Murder on the Orient Express (2017)

 

In 1934, famed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot solves a theft in Jerusalem. The obsessive-compulsive Poirot intends to take a rest in Istanbul, but finds himself summoned to London for another case. His friend Bouc, director of the Simplon-route Orient Express service, arranges Poirot's accommodations aboard that famous train.

Once aboard, Poirot is soon introduced to the colourful array of other passengers, which include an American widow, a Hungarian diplomat and an elderly Russian princess, among others.  Perhaps the most notable other passenger, however, is businessman Edward Ratchett, who boards the train accompanied by his manservant and his secretary.

Ratchett approaches Poirot and asks the detective to become his bodyguard for the duration of the journey.  Ratchett explains that he has received several threatening letters and fears for his life.  Poirot, having already deduced that Ratchett's business is a dishonest one, declines.

Ratchett is found murdered the very next morning, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot must take on the case and investigate the other passengers in order to find the culprit.  If he does not, then not only will the killer likely go free, but it will reflect very poorly on his good friend Bouc, who is responsible for the comfort and safety of the guests.

Of course, it soon begins to emerge that Ratchett was not the only passenger with secrets.  Will even the brilliant Poirot be able to untangle this thorny problem?

Well of course he will.  That's how these kind of films work.  The real question is "will watching him do it be enjoyable and end in a satisfying manner?"  The answer there, I am pleased to say, is generally positive.

This 2017 adaptation of Agatha Christie's famous novel is helped immensely by a talented cast of well-known names.  Such star-studded line-ups can sometimes become a hindrance, turning a film into a "spot the famous face" party game, but that risk is deftly handled here.  The famous players are recognisable, but both the direction and their performances are firmly oriented toward telling the story, not in "ooh, look who it is now!" celebrity spotting shenanigans.  And since these people all became celebrities because they are good actors, they all turn in the usual excellent performances you would expect.

Director Kenneth Branagh also assumes the role of Poirot. This is doubtless a challenging combination of roles to take on, but Branagh's juggled directorial and leading man duties on multiple previous occasions, and I think he proves up to the task once more, here.

One possible flaw of the film - depending on your preferences, I think - is that it has a very mannered, stately pacing.  There are a few flurries of mild action and intrigue, but this is on the whole a restrained and genteel film, unfolding its mystery carefully and precisely, but perhaps without the verve that some viewers would prefer.  I certainly wouldn't call the film "dull", myself, but some may find it a little on the slow side.

Overall though, if murder mysteries are your thing, this is a train trip you'll probably want to take.

Motherland: Fort Salem, Season 3 (2022)

 

With the apparent assassination of the US President, the malevolent Camarilla have secretly usurped the government; the former vice president is secretly in league with this fascistic anti-witch organisation.

Witches in the military find themselves placed under the control of non-witch commanders, who are entirely ready to expend the lives of their forces in wasteful fashion.  Those witches not in the military are forced to wear magic-nullifying collars while out in public

Raelle, Abigail, Tally & Scylla continue their struggle to expose the Camarilla and restore peaceful co-existence between witches and humanity.  A struggle much complicated when Raella's connection to the Mother Mycelium leaves her in a coma, and the group is forced to seek shelter in the Chippewa Cession: native land with limited autonomy from the federal government.

The Camarilla, of course, are not the sort to let ancient treaties stand in the way of their persecution of witches, and they have many new weapons ready to use in their war of extermination.  Can our heroes and their dwindling array of allies find a way to head off a devastating war between humanity and witch-kind?

This final season of Motherland: Fort Salem is an enjoyable and entertaining ride, though the pacing does feel a little wonky.  I suspect this may be a result of a real life injury to Taylor Hickson, who plays Raelle.  Hickson was hurt in a car accident shortly after filming of this season began, and was unable to work for several weeks.  That forced a number of re-writes, of which Raelle's coma is surely the most obvious.

The show definitely misses Hickson/Raelle.  The rest of the cast are strong and enjoyable performers.  Minute to minute they fill the gap quite nicely, but the story's overall structure definitely seems to have suffered a bit because of Hickson's injury. Certain events are drawn out more than they probably need, and others - particularly toward the end - seem very rushed.  Also, however good the other actors are, Raelle has always felt "first among equals" in the ensemble of characters.  Her absence is a big void to fill.

