Book review - "Flashman and the Tiger" by George MacDonald Fraser (1999)

 So frustrating. Three Flashman stories - a long one, basically a novella, and two short. Only one, about the Tranby Croft affair, feels like a genuine stand alone story. The other two feel like ideas for full novels that Fraser abandoned. I may be unfair, but it's what it feels like.

To make it worse there's constant references to earlier, better novels, and the stories contain teasers/trailers of adventures we (or at least I) would rather be reading about: Flashman trying to rescue Maximilian from Mexico, Flashman with Gordon at Khartoum (we get a trailer of him with Woseley and the first story ends with him going off to the Sudan with Gordon), Flashman in the Zulu Wars (we get a description of Isandhlwana which is exciting and a glimpse of Rorke's Draft but it's unsatisfying).

For the adventures themselves:

"Road to Charing Cross" - Flashman has to save the life of Emperor Franz Josef, and deals with the son of Rudi Von Stanberg. Some of this is alright - there's some excellent action during the assassination sequence (pointlessly cut short with Flashman being knocked out... why not play it out?) and the final duel with Rudi Jnr is superb with Flashman in genuine peril (but he's saved by a deux ex machina super woman). Flashman being old and getting passed over has some novelty.

"The Subtleties of Baccarat" - the Tranby Croft affair. A tight self contained story which isn't bad. Fraser was always strong at sporting contests.

"Flashman and the Tiger" - exciting battles in Zulu land, although it later crosses the streams by having Flashman meet Tiger Jack Moran of the Sherlock Holmes stories... and later encounter Holmes and Watson. The finale where Holmes continually misses the point about Flashman is funny - but it is weird that characters from separate universes mix. I enjoyed the Oscar Wilde cameo and the use of Flashman's granddaughter Selina - I just wish it had been a proper Zulu novel

Script review - "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" by Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond

 The original script for the film is here if you want to read it. It does not improve the film. That was not a butchered masterpiece. This takes forever - 224 pages - I can imagine it clocks in at over three hours (and Wilder once considered songs!).

It's atypical to his other work being a series of episodes. It starts includes a really, really long scene where Watson's ancestor opens a box containing the stories from Watson (well it's not super long and has a cute character, a big time Holmes fan but it takes him until page 10 to do something that could be done in one). 

There's a section on a train where Holmes deduces something about an Italian, "The Curious Case of the Upside Down Room" where Holmes and Watson help Lestrade figure out a mystery of an upside down room, flashbacks to Oxford etc during the main story, "The Dreadful business of the naked honeymooners" a sketch where the duo on a ship investigate a death that turns out to be not a death, and an epilogue where Lestrade asks for help finding Jack the Ripper.

I don't mean to be rude but it's all very pointless. This must have been agony to sit through. It's basically an attempt to do a slight tweak on Holmes - made with love, fun, I get it, but at heart this is a glossy TV series.

Movie review - "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" (1970) ***

 Made with love, affection, intelligence and care. Oh and plenty of money and talent - it looks wonderful. Acting very strong. The big budget is up there on screen - big set for Baker Street and the submarine and places like that.

But it is long at two hours even in its cut down state - it is episodic.

The big flaw is it doesn't pick a lane. Holmes is smart but also outsmarted by a German spy and also Mycroft. This is unsatisfactory. Good on Wilder for trying to subvert the hero, but maybe not on such a big scale. (And if songs had been added... urgh.) The first chapter, a particularly pointless one where a ballerina wants Holmes to impregnate her, hints Holmes is gay for Watson. Now either of these concepts would've made a fine film - Holmes as a dad, Holmes as gay - but Wilder ignores the first and hedges on the latter. Having hinted at Holmes being gay Wilder then has him in the next section deal with a woman who he's supposed to fall in love with.

Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely are fine in the leads as is Genevieve Page in the female lead but the film would've been more fun with stars (Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellars were originally considered). Christopher Lee for instance livens up his part through star power as well as acting ability.

Worth watching, just flawed and you can see why the public didn't go for it.

Radio review - "Hound of the Baskervilles"

 LATW version of the classic Sherlock Holmes piece which I've always loved. Great mystery. A mythical threat turns out to be more realistic and just as dangerous. Solid twists. Wonderful atmosphere. Canadian romantic lead. Watson and Holmes in good form.

Movie review - "A Study in Terror" (1965) ***

The sort of film that feels like Hammer but was actually Tigon and Herman Cohen - it has Sherlock Holmes investigating Jack the Ripper and is stylish and a lot of fun. Plenty of pseudo names like John Neville as Holmes and Donald Houston as Watson.

