Sherlock Sunday: Matt Frewer vs. THE Woman

A Royal Scandal (2001)
Starring: Matt Frewer, Kenneth Welsh, Liliana Komorowska, R.H. Thomson and Robin Wilcock
Director: Rodney Gibbons
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Frewer) is retained to recover compromising photos of one of Europe's crown princes (Wilcock). The case is complicated by the fact that the photos are in the possession of Holmes' old love/adversary Irene Adler (Komorowska) and that the British government and Holmes' brother Mycroft (Thomson) want to get their hands on the photos as well.


"A Royal Scandal" is a so-so Holmes tale that merges "The Bruce-Pardington Papers" with a loose adaptation of "A Scandal in Bohemia." It's a made-for-TV movie that wastes no time in getting started and keeps the pace nice and brisk as it unfolds and makes sure that the viewer is never bored--assuming the viewer is in the mood for a Holmesian-style mystery. The way Holmes deals with betrayal and dishonesty by those he cares about (and whom he thought he could rely on) is an interesting aspect of the story. That, along with the Victorian espionage intrigues--echoes of last week's Sherlock Sunday entry, "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes"--is one of the more entertaining aspects of the film, but it isn't enough to make up for the weaknesses.

The film's problems lie primarily with the casting, and, to a lesser degree, with the scripting.

As fun as Matt Frewer usually is to watch in most roles he's played, he makes a weak Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't have the arrogant intensity of Basil Rathbone or Peter Cushing's Holmes, he doesn't have the boyish exuberance of Ronald Howard'd Holmes, he doesn't have the emotional intensity of Robert Downey Jr or Christopher Plummer's interpretations, nor even the limpwristed feyness of the one presented by Robert Stephens. He doesn't bring any larger-than-life qualities to the character, something which seems to be a necessity for a successful screen-portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. A giant such as Holmes need to have something to seperate him from the masses of humanity, and Holmes as portrayed by Frewer has nothing.

The script is also something of an issue. Holmes is one step behind his adversaries for the entire story. Although many cinematic tales of Holmes deal with him being bested--especially when Irene Adler is involved--few have him so completely in the dark as he is during this tale. Even after the case has been resolved, it's clear that although Holmes figured out the puzzle and mostly identified all the players correctly, he at no time had the initiative and he was successfully manipulated from beginning to end. All in all, a disappointing adventure both for Holmes and for the viewers.

The rest of cast is as bland as Frewer. Kenneth Welsh's Watson has very little screen time, but what he has is forgettable. Not only does Watson have very little to do in the story, but Welsh is completely unremarkable in the role. Liliana Komorowska makes an attractive Irene Adler and brings enough sexy charisma to the role to make it believable that Holmes might fall in lust with her, but the part itself feels underwritten and empty--and her tendency to carry around an unloaded gun is a very silly habit for a character who deals with lethal criminals and spies on a daily basis.

"A Royal Scandal" is a forgettable entry in the Holmes. The Five I am giving it is about as low a Five as possible without making it a Four. I'm being generous with the film because it did keep me entertained, but only just, and because it's all-around technically competent. But it's a film you can safely skip.

The mystery of Cletis Tout solved

Who Is Cletis Tout? (2002)
Starring: Christian Slater, Tim Allen, Portia de Rossi, and Richard Dreyfuss
Director: Chris Ver Weil
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Master forger Finch (Slater) has made his good his escape from prison, he's got a lead on a hidden stash of diamonds from his partner (Dreyfuss) and his daughter (de Rossi), but there's just one problem. Finch has stolen the identity of a man the mob wants dead, and now they're after him. Can Finch convince hit man Critical Jim (Allen) that he is not who he said he was in time to get the diamonds, the girl, and give the movie a happy ending?


