Review - "Sleuth" (1972)

There are lots of tributes to the mystery genre. Some of them are good - some are less than wonderful - and some are quite bad. Nevertheless, every once and a while there's a tribute which is extraordinarily enjoyable and even flip the genre on its head. That's what 1972's "Sleuth" successfully does, making it a real treat to fans of mysteries and a good old fashioned thriller.

Laurence Oliver is Andrew Wyke, a mystery novelist known the world over. He has invited a young man named Milo Tindle (Michael Caine) to his stately manor in the country since Milo wants to run off with Andrew's wife. Surprisingly, Andrew gives his consent and even goes as far to stage a fake robbery so Milo and his wife can run off together with a good deal of money. However, Andrew double crosses Milo, pulling a gun on him and shooting him dead. And that's when things really heat up...

I won't divulge any more of the plot of this film since it is such a treat to be surprised. "Sleuth" is based off of Anthony Shaffer's Tony award-winning play, and it's quite evident in the film. The entire movie has only one setting and two characters. Everything is based off of these two men's performances but they carry it off brilliantly. Both Laurence Oliver and Michael Caine were nominated for an Academy Award for their roles in this film, and I really think that Oliver deserved it. While Michael Caine is good, he is rather out-shined by Oliver, who is tremendous. He carries off the role of Andrew Wyke brilliantly, bringing to life what can happen when we mystery enthusiasts go off the deep end. "How would you like to be found dead," Andrew asks Milo, "Slumped over a desk like so many colonels in so many studies or propped up in a log basket like a ragdoll? Which do you fancy early Agatha Christie or vintage S.S. Van Dine."

As a said above, in addition to be a beautiful homage to the mystery genre, "Sleuth" is a taught and suspenseful thriller. The deadly game which Andrew and Milo indulge in is brilliant, and with each passing moment the tension builds. I think that because the movie is done in a very theatre-esque style, this adds to the level of suspense and intrigue, as you imagine yourself in a live audience watching this unfold before you. I was actually lucky enough to see this show performed at a local theatre a few years ago, and it made me want to track down this famed movie version.

To the best of my knowledge, the movie is not available on DVD. However, at the time of this writing, the entire movie has been uploaded onto YouTube. I am not advocating piracy on this blog, but I do highly recommend jumping at the opportunity to see this fine, fine movie (if you don't mind what I believe are Russian subtitles). "Sleuth" receives a 4.5 out of 5 stars!

The Immortal Sherlock Holmes - The Verdict

The votes are in and have been counted. You, the people of the Internet from across the world, have voted on who you think is the Immortal Sherlock Holmes. I have already looked at the three candidates in depth, and those three pieces of analysis can be found on this blog.

Anyway, the results have been up for a few days now, so I'll just give my feedback. I must say that I was rather surprised. Jeremy Brett had had the lead for quite some time, and at the very last minute Basil Rathbone swooped in from underneath and won by two votes. To the nine people who voted, I thank you.

Do I agree with your sentiment - I don't really know. Basil Rathbone was one of my very first Sherlockian encounters, so he does hold a special place in my heart. Nevertheless, when I pick up a pastiche or re-read one of Doyle's stories, Rathbone is not the face who I imagine. To be perfectly honest, I cannot describe the face of the Sherlock Holmes who I imagine. It's perhaps a strange hybrid of some of the greats. Together, they are all added together in the blender which is my mind and produce the ideal characterization. I think that Basil Rathbone was wonderful as Holmes. In his first few films when there was still a challenge to playing the detective, you could tell that Rathbone was on top of the world and having so much fun with it. That's why I cite the two films that Rathbone made at 20th Century Fox as superior to the one's at Universal. While they're all great, "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" present us with an actor who looks like he is having a fantastic time playing the role of the detective.

When Basil Rathbone and company moved to Universal Studios, it became obvious after a while that Rathbone lost interest in the part of the detective. His last few turns as Holmes are very dull and he cannot breathe any life in the stories. I cite "Pursuit to Algiers" as a case-in-point. An already painfully slow and dull story, this film could have been saved if Rathbone was in top form as Holmes. However, Basil Rathbone walks through the part, making the movie seem as though it's twice as long as it should be. But, really who could blame Rathbone? He had been playing Holmes almost non-stop for six years. He needed a new challenge - something to actually stimulate him. He of course found that when he returned to the stage and won a Tony for his role in "The Heiress."

Great Detective or Chief Whip?

