A New Clue

So there might be a remake of the “Clue” movie. I’m not really sure what to feel about that. I mean, on one hand, remakes can be good (even though quite some aren’t). On the other hand, “Clue” was mostly as good as it was because of the cast, most of which, for one reason or other, won’t be available for a remake. I’m not sure someone can successfully replace Madeline Khan as Mrs. White or Tim Curry as butler Wadsworth. That doesn’t mean, though, I can’t be wrong.

The original “Clue” movie, thirty years old by now, is one of those secret gems which you either love or hate. There’s really no in-between. Either you enjoy the take on the classic Manor-Murder-Mystery genre as written by the likes of Agatha Christie or you simply find the jokes off-base and the whole story convoluted. I learned about it by accident, when a TV station showed it and I zapped in and stayed. Afterwards, I went on a hunt for the DVD and found it. Since then, it has been in my DVD player oodles of times. I just love the movie.

“Clue” is a comedic take on the classic mysteries which bring together a group of people at a place, show you there’s nobody else coming or going, and then have a murder happen. Who did it? In addition, the movie is loosely - very, very loosely - based on the board game by the same name. The six suspects take their names from the six suspects of the board game (Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet, Mr. Green, Mrs. Peacock, Professor Plum, and Mrs. White) and the ground floor of the mansion is cut like the board itself (including the secret passages between the corner rooms). Mr. Body, the victim (first victim in the movie), is also from the board game, but has a different background. By the end of the movie, six people have been killed (none of them one of the suspects, of course) and the question of who the murderer is looms in the main hall. It’s then when Wadsworth, the butler, will clear up the case, one way or other.

Originally, “Clue” had a little gimmick, like many movies over time. It came with three different endings, each of them putting the blame of a different person or different persons. In the DVD version, you can either have a randomly chosen ending or you can watch all three endings one after the other (with the classic ‘the butler did it’ ending as the ‘real’ one).

But it wasn’t the gimmick which made “Clue” a classic over time. Like some other classic movies, it was a sleeper - a movie which didn’t do too well at the movie theatres, but had a long and strong life afterwards in rentals and on TV. People enjoyed the movie, even those who were far too young to watch it when it was released. The movie has a lot of great lines which can be quoted in a variety of different situations. It had a great cast, too. And it managed to keep the comedic tone despite the six murders, which isn’t easy, either. It’s also one of the few movies in which I can endure Angela Lansbury for one and a half hours. (Two others being “Death on the Nile” and “Evil under the Sun.”) She pales a little against actors like Tim Curry, Christopher Lloyd, and, above all, Madeline Khan.

Now there’s talk of a remake and I’m not sure if I want that. There are movies which have the perfect formula, but a formula which only works with all the ingredients the way they are. I have the feeling “Clue” might be one of those. The fact alone that it was a sleeper and not an instant hit points to it for me.

What I’m most worried about, is the off-chance of a gritty remake. Admittedly, a movie with six murders might qualify as gritty, but the fact that “Clue” managed to keep the comedic tone even with all those murders was one of its strong points. It wasn’t as if the characters made jokes about the dead, but the way the movie handled the murders and, in some cases, the hiding of the corpses (the party scenes to hoodwink the police officer especially), was fun and classy at the same time. The way the reactions dampened from the first murder to the last (when the Singing Telegram girl hardly got a reaction out of the group) was both amusing and fitting, since there is a moment when the mind will just shut down.

A new movie might not be up to par with that. On the other hand, there is also a (slight) chance the remake might be better. Perhaps there will be an even better chemistry between the new actors. Perhaps the jokes and puns will be even more on point.

Fact is, whether or not the fans want it, if the owner of the rights wants to remake something, they will do so.

The Adventures of Sherlock Hound

This week, I had the chance to grab a DVD of the first season of “The Adventures of Sherlock Hound” (as is the English reference), an animated series made by Mr. Hayao ‘Spirited Away and other great Animes’ Miyazaki in the 1980s. The title Sherlock Hound is fitting, because all sentient beings in this series are dogs (well, Moriarty looks more like a wolf to me, but still…).