"Who Is Cletis Tout?" is a charming, if forgettable, comedic crime caper. It takes all the standard elements of a film noir drama--a jewel heist, a prison break, mistaken identities, bloodthirsty mobsters, coldblooded hit men, an alluring femme fatale--and turns them all a bit sideways. It all comes together in a pleasing package, but nothing really ever 'wows' the viewer. There are some chuckles, but no real laughs, and the only tension that the movie ever really generates comes at the very end.

Still, the movie is fast-paced and the actors all give great performances. Tim Allen in particular shines as a quirky hit man who is such a movie buff that he strives to shape his life (and when possible, the lives of those around him) into the form a movie. I might even say that it's Allen's character that makes this movie worth watching. His commentary to Finch on the current sorry state of movie making is also dead-on, particularly his lament that most modern movies lack a third act.

(As I post this review, "Who Is Cletis Tout?" is out of print, but it is available for rent from Netflix and other outlets.)

Henpecked Hitman must find spine or die

The Big Hit (1998)
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Lou Diamond Phillips, and China Chow
Director: Che-Kirk Wong
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Melvin (Wahlberg) is a deadly, highly paid hitman who is so mild-mannered and timid in his personal life that his live-in girlfriend anc co-workers walk all over him, his other girlfriend is bleeding him dry of all his money, and manager of the local video rental store pushes him around. But when he is framed as the front man in the kidnapping of a Japanese industrialist's daughter (Chow), Melvin must stand up for himself or die.


"The Big Hit" is a fun action comedy featuring one of those characters who only exists in fiction: an assassin who's a really nice guy if you can overlook the whole murderer thing. While he may only killed really bad people (and a few who irritated), Melvin is a great guy who anyone would like to have a friend... and who would have been very happy in life if everyone around weren't more realistic characters in the sense that they are mostly exploitive, lazy, criminally minded scumbags.

Lou Diamond Phillips plays the lead scumbag and he does a fantastic job at it. He plays Chico who is the exact opposite of Whalberg's Melvin. Chico is a lazy braggart who takes advantage of Melvin at every opportunity and claims credit for Melvin's hard work in both setting up and executing the hits they perform. As much as we like Melvin, we're disgusted by Phillips and his obnoxious swaggering. As much as we want to see Melvin get relief from his situation, we want to see Chico get burned.

Storywise, this is a predictable movie that's full of stock characters and cartoony action and fight sequences. Melvin is the only character that has even the slightest bit of depth to him and even then he is something of a cliche. The movie delivers enough plot-twists and action sequences to be entertaining, but it is not a classic by an means.

"The Big Hit" is worth watching if you're a big fan of lighthearted crime dramas, but it is fairly mediocre with the exception of the performances given by stars Wahlberg and Phillips.

'Miracles' has Jackie Chan in his prime

Miracles (aka "Black Dragon" and "The Canton Godfather") (1989)
Starring: Jackie Chan, Anita Mui and Richard Ng
Director: Jackie Chan
Rating: Nine of Ten Stars

When kindhearted accountant Cheng Wa Kuo (Chan) is made boss of the Black Dragon criminal syndicate through a series of coincidences, he sets about trying to reform the gangsters, starting with shifting efforts into a successful, legitimate Hong Kong night club, and culminating with an elaborate scheme to bring about happiness for a flower vendor and her daughter, who wishes to marry the son of a wealthy Shanghai industrialist. To pull it off, between the jealousy of his girl firend (Mui), a rival ganglord, and a corrupt police commissioner (Ng), he'll need several miracles.


"Miracles" is a lighthearted romp through 1920s Hong Kong. Bullets fly as tommy guns chatter, but the only death in the film is the gang leader that Chan takes over for. Everyone else survives the cartoon violence to fight another day... and, boy, do they fight!

This film showcases Jackie Chan in his prime. The two major fight scenes in the flim (one in a tea house, the other--and incredibly spectacular--in a rope factory) feature some of the finest Prop Fu of any of his films. The plot--which becomes so burdened with convoluted deceptions as the that the characters run themselvves ragged to keep them straight and concealed--is hilarious. It also manages to be sweet without getting overly sacharine in flavor.