Before I talk about some of the others, I wanted to point out one in particular. Thanks to TomCat, who was the only person to answer the question I posed to those taking the poll, I can sum up the brief but impressive turn of Ian Richardson as Sherlock Holmes. I have written before of how vastly underrated Ian Richardson is as Sherlock Holmes. His performance is quite brilliant and he really dominates every scene in which appears. Much like Rathbone, he looks like he's having such a grand old time playing Holmes, even when's caught in the midst of some ludicrous situations (i.e. wrestling the pygmy in "The Sign of Four" or grappling with the hound in "Hound of the Baskervilles). Richardson is an overlooked star, and his two films - though flawed - are great fun for any Sherlock Holmes fan who has not yet discovered them. If you can track them down, I highly recommend both of them just for the pure entertainment value which they possess. 

Incidentally, Richardson had a wonderful career aside from Sherlock Holmes. He is perhaps best remembered by audiences today as playing Francis Urquhart, Chief Whip of British Parliament in the immensely successful "House of Cards" series. I confess that I have never actually seen the series in its entirety, however from what I have seen, Richardson is fantastic, cheekily addressing the audience, letting them in on his evil schemes. Richardson is also well remembered for (oddly enough) mustard. Take a look!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmOHeWrr9V4

Lastly, but certainly not least is Jeremy Brett. Brett was winning in the poll for some time, which honestly did not surprise me. I think to fans of the canon, Brett is the epitome of Sherlock Holmes. No one before him had gone to such lengths in order to recreate the character so vividly. Jeremy Brett portrayed the character brilliantly - to a point. In my mind, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" (1984) is perhaps hallowed ground. It is some of the finest Sherlock Holmes material I have ever come across, and I honestly cannot find any flaws with it. It's only in the later series do we see Brett's illnesses really begin to take a toll on him, and the quality of his scripts plummet. Take for example, "The Mazarin Stone" from "The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes." Surely one of the more weaker stories, the Granada series decided to ignore a great deal of the plot and shoe-horned in the plot of "The Three Garridebs." Oh - Jeremy Brett is only in that episode for about two minutes. It's quite sad how far the Granada series sank in just a few years.

In all, I think it is quite interesting to see where Sherlockian's hearts lie. Perhaps someday to get a non-biased opinion, I'll conduct an experiment showing Basil, Jeremy and Peter side-by-side-by-side to a group of people unfamiliar with the three to see who chooses the most Sherlock Holmes-esque. But that's for another time. Until then, Basil Rathbone still reigns supreme here on the Consulting Detective.

The Rise of the Hardboiled Detective and Film Noir

Here's my first non Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Who related post! Enjoy!

Perhaps it's not exactly the best thing to do, but I have always grouped the hardboiled detective and Film Noir together. Perhaps this comes from the fact that the stereotypical hardboiled detective really emerged during the Film Noir era when books such as "The Maltese Falcon" and "The Big Sleep" were first released.

To be frank, Film Noir was never really may favourite genre. It has recently grown on me, and I find the films of the time to be enjoyable in the extreme. Does that mean I like everything which has emerged in the Film Noir genre - good heavens no! I don't like everything which has been released in the Sherlock Holmes sub-genre. However, since I find the concept of the hardboiled detective and Film Noir to be fascinating I thought it would make for a nice introduction to my my new reviews of the mystery genre on a whole.

I suppose I ought to really start with the hardboiled detective since I think this character is perhaps one of the most interesting in the history of mystery fiction. As I posted quite a while back, I made the case that Sherlock Holmes was in fact the first hardboiled detective, and some of the similarities are uncanny, however in the hands of Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, the hardboiled detective took on a completely different spin. In my opinion, the hardboiled detective is the epitome of the anti-hero and characters like this paved the way for more anti-heroes in the future (James Bond springs to mind).

Raymond Chandler

When I was first introduced to the concept of the hardboiled detective, I was not truly a fan. In my mind, a true detective belongs in a "fair play" mystery where they are gathering the clues together and eventually expose the murderer in the final chapter. So imagine my surprise when as a young lad, I found "The Maltese Falcon" and discovered this story featured very few of the characteristics of my preferred mysteries. I tried to cling to these preferences when I decided to try a Raymond Chandler novel. I decided to opt for "Lady in the Lake" because it was supposed to be the most Agatha Christie-like Chandler novel. To put it mildly, I was disappointed.

I'm inclined to agree with the general popular opinion that Chandler is a good writer. He managed to get the tough side of Philip Marlowe, his detective, across, but maintaining a likability about him. Even though Marlowe would not be a person I'd like a great deal if I met him tomorrow in a shop, I cannot help but think that Marlowe is a really good guy. But aside from Chandler's descriptions and characterization, I cannot really say that the rest of the story was all that good. To be perfectly honest, it was actually quite forgettable. I have not yet read "The Big Sleep" or any of Chandler's other work, since I have heard many conflicting opinions about his novels. I'm also not too keen on reading a book where even the author didn't know who committed one of the murders. Call me crazy, but I feel like the author of a mystery novel should know the outcome of his book.