The series takes its freedom with the stories written by Doyle (like “The Blue Carbuncle” or “The Speckled Band”) and almost overuses Moriarty and his two henchmen (they’re essentially guilty of every crime in the series), but apart from that, it’s a highly enjoyable series which has aged well - something which can’t be said for all animated series made in the 1980s. It also has the most badass Mrs. Hudson I’ve ever seen in a Sherlock Holmes series. Honestly, the episode “The White Cliffs of Dover” has her spring across a garden wall with an axe to save a crashed aerialist and later on chase a plane in two cars (jumping from one into the other at full speed when the first car runs out of gas) with Watson holding on for his dear life. Before she lost her husband and became a landlady, she was piloting herself, too. She is a good deal younger than you usually see her portrayed, too, and capable of actually charming Moriarty when he has her kidnapped.

Even though the series was produced for children, it also doesn’t omit the dangerous parts. There are several episodes where bullets start to fly and usually the main characters survive through a mixture of agility and luck. Yet, the series also keeps a light tone and is enjoyable even if you watch it from episode 1 to episode 13 in one day as I did. The cases are logical and can be solved with the information you are given, so there’s never a feeling of being kept in the dark, either.

I’m also still amazed at how well the feelings of the characters are shown, since putting human emotions on dog faces isn’t all that easy. Yet there’s never a doubt as to what the characters feel.

From today’s point of view, the series also has a great Steampunk style to it, from Sherlock’s car over the regular use of steamboats and trains to Moriarty’s flying contraption and his steam tank (there is no better way to describe this monster of a ride). There are zeppelins, balloons, and dirigibles, interesting machinery, and a lot of fun situations that arise because of them. It also has a great intro music and a nice casting.

All in all, it’s a great series to watch, no matter whether you’re a kid with interest in Sherlock Holmes or an adult looking for something to fill a relaxing half an hour (or day).

Penny Dreadful

Yesterday, I got my hands on the first season of “Penny Dreadful.” Today, I started watching the episodes and simply couldn’t stop until I had seen all eight of them. They were even better, because they didn’t feel or look like your average ‘turn of the century’ series done at the moment. There’s series like “Ripper Street” which are great on their own, but especially that one never really caught me. “Penny Dreadful” does a lot of things in a different way and that is what makes it so great.

Years ago, when “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” came out (the movie which put Sean Connery off acting), there was a good base to it, but the realisation was bad. The comic series it’s based on, also called “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen” and done by Alan Moore, is a very good, very tight, and very well structured series. It introduces characters well. It gives the characters a good background and a believable set of traits. It makes the story run well and it takes its time. Which is precisely where the movie failed - badly. Fact is, if you want to bring together a group of characters from several novels (or other backgrounds), you need time to bring them all together. You can’t do a total of three or so minutes for every character as they do in the movie. But you can do a total of almost one episode per character in a series, which is what “Penny Dreadful” does.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a lot of horror stories were written and published, usually in the form of a penny dreadful, a weekly or monthly magazine filled with stories, cheap, printed like a newspaper, available for everyone. They in turn inspired authors to write more of that type, to take those scares to the ‘better’ market. “Dracula” and “Frankenstein” and “The Mysterious Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” bring together the three most important pieces of what Stephen King called the ‘Tarot’ of horror in his book “Danse Macabre.” The vampire, the creature, and the werewolf (because that is, deep down, what the story of Dr. Jekyll and his other self comes down to). Even though the series holds back on the werewolf for a long time, it brings together all three of the archetypes, including the demonic as well.

Then there’s the topic of life, of elongating life. It shows, of course, with Dr. Frankenstein, but also with the vampires (ever-lasting existence), with Dorian Grey (and his deal with the devil to stay young), and with Brona (who is on the verge of death and doesn’t want to die).

“Penny Dreadful” takes it slow with all those topics. It paces itself very well. We are introduced to the characters, to their stories, to their backgrounds. We are introduced to Victorian London (filmed in Dublin), to Victorian society with all its facets (including the dirties sides). We are pushed bit by bit into things, learning slowly what is going on actually.