I love the photography, sets and feel. The script is occasionally a bit iffy but it is a decent story - Holmes and Watson work well. The cast includes a young Judi Dench as well as people like John Fraser, Tony Quayle, Peter Carsten.

Movie review - "Holmes and Watson" (2019) *

Will Ferrell was once the blue chip comedy star - so many of his films were great. John C Reilly's fantastic too. I figured this couldn't have been as bad as I heard.

It was.

What went wrong? There are some funny bits - I laughted at Kelly MacDonald's Mrs Hudson continually having sex with celebrities in Watson's bed. I liked Lauren Lapkus pretending to be a cat. I laughed when Holmes and Watson knocked over Queen Victoria.

But the film doesn't seem to have a comic vision. Ferrell always plays morons. And some of the time Holmes is a moron. But other times he's quite smart. And it doesn't make sense.

The film is all over the place.One minute the leads are gay then they're straight. The humour is broad then it's subtle. Is it a spoof? A buddy comedy?

The Adam McKay Ferrell films always felt very clean and clear. You got a sense of what they were about, what they were trying to do, what they were sending up. You knew the world. (The time line for this movie is all over the place - there's Harry Houdini, Queen Victoria, the Titanic. It doesn't take much effort to get that stuff right.)

It's just a mes and was hard to watch.

Script review - "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" by Billy Wilder and IAL Diamond (warning: spoilers)

I mean, yeah, sure, I guess. It's okay. I still wonder why Wilder bothered. The first act involves a woman wanting Holmes to father her child - which is actually a great idea for a film. But he says no and gets out of it by pretending to be in love with Watson, and refuses to deny he's gay to Watson. Instead of kicking on to a story about that, a whole new story starts up...

The bulk of the story is about an amnesiac woman turning up at Baker Street and Holmes kind of falling for her. There's some good ideas (using Loch Ness, trappist monks), but it all feels hollow because Mycroft Holmes knows all the answers from the get-go, he just doesn't say anything until the end; and Holmes is outsmarted by the woman and Mycroft; and it's about a British sub that is destroyed.

I get that they were trying to subvert Holmes - more drugs, possible gayness, less cleverness. But they don't really go for it, when it comes to subversion - it's all very mild. What if Holmes was gay for Watson? What if he was a moron? What if he was a full on drug addict? They don't do that here. They make him less, smart more gullible - that's all well and good, but it makes him less fun.

This script I read I think was a transcript. I would love to read the original draft, because I understand the final film was much cut about. I had a glimpse of the synopsis for these on wikipedia - it didn't sound that awesome even uncut. I am still unsure why Wilder bothered. A bit of a dud. Needlessly long too.

Movie review - "Hound of the Baskervilles" (1972) *1/2

The story is solid - it's treatment proof really, if done faithfully - and it's interested to see Stewart Granger play Holmes. Granger is professional enough, he was still handsome after all these years, but it's a shame he wasn't allowed (or didn't want to access) Holmes' arrogance - Granger was such an arrogant prat at times, I think he could have made a marvellously self-satisfied, egotistical Holmes. He didn't "Stewart Granger" it up enough but plays it way too safe (as he did too often).

This was made by Universal and the treatment is done in that crappy early 70s Universal TV style - ugly photography, laughable paintings to indicate the Baskerville estate, run of the mill sets (Baskerville is all on a sound stage) and music. 

 

Anthony Zerbe adds some dash as the doctor, Bernard Fox is okay as Watson, and William Shatner pretty good as George Stapleton. But everyone is defeated by uninspired, bland handling and this is really only for completists.

Movie review – “Hound of the Baskervilles” (1959) ***

Time has been kind to this Hammer version of the wonderful Holmes novel, particularly Peter Cushing’s performance as Holmes. Many things were taken for granted at the time also help the piece vault the years – in particular the sumptuous sets, colour and production design. It’s still a Hammer film, hence a long prologue with evil Hugo Baskerville being dastardly. Christopher Lee wouldn’t be that ideal as Watson (though you can imagine him as Holmes too) but fortunately there was the meaty part of Baskerville for him to play. Andre Morrell is pretty decent as Watson – far closer to the Doyle creation than what Nigel Bruce did to it.

Hammer have jazzed up the novel a bit – they throw in a tarantula, a cave-in, turn one of the women into a femme fetale – but the changes are in the spirit of Doyle (except perhaps the final death in a swamp which is a bit throw-away). Exciting finale. John le Mesurier plays a butler and Miles Malleson (who is allowed to ramble on a bit too long) is a priest.