While the works of Raymond Chandler may not be my cup of tea, that doesn't mean I put down all things in the Noir genre. In fact, I have made it a point to track down some of the most famous Film Noir movies. What's nice about this genre is that the stories vary greatly. Under the umbrella of Film Noir we have such diverse films as "I Wake Up Screaming," "The Bribe," "Out of the Past" and "Sorry, Wrong Number." These are just a few off the top of my head, and three of those four made a great impression upon me. "I Wake Up Screaming" was probably my first real Noir film which I sat all the way through and liked immensely. While the plot is pretty straightforward and utilizes a number of Film Noir tropes, it's still a very entertaining motion picture. If you're looking for originality, "Sorry, Wrong Number" is the way to go. Barbra Stanwyck is wonderful as a bedridden woman, who when she picks up the phone, hears her husband discussing her murder to a hit-man he has hired.

Some film historians debate over what is the best example of Film Noir, and while I cannot give a definitive answer, I can give my opinion to one of the more recent Noir films I've seen. "Out of the Past" (1947) is oftentimes cited as being the greatest Film Noir movie. Starring Robert Mitchum as a one-time gumshoe, he soon becomes involved with the woman he used to love (Jane Greer) and a dangerous crime boss (Kirk Douglas). "Out of the Past" features some of the classic tropes of the genre, but it makes the movie seem so enjoyable. Mithcum, Greer and Douglas are all brilliant in their roles and the film making is top notch. If you have any interest in Noir whatsoever or good film making, "Out of the Past" comes highly recommended from me.

There is honestly too much material to cover here all at once, so I hope to keep up with Film Noir in the future. My plans going forward with the hardboiled detective are somewhat vague. I have wanted to give Raymond Chandler his second chance, and perhaps get around to actually reading "The Maltese Falcon." I'll probably have much more respect for this classic film once I have read the book.

Notes: Another confession - I really got interested in tracking down Film Noir movies after I saw the 1982 comedy, "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." This very enjoyable parody of the Film Noir era features Steve Martin as a gumshoe and he is able to interact with some of the screen's most famous faces due to clever writing and some good editing. It's a very clever film for any fan of the films of the '30's and '40's.

Review - "Doctor Who: The Rings of Akhaten"

Warning: If you have not seen this episode, make sure that you do so before continuing this review as it will contain spoilers.

Season 7 Part 2 has surely continued with style and great flair in "The Rings of Akhaten." After Clara (Jenna-Louise Coleman) wishes to see "something awesome," the Doctor (Matt Smith) decides to take her to the Festival of Offerings on the titular Rings of Akhaten. However, things don't go exactly as the Doctor planned when Clara runs into a little girl named Merry who has been chosen as the Queen of Years who shall be sacrificed to the ring's god. Can the Doctor save her in time before the god awakens...?

I for one didn't quite know exactly what to expect in this episode. It wasn't exactly the episode I was looking forward to most, but it did have some interesting looking scenes and the promise of plenty of aliens seemed interesting. Well, I certainly wasn't disappointed during this episode - it exceeded my expectations dramatically. While it did take a little while to truly get going, once it did I thought it was very well done. It was nice that we got some more background on Clara, although we are still no closer to discovering who she is and how she could have survived in two different forms.

Matt Smith was wonderful as usual in this episode - he didn't have a great deal to do in the episode's beginning, but as the story progressed he was up to his usual tricks as always. What's more, Matt Smith is given two brilliant monologues in this episode. The latter of which, as he is confronting the god of the episode, is positively brilliant and really gave me chills. Also to see the Doctor shedding a few tears is rather jarring and isn't all that common in the show. However, the real acting chops have to be given to Jenna-Louise Coleman who really stands in this story. She occupies the episode's middle and she really shows she has the potential to be a great companion. I have a feeling by next week's story, she will be firmly routed in her character and we can continue proper.

Mono a Mono

As I stated above, the episode does take a while to really get going. Despite an interesting flashback, the first portion of the episode is a little padded and the banter between the Doctor and Clara falls a bit flat. In addition, the "mummy" of the episode really doesn't have a whole lot to do. While touted throughout teasers for the season, the "mummy" doesn't do anything more than roar and break some glass before it goes away. That is an underused monster if there ever was one. It would have been nice if this creature actually had more bearing to the plot other than foreshadowing the arrival of the ring's god. In addition, those strange creatures which can be glimpsed on the episode's poster (see above) were extraordinarily underused when they had so much potential.