The ending(s) of the story is(are) surprising enough, proving the old proverb of being careful of what you wish for (to Lord Malcolm). Things get turned upside down in the end, cards get shuffled, fates get dealt anew for most characters. The series leaves us hanging with very important questions: does Isabella desire to be normal, to be rid of everything dark about her? And if she does not, will she become what fate has chosen her to be? But there are similar questions attached to the other characters. What will become of Victor and his first ‘son?’ What will become of Ethan, now that he has shown his dark side in England? What will the master do, now that his bargaining chip is gone? (One question which bothered me during most of the series is where the hell the vampire masters get those masses of slaves from. Another was why all of those develop white hair, especially why all of the woman grow long, flowing, pure-white locks.)

I really enjoyed watching the first season of “Penny Dreadful” and I’m now looking forward to season two which has already been confirmed. I will also watch the episodes again at my leisure. The series is a rare gem and deserves to be treasured.

Only Lovers Left Alive

…or how to do a vampire love story right. “Only Lovers Left Alive” is a little independent movie by Jim Jarmusch. If you blinked last year, you probably missed it - and that’s a shame. The movie was released on DVD in Germany yesterday and I took the chance to snatch a copy for myself.

Okay, so my main reason was this:

But, seriously, the movie stars more people than just Tom Hiddleston, who is standing there and looking delicious. The main cast also includes Tilda Swinton, Mia Wasikowska, Anton Yelchin, and John Hurt. That’s also about all the main characters, four of which are vampires and one proves very mortal.

How do you make a vampire movie these days? With the vampire being one of the classic monsters of horror, it’s very much a case of ‘been there, done that’ for most things you could think of. ‘Good vampires’ have been done over and over again recently. That was fun once (Louis du Point du Lac), even twice (Nick Knight), or three times (Angel), but has become quite tiring by now. Vampire-human relationships are tricky, too. And a 150-year-old guy should not hang around high schools and date 16-year-old girls with no personality, if you ask me.

What can you do with vampires? What angles haven’t been done to death already? One angle I’d like to see more often is the whole ‘ennui’ thing. Another is relationships of any kind among vampires. And how do you cope with seeing the world change over and over again, as an almost-immortal being? “Only Lovers Left Alive” deals with all of that stuff to a certain degree. It knits ennui and world change into one thing, but that’s okay. Seeing how stupid humans stay over time can be tiring.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” is the story of Adam and Eve. Well, probably not those Adam and Eve, you know, the ones from the Garden Eden. However, both are pretty old as vampires, that much is obvious from several scenes of the movie (and a deleted scene, in which they talk about how Eve’s people transported the stones for Stonehenge). Adam is a musician with a solid interest in and knowledge of technology (good enough so he can build a little Tesla generator in his garden, so he has electricity at home). Eve is an avid reader, a good dancer, and overall the more pragmatic of the couple. They’ve been married for a long time already (their third wedding was in 1868) and are very much in love with each other. Yet they’ve chosen to live in separate places, he lives in Detroit, she lives in Tanger.

Adam is quite depressed, seeing how the humans (the zombies, as they both put it) treat their surrounding and themselves. How they have even contaminated their own blood - which makes living as a vampire not exactly easier. Eve, sensing his mood and worrying for him after a phone call, travels to Detroit to help him - and not a minute too soon, he already obtained a bullet capable of killing him. The lovers’ reunion, however, is disturbed by Eve’s sister Ava. (And can’t you just hear the dialogue between their parents when Ava was born? ‘It’s a girl again, darling.’ ‘Well, we named our first daughter Eve, how about naming this one Ava?’ ‘Great idea, darling, let’s do just that.’) Ava is, for all intents and purposes, a spoiled brat with the self-control and survival instinct of a wet hanky. How she survived so long (as she must be around 10,000 years old herself, being Eve’s sister), is a complete mystery. Ava just appears in Adam’s home, not even waiting for an invitation, just going in while Adam and Eve are going for a late-night drive. She disturbs her sister and brother-in-law (who is still pissed about that thing in Paris a little over 80 years ago), she diminishes their blood reserves (which Adam gets from a hospital), and in the end her actions force Adam to abandon his home and his beloved instruments and flee back to Tanger with Eve. I’m not going to spoil what happens in Detroit and what happens in Tanger afterwards, but I will say this: for all the love Adam and Eve have for each other, for all their knowledge and their close relationship with nature, they are predators and, unlike some other movies, “Only Lovers Left Alive” accepts that.

