“But isn’t it time we stopped accepting in film criticism an anti-emotional, phony rationalism which we know to be not just harmful, but absurd, in any other context? Isn’t it time we plucked up our courage and allowed our hearts as well as our heads to go the pictures?”
Raymond Durgnat (Films and Feelings) 1971
Search This Blog
REVIEW: Enola Holmes
Inspired by the children's book series by Nancy Springer, Netflix's new film, Enola Holmes, turns the spotlight onto the younger sister of the famed detective as a new mystery thrusts her into an insidious conspiracy that compels her to take control of her own life and leave her own mark. The film's greatest achievement is reaffirming that lead actress Millie Bobby Brown of Stranger Things is indeed one of the most promising up and coming talents around and can seemingly step into any role with enthusiasm, but beyond that there's little about this film to celebrate.
Enola Holmes lives alone with her mother, Eudoria (Helena Bonham-Carter), away from the pursuits of her much older, much more accomplished older brothers--the snooty Mycroft (Sam Clafin) and the ever-charming, ever famous Sherlock (Henry Cavill). Enola enjoys the attention of her mother until Eudoria vanishes without warning. It is this disappearance that summons her older brothers back to the estate to see their little sister taken care of. Traditional Mycroft wants to see her initiated into a proper finishing school that will stamp out the eccentricities Enola has inherited from her mother, leaving Enola with no choice but to set off on an adventure to find her mother, and maybe herself as well.
Brown holds her own against more seasoned actors like Cavil and Clafin, which is unmistakable from her very first interaction with them. The dynamic between these three leads is vibrant but unfortunately unmatched by most of the remaining cast members, most notably Louis Partridge who plays the young viscount at the center of the sinister plot as well as Enola's love interest. Even the luminous Helena Bonham Carter feels oddly restrained in a surprisingly incidental role.
Inherent in a film about the unknown little sister of a literary icon such as Sherlock Holmes are feminist undertones. This film grabs onto those undertones and brings them to the forefront of this story. The surging movement for women's rights in late 19th century England serves as the backdrop for this young woman learning what she is capable of. And, for the most part, the movie is clever about how this female empowerment manifests itself. Here's a film where corsets and flowers are just another tool within our heroine's arsenal. The movie still calls out some forms of traditional femininity as inherently restrictive (finishing school is framed as purgatory) but the movie also isn't afraid to let Enola look beautiful in a dress.
Yet for a branch of the Sherlock Holmes mythology, the plotting of the film isn't terribly clever. Various topics and talking points are tossed out through expository dialogue, very few of them satisfactorily explored through action. Moreover, the plot is unfocused and incohesive. Enola answers the call to find out what happened to her mother, but her attention is quickly diverted by a mildly charming boy thrown into Lordship after the mysterious death of his father, leading to an entirely different plotline with only the most tenuous of links to Eudoria's disappearance.
More frustratingly Enola's place as the younger sister of the famous Sherlock Holmes plays almost no part in the narrative. The movie tries driving home a point about how Sherlock's pursuit of fame and excellence has made him neglectful of his family and especially Enola. Various characters call him out for having left her unsupported, claims which are made doubly confusing by the rapport he and Enola demonstrate so effortlessly, even early on in the film. One character reprimands Sherlock for not truly knowing his sister immediately after a scene wherein Enola effortlessly recounts intimate knowledge of her brother, his favorite meals and board games and such.
It's unmistakable that between her two brothers she much prefers Sherlock over Mycroft, but Mycroft's failings are never given the same weight for some reason. It's not as though there was no potential for any number of genuinely fascinating plot formations, but the film makes use of none of these, such that the film might have been cleaner without that distraction.
In the end, the film is a parade of Millie Bobby Brown's boundless talent that leaves a trail of intriguing but underdeveloped ideas struggling to keep up.
As a millennial Disney fan and film student in utero, I often thought about what it would have been like to be there when Aladdin or The Little Mermaid , or even “Snow White” or The Jungle Book , premiered to the culture. It’s one thing to grow up and realize you have a piece of film history with you here in your living room. It’s another to get to watch the culture transform as it engages for the first time with something And I have this envy for a great many cinematic works. Like, what I would give to go back to 1946 and tell those losers who dismissed It's a Wonderful Life how they had no idea what they were sleeping on. But the Disney canon’s place within the culture is also specific. Their commitment to delivering hopeful stories to an audience that believes itself beyond such frailties as faith or kindness is unparalleled, and that makes their contributions worth studying and celebrating. And so I didn’t take it for granted during that period in late 2013/early ...
It was about this time last year that I came across the one person who actually hated Toy Story 3 . I was reading Jason Sperb’s book “Flickers of Film: Nostalgia in the Age of Digital Cinema” as part of my research for my essay on Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Pokemon: Detective Pikachu . It was in one of his chapters on the Pixar phenomenon that he shared his observation from the ending of Toy Story 3 , essentially casting the film as this nostalgia mousetrap for adults: “ If Andy lets go of his childhood nostalgia and moves on, then Toy Story fans don’t really have to , as the narrative recognition in the potential value in such an act is sufficient. Actually moving on becomes indefinitely deferred in an endless cycle of consumption (rewatching the movies, purchasing new versions of the movie, purchasing more and more Toy Story-related merchandise, rewatching them yet again with the next generat...