Radio review – “Sherlock Holmes – The Adventure of the Final Solution” (1954) **1/2

Orson Welles did a bit of radio for Harry Alan Towers during his English career, most notably a series about Harry Lime. This one was a guesty, but what a guesty – Moriarty up against Gielgud’s Holmes and Ralph Richardson’s Watson in a faithful adaptation of what was intended to be the last Holmes story.
It's wonderful to hear these three go at it against one another – Welles more than holds his own against the greats and makes you wish he’d gone mano-a-mano against more top level talent during his career. (Great actors and stars; I count the Mercury players as good actors, sometimes excellent actors – but they struggled to match Welles’ charisma).

Radio review – MT#12 - “The Immortal Sherlock Holmes” (1938) **

Welles explains the Mercury got the idea to perform this when doing Too Much Johnson by William Gillette, who also wrote a Holmes play (basically Holmes vs Moriarty). This is a radio version of the play, sometimes too obviously so – there’s lots of scenes of people fighting, which doesn’t always work well on radio. An adaptation of the stories might have been more effective.

Welles does Holmes of course – he’s got such a great voice for radio, with that casual aplomb so familiar from Charles Foster Kane, that you can see why Welles never really became a really great actor. He didn’t have to – he was a great presence, with the fantastic voice.

Movie review – Holmes #14 – “Dressed to Kill” (1946) **1/2

The death of director Roy William Neill meant that this was the last of the Rathbone-Bruce Holmes films, although the two actors continued to play the roles on radio and later reprised them on stage. The standard of the series had slipped, but this is an okay entry. Like so many others in the series, it is a chase for a macguffin, in this case three music boxes. In good old bloodthirsty Holmes style, an old mate of Watson’s is murdered over one of the boxes, leading to Holmes getting on the case. The villains are pretty smart, though not no smart as to still leave Holmes hanging awaiting his death and assuming he’s dead instead of simply killing him. Watson quacks like a duck to cheer up a little girl and Aussie views will enjoy the fact that the music box plays “an old Australian waltz” (which I thought was going to be ‘Waltzing Matilda’ but I couldn’t recognise the tune).

Movie review – Holmes #13 – “Terror By Night” (1946) **1/2

The Rathbone Holmes series was on the slide by this stage – they had started rehashing plots, with the Macguffin again a Koh-i-Noor style diamond, in this case called The Star of Rhodesia. Pursuit to Algiers was set mostly on a boat; this one takes place mostly on a train. The shadow of The Lady Vanishes is apparent, right down to a cabinet with a secret compartment. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that Roy William Neill, who directed both this and the bulk of the series, was originally meant to direct the 1938 Hitchcock film.

Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade makes his first appearance in a while. The actor who plays the son of the owner of the diamond is hilariously wet but it’s okay, he gets killed very soon and Holmes has to find the killer (and the diamond, which has gone missing). 

There is a sexy femme fetale on the train but the most obvious suspect is Watson’s old army friend – who turns out to be Col Moran. This is the best thing about the film, the appearance of a decent villain – they really should have revealed him earlier to get more out of him instead of waiting 45 minutes. But Moran’s sidekick isn’t bad, like most films set on trains it is fast paced, and there is a fun scene where Watson tries to interrogate someone on the train.

Plot wise the film probably over-uses the “switch” factor – the diamond’s missing… but it’s not the real diamond, police appear… but they’re not real police, etc. Still, enjoyable.

Movie review – Holmes #12 - “Pursuit to Algiers” (1945) **

Holmes is asked to escort the prince of a tiny European nation to his homeland – in the end-of-war spirit, the ruler’s presence is essential for democracy. While Holmes goes in a plane, Watson is sent off on a boat. Around 20 minutes in come reports that Holmes has died in a plane crash – do you think he’s really dead? Of course he isn’t, and we find out fairly soon that he isn’t, but they already did this in The Spider Woman and it’s even more irritating here.

Most of the film takes place on a ship which you think is an interesting setting, but it quickly gets tired. There’s a lot of walking around, and murder attempts. Some of the actors playing assassins are ok but the prince is bland as cardboard and there’s all this time spent on a not particularly interesting singing character. The twist at the end isn’t bad (that the bloke you think is the prince is actually a stand in) but by then it’s too late – and it’s been used as a twist too often (eg The Narrow Margin).

Bruce’s Watson is particularly dim in this one, being of little help to Holmes (although he does regale passengers with the story of the Rat of Sumatra, and sings “Danny Boy”). They play up the Watson-and-Holmes-as-an-old-married-couple angle in this one – watch the bit towards the end where Holmes is practically sitting in Watson’s lap.