The movie definitely is no blockbuster, no movie made by a large studio for making money with it. It’s an independent production that relies more on visuals and the talents of the actors to bring the story to life. There’s few special effects (unfortunately the two scenes involving mirrors have been cut from the movies, but are on the DVD), there’s no glamour in the vampires. They are outsiders, looking a little suspicious (hair seems to be a real problem, once you’ve become a vampire), acting a little out of time (especially Adam, who has removed himself pretty much from the world).

Yet it is exactly this ‘we’re not a major movie’ thing which makes up the charm of the movie. Detroit, falling into ruins, full of neighbourhoods that are anything but filled with life. Tanger, an old city, full of people with shady trades (it seems), yet more alive than Detroit. And four vampires moving through time, remembering the past, watching the present, sometimes guessing the future. Four vampires, three of which seem to be creative in their own way (Christopher Marlowe, played by John Hurt, still writing, Adam composing music, Eve dancing), and one of which hanging on to life without a real destination (Ava, who is living in L.A.). When push comes to shove, though, vampires are the ultimate survivors - and that leaves us both happy for Adam and Eve, who will survive, and worried for our safety.

“Only Lovers Left Alive” is definitely a movie worth watching. Don’t expect too much action, rather expect a well-told story with eccentric characters. In the end, only the lovers will stay alive, as they have for such a long time already.

Sherlock Season 3

Now that I’ve finally found the time to watch all three movies of season 3 in English, I can say it’s definitely my favourite season so far. I can’t say any of the three movies is the ‘weak one’ for one thing. While both season 1 (“The Blind Banker”) and season 2 (“A Scandal in Belgravia”) had a weak movie, season 3 doesn’t seem to have one.

“The Empty Hearse” is a great beginning of the season and a very nice modern version of “The Empty House,” the story in which Doyle brought Holmes back. The whole setup with various explanations for how Holmes could have survived the jump from the building in “The Reichenbach Falls” (the end of season 2), Watson’s anger at having been left in the dark, the introduction of Watson’s soon-to-be wife Mary, and the actual case is very nice and allows the viewer to ‘ease back’ into the series after a break of two years. We also get a glance at the guy that will dominate the last movie, just as “A Study in Pink” gave the first introduction to Moriarty.

“The Sign of Three” is a most hilarious movie, despite the attempted murders. While Doyle only suggested Holmes must have been at Watson’s wedding (and quite likely as the Best Man), the modern version actually puts the wedding in the centre of the episode. John and Mary are getting married and Sherlock has to prepare a speech as the Best Man - something he would never have expected, as he admits himself, because he never expected to have a best friend who could ask him to fill in there. The episode gives a rather deep insight into Holmes’ character and shows that, despite mostly being a creature of intellect, he can actually feel something for someone (just as there are rare glimpses in Doyle’s own stories showing how much Holmes cares for his friend Watson). It also allows us to see how emotional Sherlock can actually be when he’s drunk.

“His Last Vow” finally is a final episode and, as a such, carries the chance to actually end the series for good. One can’t shake off the impression that the actual end was only added, after it was clear there would be a season 4. There is someone in Britain who has complete control over everyone - including Sherlock, Watson, Mary, and Mycroft. Charles Augustus Magnusson, media mogul, keeps dirty secrets in his private vault, secrets that will allow him to expose everyone. He’s feared even by Mycroft, but Sherlock does set out to end his power. The Dragon Slayer (as Mycroft calls him once in the movie) is even prepared to sacrifice his own life and freedom for it. While John and Mary are expecting their first child (as hinted at the end of “The Sign of Three”), John and Sherlock have to face a danger unlike the ones they faced before. Magnusson is not physically imposing or outright mad, but he has power and influence far greater than Mycroft, so there is nobody who can protect them from his wrath. Therefore, Sherlock’s ‘solution’ to the problem is the only possible one, in the end. Which is why he pulls through with it, knowing what it will mean for his future.

Season 4 is far in the future now, but it will come, one day. Until then, I have a season I will watch over and over again, without skipping an episode, because they’re all good in their own way.