengths and weaknesses that infers.

The mystery of the film itself is engaging and the film remains focused on it. Unlike the recent Ritchie movie where all sorts of extraneous nonsense is crammed into the film, this movie tells a Holmes mystery as it should be told. It also delivers some very impressive twists, as Holmes and Watson are drawn so deep into the conspiracies surrounding the Ripper murders that they become targets themselves.

While it drags slightly in a few places, this is a fun and interesting take on Sherlock Holmes that has a little something for every Holmes fan.

'Inside Man' is overrated

Inside Man (2002)
Starring: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, and Christopher Plummer
Director: Spike Lee
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

A bank robbery turns into a hostage situation, but during the siege, Detective Frazier (Washington) starts to suspect that robbers wanted to be cornered in the bank. As he attempts to solve this puzzle (and get the hostages out safely), the bank's owner (Plummer) hires a mysterious power-broker (Foster) to protect dark secrets he's hiding in a safe deposit box.


"Inside Man" is a crime thriller with some great ideas at its heart, and a decent script, but one which is ultimately done in by the filmmakers' wanting to tell the story out of order for no discernible reason.

It's obvious to all but the stupidest of viewers how the robbers intend to get out of the bank when they insist on everyone dressing like they are dressed. It likewise becomes obvious that the bank robbers will get away once the billionaire's secret comes to light--"murder will out", as one character says. There was no need for Lee and the screenwriter to reassure the intelligent viewer they've already guessed where the story is going (and to blow it for the stupid ones) by interspersing snippets of interrogations after the situation has resolved itself with the unfolding story to show how the seige turned out.

The film also suffers from an ending that just sort of dribbles to its conclusion instead of ending with a nice, solid moment. Denouements are a must for most films, but here we have two of them... and one is just plain dull. Perhaps Lee figured the viewer would care about Detective Frazier's homelife and how things were looking up for him in the future... but if so, he should have taken another look at the script.

"Inside Man" is a decent crime thriller, but its a thriller populated by stock characters. There isn't a character in the film that hasn't appeared in dozens of movies like this before--the only way Frazier could be more stereotypical was if he was divorced instead of engaged--and there isn't a character in the film where even a half-hearted attempt is made to develop some real depth or shades of originality.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because films like this are plot-driven rather than character driven, but it seems that Lee thought his characters were actual characters that the viewer would care about once all the mysteries of the story are resolved. They aren't. This is an enjoyable and competently made thriller (that almost qualifies as a heist movie, but not quite, despite what some critics claimed), but it's not a film that will stay with you, nor is it one that's worth seeing more than once. It's dead-even average.

Frankly, as average as this film is, I suspect that if it hadn't been directed by Spike Lee, there would have been a lot fewer positive reviews of it... this film's high marks can be credited to the Emperor's New Clothes Effect. ("Gosh! It's a Spike Lee movie! I don't even have to see it to know it's good, so if the press-kit calls it a heist movie, I'll go with that! If I don't slobber all over it, I'm not a real movie critic!")