Well in all, "The Rings of Akhaten" really did exceed my expectations. Jenna-Louise Coleman continues to prove herself a worthy TARDIS traveler and Matt Smith is still at top form. Combining some nice cinematography with good writing, this episode was actually quite, quite good. I award it a 3.5 out of 5.

Coming Next Time: After 39 years, the Ice Warriors return in "Cold War" (Click here for a little teaser)

A Big Announcement

The last time I gave a big announcement on this blog, I told the world that I would be be balancing Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who reviews and analysis. Well, I have come to a realization - this blog should cover more than two topics. Granted, my main focus will continue to be Sherlock Holmes, but just like some other blogs akin to mine, I will explore more than one or two things. Mysteries - here I come.

Perhaps I should be a bit more specific on this. From now on, when I get the chance, I will be reviewing other books in the mystery and thriller genre aside from the exploits of the world's most famous detective and everyone's favourite Time Lord. This means Agatha Christie, Raymond Chandler and others will now be topics covered on this blog.

I'm very excited and hope that you will continue to stop in on this blog. In the coming days you can expect my analysis on the hard-boiled detective and the Noir genre!

A Question to All Those Taking the Poll

I would like to ask a question to some of those who are answering the poll. If you have not taken the poll yet, you still have three days to answer it, so please do! Anyway - one of the options is "Someone Else." If you have voted for "Someone Else" could you please leave a comment on this post with the specific name of the actor who you believe is the Immortal Sherlock Holmes?

This will be most helpful when it comes time for me to post about the poll and mull over the results in the next few days. Thank you!

Sixth Doctor VII - "Timelash"

Back on 1 March when I reviewed "The Two Doctors," I wondered if I could survive "Timelash," the next Sixth Doctor adventure which has a reputation for being quite, quite horrid. Well, since it's been over a month, I assume some of you believed that I had not survived the Timelash. Well, I did, and after days and weeks of procrastination, I've finally gotten around to formally reviewing it.

The TARDIS becomes entangled in a time corridor. When the Doctor (Colin Baker) and Peri (Nicola Bryant) emerge unharmed, they find themselves on the planet Karfal. What at first seems like a peaceful planet is anything but since the planet is ruled by an evil dictator known as the Borad. When Peri is kidnapped, the Doctor is sent on a mission to recover a princess who has disappeared through space.

On a whole, the premise of "Timelash" isn't all that bad. The planet being ruled by an evil dictator is hardly new, but it's done in an interesting way here and the band of resisters is reminiscent of some of the earlier Doctor Who serials. In addition, Colin Baker is still in top form as the Doctor. He's a bit colder and meaner here than in the past - perhaps that's because he's been separated from Peri and therefore there is no one to melt the Doctor's heart(s) of ice. Nonetheless, Colin Baker shows that the Sixth Doctor is a pretty smart guy, and dabbles in a bit of inventing as the story progresses.

While we're looking at the positives of this story, I would like to point out the Borad in particular (whose visage is clearly seen on the DVD cover seen above). At a time when the special effects and makeup for the show were at an all-time low, the Borad actually appears to be quite menacing and extraordinarily evil. However, there isn't much more that can be truly considered "great" or "above average" in this story. While the concept of the Doctor meeting H.G. Wells and inspiring him to write "The Time Machine," is an interesting plot development in this story, it really doesn't go anywhere and doesn't stand up well when the idea is examined in more detail.

The acting (aside from Colin Baker and Nicola Bryant) isn't all that good in this story. It's dreadful, but certainly nothing fantastic. On a whole it's only mediocre. Much like "Mark of the Rani," I found this story to simple be mediocre. It's not that it is bad, but I simply wasn't impressed. Would I say that this serial deserves the title of worst Doctor Who story - no. Would I say that it is the weakest story from the show's 22nd season thus far - yes indeed. It's just an average, rather forgettable story and I really cannot say much more than that about "Timelash."

Coming Next Time: I have a bit more to say about "Revelation of the Daleks"

Notes: The idea of H.G. Wells travelling through time and space is actually a great idea. Since he wrote some of the most famous science fiction stories of all time, I feel like having Wells as a central character in a science-fiction story is grand. While "Timelash" isn't exactly the best example this, I willingly recommend "Time After Time." Written and directed by Nicholas Meyer ("The Seven-Per-Cent Solution"), this 1979 movie finds Malcolm McDowell's Wells travelling to present day San Francisco to catch Jack the Ripper (David Warner) who has escaped authorities in Well's time machine. It's a fun, creepy and very entertaining film.