Anyone else remember the year we spent wondering if we would ever again see a movie that wasn't coming out in 3D? T hat surge in 3D films in the early months of 2010 led to a number of questionable executive decisions. We saw a lot of films envisioned as standard film experiences refitted into the 3D format at the eleventh hour. In the ten years since, 3D stopped being profitable because audiences quickly learned the difference between a film that was designed with the 3D experience in mind and the brazen imitators . Perhaps the most notorious victim of this trend was the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans . Why am I suddenly so obsessed with the fallout of a film gone from the public consciousness ten years now? Maybe it's me recently finishing the first season of Blood of Zeus on Netflix and seeing so clearly what Clash of the Titans very nearly was. Maybe it's my evolving thoughts on the Percy Jacks...
Following this year's Oscars ceremony, filmmakers Phil Lord and Chris Miller, directors of The Lego Movie , penned an op-ed for Variety bemoaning the stigma around animated films. They report taking issue with Naomi Scott, one of the presenters for best animated film, saying that animated films are some of the most formative experiences a kid has, and that kids tend to watch these films over and over, further noting "I think some of the parents out there know exactly what I'm talking about." Lord and Miller seemed to take this as implying that adults can't appreciate animated films, saying "Surely no one set out to diminish animated films, but it’s high time we set out to elevate them." I didn't personally find Scott's observation that kids make their parents watch the same animated films over and over again innately demeaning--certainly not any more than Schumer joking that her toddler made he...
Some will say, "We don't need another edgy superhero!" But that's not what makes the utter mediocrity of DC's new Supergirl so devastating. People were saying "We don't need another X superhero" since 2012, and the post-Infinity saga stupor we've slogged through was not triggered by piling one-too-many superheroes onto the camel's back. The Flash sucked because its perversion of the butterfly effect theory was convoluted and ham-fisted. Black Adam sucked because nobody on that film knew what a moral dilemma actually looks like. "Love and Thunder" sucked because, despite what everyone thought in 2017, Waititi's style only barely worked in "Ragnarok" and was not going to work in a script which feels like it was farted out half-past midnight. Supergirl had none of those issues. The real tragedy of Supergirl is that it so easily could have worked. Drifting around the universe has mostly worked for Sup...
In book ten of Metamorphoses, Greek poet Ovid tells the tale of Pygmalion, a talented sculptor living in the height of ancient Greek society. According to the story, Pygmalion’s sculpting prowess was so impeccable that one of his pieces, a marble woman he christened Galatea, was said to be the lovelier than any woman of flesh and blood. Pygmalion was so taken by his creation that he brought her exotic gifts, kissed her marble cheeks, even prepared a luxurious bed for her. Pygmalion so pined to be loved by Galatea that he prayed to the goddess Aphrodite to allow Galatea to reciprocate his love and affection. Aphrodite was apparently in a good mood that day, so she granted Pygmalion’s wish, giving life to Galatea, whom he then wed. The story of Pygmalion is in essence the story of a man who creates his own idealized woman out of whole cloth (or more appropriately, marble), endowing her with all the traits that he finds appealing or alluring. The story also provides a m...
I'm conflicted about how to approach this review. I know everyone has their own yellow brick road to the myth of The Wizard of Oz as a whole and the specific Broadway adaptation that brought us all here. I don't want to write this only for others who are familiar with the source material. Even so, I can't help but review this from the perspective of a fan of the Broadway show--someone who has been tracking the potential for a film adaptation since before Jon M. Chu's participation was announced for the ambitious undertaking of translating one of Broadway's most electric shows onto film. I can't help but view this from the vantage point of someone who knew just how many opportunities this had to go wrong. And it's from that vantage point that I now profess such profound relief that the gambit paid off. We truly have the " Lord of the Rings of musicals ." What Jon M. Chu and his team have done here with these two...
There's a quote from critic Mark Caro that I think about a lot. I shared it back when I did my critical survey of Pixar movies . Writing about Finding Nemo , Caro wrote in the Chicago Tribune in 2003 , "Classic film eras tend to get recognized in retrospect while we take for granted timeless works passing before our eyes. So let's pause to appreciate what's been going on at Pixar Animation Studios." I think that captures the aspirations of all active-minded media consumers. Or at least, it ought to. "This good thing won't last forever, so savor it before the sun goes down." Modern Times (1936) But this is also a very hard mindset to access in an online culture that is always seeking to stamp labels and scores on a thing before we shove it on the conveyor belt and move on to the next parcel. It's something I have been thinking about for the last year or so as the completion of the Stranger ...
Film is a mysterious thing. It triggers emotional responses in the audience that are as surprising as they are all-encompassing. As a medium, film is capable of painting stunning vistas that feel like they could only come to life behind the silver screen, but many of the most arresting displays on film arise from scenes that are familiar, perhaps even mundanely so. It’s an artform built on rules and guidelines–young film students are probably familiar with principles like the rule of thirds or the Kuleshov effect–but someone tell me the rule that explains why a line like “We’ll always have Paris,” just levels you. There are parts of the film discussion that cannot be anticipated by a formula or a rulebook, and for that we should be grateful. Arrival (2016) But the thing about film–and especially film criticism–is that film critics are not soothsayers. Their means of divining the artis...
I once counted myself among the crowd who categorically dismissed scary movies simply because I didn't see myself as person who liked scary movies. They were uncomfortable, they were vile, and they were dumb. Today I'm a little more open to the horror genre in large part because I've learned that not all scary movies are so aggressively morbid. I owe much of this transition to the research I've put in to horror films of classical Hollywood. Until about the 1960's the Hays code placed heavy lines on what kind of content could be featured in films. Many filmmakers felt restricted by these limitations, but this limitation did force filmmakers to find ways to scare audiences without using gore or violence, two things that usually frighten viewers away from the genre. As a result, many films we would classify under the "horror" genre from pre-1965 are really good testing grounds for viewers curious about the genre. If you're certain Nightmare on Elm Stre...
Comments
Post a Comment