I was also a bit disappointed by the sudden disappearance of new villain Kara Brandt. She was thoroughly despicable and really needed suitable on-screen comeuppance.  Perhaps actor Emilie Ullerup was unavailable for the final episode?  Or perhaps they wanted to keep their options open for a sequel.

Overall though, despite the occasional weaknesses likely caused by real world problems, this is a satisfying conclusion to the program.  I particularly liked that the writers recognised that the fact that the show is ending does not not magically mean that all the world's problems will be fixed.  They make it quite clear that there is still a huge amount of work left for these characters to do, and that they intend to do it; even if it will not be work we get to see.  That's a more nuanced and thoughtful resolution than I expected, back when first watching season one.

The Lion King (2019)

 

Somewhere in the African veldt, a pride of lions rule from Pride Rock. As the film begins, the current King and Queen present their newborn son, Simba, to the gathering animals.

As Simba grows, his father Mufasa endeavours to teach him about the responsibilities of kingship and the "circle of life", which connects all living things. I think it is fair to say that the elder lion is only partly successful in this regard. The bright but somewhat self-satisfied Simba is much more interested in the power and prestige of kingship than in its responsibilities.

Also very conscious of the benefits of the crown is Mufasa's scheming brother, Scar. Recognising an opportunity in Simba's naivety and over-confidence, this wicked lion plots the downfall of both his brother and his nephew, along with his partners in villainy, a cackling clan of hyenas.

This is of Disney's "live action" remakes of its successful animated films, although given that this entire movie is actually photo-realistic CGI, the quotes around "live action" are very much in full effect.

I was not much impressed by Disney's live action Beauty & the Beast, so I never bothered to see this version of The Lion King at theatres.  It took a steep discount on Disney+ to tempt me to return to Africa.

So how's the movie?  Well, it's better than the Beauty & the Beast remake, but it still feels wholly unnecessary except as a money-making exercise. 

Let's start with the visuals. The hyper-realistic CGI is technically very impressive, but ironically its fidelity to true life saps it of the energy, verve and relatability of the original. In particular, it is hurt by the fact that the character's faces are much less expressive.  It may not be realistic to have lions and other animals smile in a recognisably human-like way, but that kind of "unrealistic" artistic adaptation makes for a much more emotionally invested experience.

The remake is also hampered by how much of film feels like a shot for shot remake of the original.  There are a few minor changes; the dynamics between the hyenas are different and there are occasional brief alterations of dialogue, but not much more.  I wonder if this was a reaction to complaints about the changes in Beauty & the Beast?  If so, Disney missed the point - the issue wasn't that the remake had differences to the original cartoon, it was that the specific differences were bad ideas.

Despite how little is actually different here, this version is somehow nearly 30 minutes longer than the original. Admittedly some of that is due to the near 20 minutes of credits!

Are there any pluses?  Well, I appreciate the decision to cast African American actors for Simba, Scar and Nala. Also, the singing vocals are strong. Technically they're better than the original in some cases ... but I don't feel like the songs have the same show-stopping impact as the original.  The most obvious case here is Scar's "Be Prepared".  Jeremy Irons is not a particularly gifted singer, but his version is still more memorable to me.

Ultimately it comes down to a simple thing: even nearly 30 years after it came out, there are multiple segments of the 1994 film that still give me chills. This movie meanwhile was ... okay. In isolation, I'd probably give it a qualified recommendation. But in a world where we have the option of watching the original instead, I'd never pick this one.

The End (of the Blog) is Nigh

 

After over 1,700 reviews, I've decided the time has come to bring this blog to an end. 

I'm pleased to say that the blog has achieved its initial purpose of dramatically reducing my pile of unwatched DVDs; not least because the advent of streaming has more or less brought my purchase of new physical media to an end.

Reviews will not stop immediately - but as the sign says, the end is nigh.  My final review will be posted in about 4 weeks, on 29 December 2023.

Galavant (2015-2016)

 

Galavant is a dashing knight, loved and respected by all for his courage and honour.  Blessed with looks, strength of arms, and a beautiful lover in the shapely form of the lovely Madalena, it seems Galavant has it all.

Or at least, it does until the supercilious, entitled and dishonourable King Richard kidnaps Madalena, intending to make her his bride.  This cannot be allowed to stand, and - powered by the strength of his passion and the might of his sword-arm - Galavant cuts his way into the castle to free the love of his life.

Only it turns out that, when you get down to it, Madalena's feelings don't run as deep.  She may not care much more Richard, but he's as weak-willed as he is pompous, and he has lots of lovely power and money.  She spurns Galavant, crushing the knight's spirit. He descends into a melancholy of depression and alcohol.