I recommend this film highly for fans of Jackie Chan, lovers of romantic comedies, and those who enjoy movies set during the Roaring Twenties.

Sherlock Sunday: 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'is the most overrated Holmes film?

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Starring: Robert Stephens, Colin Blakely, Geneviève Page and Christopher Lee
Director: Billy Wilder
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Holmes and Watson (Stephens and Blakely) endeavor to learn the identity of a woman suffering from amnesia (Page) after she is dropped off at their apartments at 221B Baker Street. They soon find themselves drawn into a mystery involving a missing Belgian engineer, Holmes' politically powerful brother Mycroft (Lee) and the Loch Ness Monster.


"The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" features an ill-implemented attempt at presenting a more vulnerable and human Holmes. During the film's first half hour, Holmes expresses discomfort at the way Watson's writings have turned him into a star and laments that he feels obligated to run around in a deer stalker hat and tweed cloak because that is how artists protrayed him in Strand magazine. Comments made by Watson in this early part of the film also seems to imply that he as exaggerated some of Holmes' exploits and characteristics.

However, as the film unfolds, this approach is dropped and it slips into a story-telling mold that was established with the Basil Rathbone-starring series from Universal Pictures during the 1940s, with Holmes abusing Watson at almost every turn yet still insisting that he's his friend. It's not the clever and unique approach that some reviewers paint it as.

Perhaps this is because they don't get past that first half hour. It was a description of that half hour from a friend whose taste I trust that made me move this film up in my review stack, because her description of Holmes starting a rumor that he and Watson were a committed gay couple sounded intriguing.

Sadly, like the idea of presenting a more human Holmes, the gay rumor angle ends up going nowhere in the picture as a whole. It's little more than an extended bit of sketch comedy within the picture, and as a story element perhaps one of the most aggregious examples of Holmes behaving like a jerk toward Watson for no reason whatsoever other than to let the viewer develope an intense dislike for Holmes and cause one to wonder why on earth Watson continues to consider him a friend.

This would have been a stronger film if that first half hour had been strongly edited, with the entire business involving a Russian ballerina and Holmes pretending that he and Watson were gay lovers had been dropped. It's material that has nothing to do with the rest of the story and it adds nothing positive to the overall portrayal of Holmes or Watson.

This would also have been a stronger film if a more suitable actor had been cast to play Holmes. I never thought I would see a more effeminate version of the character than the one portrayed by Christopher Plummer in "Murder by Degree", but Robert Stephens has proven me wrong. Plummer's Holmes comes across like more macho-than-macho when viewed in light of what Stephens did.

The rest of the cast, however, does a good job--and Stephens isn't bad once one gets used to the simpering, limp-wristeed interpretation of Holmes--although there does seem to be a tendency to overact. Both Page (and the mystery woman) and Blakely ham it up just a bit too much in some scenes. It's expected from Blakely, as his Watson is pure comic relief, but Page should have dialed back on the melodramatic stylings once or twice.

If you enjoy the general tone of the Basil Rathbone Holmes, I think you'll like this one, even if you'll often find yourself wondering how much better the film would have been if Holmes had been better cast. You'll like it even more if you enjoyed the humorous approach found in the Ronald Howard-starring television series. What you won't find, however, is the alleged genius of writer/director Billy Wilder. Overall, this is an average presentation of the Doyle's classic characters with some glimmers of what could have been a great film shining through here and there. If only Wilder had been a little more aggressive with his reinterperation instead of falling back onto familiar and safe territory that had been thoroughly explored during the 1940s and 1950s.





Trivia: Christopher Lee is, so far, the only actor to portray both Sherlock Holmes (in "The Deadly Necklace") and Mycroft Holmes (in "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes").