Movie review – Holmes #11 – The Woman in Green” (1945) ***

The Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series were very violent – this one is about a serial killer bumping off young women a la Jack the Ripper and severing their finger. It starts with a more downbeat, film noir tone, with narration from a police inspector (not Lestrade – some other guy, Gregson, Matthew Boulton, not comic but he seems to be no more competent) – and there is lots of smoking.

This one has the benefit of Henry Daniell as Moriarty – after appearing in the series as a henchman and a red herring, it’s great to see him centre stage. Unfortunately after a great beginning, this doesn’t quite hit the top mark. There’s not enough duelling between Holmes and Moriarty (there’s only one scene together); indeed there’s not enough Moriarty full stop. Also, after they set up this killer plot it then gets bogged down into all this stuff about blackmail and hypnotism (there are two long hypnotism scenes). It’s awfully complicated of Moriarty to go around killing people in order to blackmail them – couldn’t he do something less violent? The finale isn’t that exciting because it’s obvious Holmes would never be hypnotised. With the benefit of hindsight, this can perhaps be seen to be the start of the series’ decline.

The support cast isn’t bad, with an okay femme fetale (Hillary Brooke) and an excellent creepy sidekick of Holmes who is the one who cuts off fingers. Moriarty plunges to his death for the fourth time in the series – I’m not kidding, the fourth time!

There’s a touching moment where Moriarty tells Holmes he’s kidnapped Watson and Holmes gets worried. Holmes aficionados will also love the bit where a woman offers to inject Holmes with a drug to help him sleep and he reacts badly to the idea of drugs.

Movie review – Holmes #9 – “The Pearl of Death” (1945) ***1/2

Evelyn Ankers was best known for playing really likeable screaming damsels of distress in horror movies, so it’s fun to see her as a femme fetale, a jewel thief in cahoots with crime genius Miles Mander. This must have been a fun role for Ankers to do, as both she and Mander undertake a variety of disguises.

They are after an expensive pearl with a dark history, rather similar to the Koh-in-Noor diamond. Mander gets away with the pearl due to stuff up by Holmes, which is a fresh twist – he has to track it down. A lot of the film is scene from the point of view of Mander and Ankers – Holmes is playing catch up a lot of the time.

There’s a joker in a pack – a ruthless killer, the Creeper, who goes around breaking people’s backs. (The next time you hear some old soul go on about violence in the movies today, tell them about the Rathbone Holmes series – bodies chopped up and put in suitcases, a killer who breaks his victims backs, throats ripped out.)

This one has more gadgets – a book with a dagger that lunges out of it, secret messages on plates. There’s also a bigger role for Lestrade and a clever bit where Holmes listens in on a conversation between Ankers and Mander, then impersonates Mander.

Mander is a smart crook (he steals a pearl from under Holmes’ noses, gets a gun off Holmes due to Holmes’s monologuing) but even though he admits to Holmes he gets a lot of ideas from him, Holmes says he doesn’t like crooks like Mander because they have the stench of cruelty. Personally I think he’s just a poor loser. (Though it is contrived that Mander doesn’t shoot Holmes at the end when he has the chance – and lets him chat away turning the Creeper against Mander).

Rondo Hatton is a surprise in this one, as the Creeper with the crush on Evelyn Ankers, who is used by Ankers and Mander for evil ends. He’s not very smart though, being easily conned by Holmes then charging at him. Still, an effective villain, and his appearance packs a wallop.

This is very strong Holmes entry, a lot of fun. No real war talk at the end, just Holmes going on about people being greedy over pearls and wouldn’t it be nice if we weren’t like that.

Movie review – Holmes #8 – “The Scarlet Claw” (1944) ****

French Canada always seems to have this glamour lacking in English-speaking Canada, and it provides a wonderfully spooky setting for this gruesome Holmes tale. A lady has been killed – her throat was ripped out, just like recent killings of sheep. Rumours blame it on a local legend, a la Hound of the Baskervilles (which Watson refers to) but when Holmes receives a letter from the deceased asking to help, he investigates.

There’s mysterious inn keepers, not one but two beautiful tormented girls, lots of lurking around the moors, a bit of special effects (a glowing creature running loose – which Holmes shoots at without first saying “stop” or anything), a scared judge in a wheelchair, a cosy pub where the fifty worders sing songs.