Psychic madman stalks innocent family

In Dreams (1999)
Starring: Annette Bening, Aiden Quinn, Paul Guilfoyle, Stephen Rea, Katie Sagona and Robert Downey, Jr.
Director: Neil Jordan
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Claire (Bening) finds herself connected psychically to a madman (Downey) who starts targeting her family for reasons only he understands. Will she able to convince anyone that she isn't crazy before he kills everyone she loves, including Claire herself?


"In Dreams" is an interesting supernatural thriller where the film takes its time revealing whether the main character is psychic, telepathically linked with a serial killer, or just plain crazy. That aspect of the film is very well done. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is dragged down by over-acting and poorly developed story elements.

Take for example the psychiatrist that plays a key role in getting Claire committed to a mental hospital. It's one thing to for him to do so initially, but why does it take him and the orderlies a couple of days to notice the carvings on the wall of Claire's cell, carvings that she could not have made? Well... no reason other than some time needed to pass for plot reasons. And it really is too much of a coincidence that Claire just happened to be placed in the same cell that her "psychic twin" had inhabited a decade or so earlier.

Too much of the movie's story relies on such far-feteched coincidences to be fully effective. If just a little more care and effort had been put into the script and if Annette Bening had dailed back the histronics and melodrama just a tad, this could have been an excellent little chiller. It's still entertaining--Robert Downey, Jr. makes a great madman and his final fate is one that will cause most viewers to chuckle evilly to themselves--but there are too many moments where the attentive viewer will be annoyed by the sloppy story. (Actually, even the ending, which I am fond of, is a bit underdeveloped.)

This flawed film is worth checking out if you notice it showing on TV, but it's not worth going out of your way for. It has some great and creepy moments and it has a neat ending, but those aren't enough to save it.

Badly plotted movie showcases more about incompetent writers than evil bankers

The International (2009)
Starring: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Brian F. O'Byrne, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Allesandro Fabrizi
Director: Tom Tykwer
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

An Interpol agent on the verge of a breakdown (Owen) and a dedicated New York Asst. District Attorney (Watts) team up to investigate a powerful international bank that will stop at nothing to achieve its business goals.


"The International" is a sluggishly paced thriller with a script that could have done with at least one more revision and an end product that should have gone back to the editor.

The bankers featured in this film must be the same guys who were in charge at Washington Mutual or maybe Freddie Mac in recent years, because they're the sort of idiots who would keep issuing loans to people who would never pay them back. If they didn't seem so incompetent, maybe the conspiracies they are engaged in would seem less far fetched and pointless.

The main plot point around which the film revolves--the bank is going to collapse if they don't make a convoluted arms investment scheme work--would have been solved 20 minutes in, if, as a character says in the third act, "You should have come to me first." Of course, that would have meant this would have been a really short movie without any action scenes... but that would have been preferable to what we end up with here.

As it stands, the bankers here are nefarious for no reason other than to be nefarious, and they are so stupid that it boggles the engaged mind our heroes (or even some bumbling US Senator in search of headlines) can't nail them. Of course, the script is so badly written that many of the setbacks are heroes suffer are just as much due to bad luck as the eeeevil powers of the International.

Almost worse than the bad script is the way the film is padded. It's just a few seconds here and few seconds there, but after a while it becomes annoying and obvious. Time and again, we're given establishing shots to establishing shots. Because the film takes its sweet time getting just about every scene underway--presumably because the director thought this would help build suspense--we're given plenty of time to reflect on the story problems in what we are watching unfold.

Tip to future filmmakers: If you have a bad script for your thriller, speed things up rather than slow them down. The audience won't have time to catch all the stupidity, and, even if they do, they'll be grateful that the film was only 85 minutes long as opposed to 111 minutes.

"The International" is rather like the conspiracy theories it tries to bring to life as it unfolds--you know, the ones about the Gnomes of Zurich running the world through international banks--in that if you apply any thought to them, they collapse under their own illogic.

Don't waste your time and money on this film. It has decent performances from every featured actor and a very cool shoot-out at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, but these aren't enough to make it worth two hours of your life. (The four rating I'm giving it is a low four.)