The story is very strong, one of the best in the series. Holmes has to work really hard to figure out what’s going on. The villain is strong, a crazy actor who is a master of disguise and very smart. He’s a different sort of villain to the normal Moriarty’s because we never know who he is… yet we’re aware of his presence for the last half hour (we see him in shadows, using false voices, etc). In one scary scene he kills a judge by taking over the judge’s maid’s identity (it’s a big shock – like Anthony Perkins in a dress in Psycho) – then basically ripping the judge’s throat out with a trowel!

So you can forgive the fact that there’s a monologing confession scene where he’s pointing a gun at Holmes and says to him “I can see no reason why I shouldn’t tell you” and delivers a batch of exposition. This is a lazy moment in an otherwise first-rate script.

There’s also a full on scene where they discover a young girl has been killed – this has special impact because Holmes is really affected by it, by more than any death in the series to date. (Watson takes it in stride.) The Spider Woman is more fun, but this is the darkest of the Rathbone Holmes – with Holmes quite happily letting the murdered be killed. It gets better and better as it goes on, although to be honest you can pick the main disguise the killer uses because the moustache is a bit too obvious. Miles Matheson is excellent as a paranoid judge,

There is no war stuff except for Holmes quoting Churchill on Canada at the end – maybe because to compensate for it not being a particularly positive depiction of that country (with moors and killers).

Movie review – Holmes #7 – “The Spider Woman” (1944) ****

There’s a mysterious spate of suicides – but Holmes says he’s too ill to investigate it because of dizzy spells. He falls in the river and everyone thinks he’s drowned – which is a pretty full on way of starting the movie, even though of course he’s faking, because Watson, Lestrade and Mrs Hudson genuinely think he’s dead and are really upset. Watson is going through scrapbooks of their old cases (including The Giant Rat of Sumatra) when Holmes turns up. Apart from this rather nasty trick of Holmes, this is the best Rathbone Holmes movie – just over an hour, without an ounce of fat on it, everyone in top form.

Holmes is convinced that the crimes are committed by a woman because they are particularly malicious and cruel. In this he’s right – it’s Gale Sondegaard, a terrific antagonist for Holmes. So Holmes blacks up and goes undercover as an Indian royal… but it’s not long before Sondegaard figures out who he is.

The duels between Rathbone and Sondegaard are wonderful – lots of flirting and intelligence. It’s wonderful when Sondegaard visits Holmes place and each one knows what the other one has been up to, and are clearly enjoying the fact. But then, just to remind everyone that they’re not mates – she almost kills Holmes with a deadly gas. It’s a great shame she was never brought back again as a character in the series.

There’s also plenty of spook factor, with the baddies killing people using a combination of deadly spiders and a pygmy – even creepier is the scene with the little kid who catches imaginary fliers. Actually there’s lots of memorable scenes: Watson thinks Holmes has visited him in disguise – but it’s actually a real person; Watson does something genuinely useful, recognising a skeleton as one belonging to an adult, not a child; Holmes and Watson visiting a spider expert; Sondegaard luring Holmes to danger by appealing to his sense of drama (setting up at a sideshow); and a brilliant climax where Sondegaard tries to kill Holmes via a shooting gallery (Watson is a good shot but fortunately a bit slow).

War propaganda is limited to Holmes going to a sideshow alley and shooting at targets including Mussolini and Hirohito. No war speech at the end, although Holmes comments on how it was clever on Sondegaard to try and kill people in a crowd – perhaps a criticism of our selfish ways or something. Actually, nah., I’m just reading things into it.

Movie review - Holmes #10 - "Sherlock Holmes and the House of Fear" (1945) ***

Another very strong Holmes entry, even if it doesn't quite reach the top rank. Based on Doyle's story the "Adenture of the Five Orange Pips" this has Watson and Holmes investigate the deaths of members of a secret society in Scotland. This is pleasingly creepy, mostly set in a cliff top castle with lots of lightning and thunderstorms, with Aubrey Mathers fun as a batty member of the society (although the support cast isn't as strong as in previous entries). There is a solid twist at the end. No war propaganda.

Movie review – Holmes #6 – “Sherlock Holmes Faces Death” (1943) ***

After three war films, Universal came up with a good old-fashioned nasty family story for Holmes (although it does have a war link, being set at a house that’s been converted into a home for convalescent soldiers). The horrible Musgraves live in isolated Musgrave Manor, complete with an eavesdropping alcoholic butler, windswept grounds, secret passageways, crypts, a family curse and a clock that strikes thirteen times (“the last time that happened was the night X died”) –and a house guest, Watson, who is looking after the soldiers. Someone is stabbed in the neck, so Holmes is called in.

Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.

It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.

In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)