Princess Isabella of Valencia, whose kingdom has been conquered by Richard, finally manages to stir the old flames of courage and heroism in Galavant's heart when she (falsely) tells him that Madalena has repented her earlier decision and now wants Galavant to rescue her after all.  All he has to do is help Isabella first ... but can one single hero and his squire really save the day?

Galavant is a fantasy musical comedy adventure series.  Which is something of a niche offering and may explain why, despite positive reviews, the show struggled to find an audience.  At the end of its first season of 8 episodes, it was a favourite for cancellation - a fact that the show cheekily acknowledges in the opening episode of season 2, "A New Season aka Suck It Cancellation Bear".

I personally enjoyed the show a lot, particularly the first season.  The show is helped a lot by having a talented core cast who seem to be having fun with the genre aware silliness of the story.  Some of them were likely helped by having past experience in such material: Timothy Omundsun, who plays King Richard, had a recurring role in Xena: Warrior Princess, for instance.

The guest stars are also strong, with numerous recognisable faces turning up in one-off or occasional roles.  I give the show particular props for looping in 'Weird' Al Yankovic as the leader of an order of monks who have taken a vow of singing.

As a musical show, it is of course important that the songs be fun and well written. There are no worries on that front: Alen Menken, who composed for Disney's The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, delivers his usual excellent work in combination with other talented musicians.

On the comedy front, the jokes certainly come thick and fast. Not every single one is a winner, but you're likely to laugh more often than not.  There's plenty of funny moments here, including one or two sequences of such gleeful absurdity that I came close to having to pause the show and give us some time to recover.

I also liked writers' willingness to spend time with characters you might not have expected to feature much, and to develop arcs in unexpected ways. Characters do not necessarily end the show in the places you might expect, and I think this is a strength of the program.

So: that's all pretty glowing.  Do I have any complaints?  Well, two.  Firstly, the breaking of the fourth wall .is perhaps a smidgen overdone at times.  Secondly, the show's second season is a bit overstuffed in general and could perhaps have shed a couple of episodes.  It feels to me like they started the writing for this season from the the ending they wanted to get to, and then kind of invented stuff to connect that up with where they ended the first season.  To my mind, the stitching together of these elements is sometimes a little clumsy.  For instance, things sometimes happen that seem like they should utterly change the direction of the show - but then ten minutes later they are fully resolved and have already triggered the next plot point.

Overall, though, this was 18 brief and breezy episodes of TV, packed with funny scenes, clever songs, engaging characters, and a few neat surprises.  I'm definitely glad I watched it.

The Million Eyes of Sumuru (1967)

 

The film is set in the fictional nation of Sinonesia, somewhere in South East Asia. The President's Chief of Security has recently been assassinated. The regional head of British intelligence, Colonel Baisbrook, recruits two Americans to investigate. Why does he not use his own agents? Presumably either because he had an eye on the US film market, or because he knew Frankie Avalon couldn't do a British accent. Or both. Probably both.

Whatever the reasons for their hiring, the American duo - Nick and Tommy - prove pretty successful in their assignment. They soon identify that the assassination was the work of agents of a beautiful and evil woman named Sumuru, who plans world domination by having her all-female army eliminate male leaders and replace them with her agents.

Obviously, this sort of thing can't be allowed to go on.  Now all Nick and Tommy have to do is stay alive long enough to stop it.

This film is based on a female supervillain created by Sax Rohmer, who is best known as the author of the Fu Manchu series of novels.  What that essentially means is that it is based on stories in which Rohmer swapped his usual gross racism for ... slightly less gross racism and lots more egregious sexism.

Only slightly less racism though, as this film makes clear very early on. President Boong of Sinonesia (yes, that really is his name) is clearly a white guy in very peculiar make-up.

The sexism meanwhile mostly makes itself known through the twin vectors of (a) the whole plot basically being "only an evil woman would be unhappy with men running things" and (b) lots and lots PG-rated titillation: bared thighs, backs and midriffs, as a consequence of the fact that Sumuru apparently believes bikinis to be suitable attire for her army of female assassins.

So, it's racist and sexist; perhaps not surprising, given it is nearly sixty years old.  How is the movie otherwise?

Not very good, frankly.  The plot is weak and formulaic.  And while Shirley Eaton is clearly having a good time vamping it up as the wicked Sumuru, she's rather undermined by the fact that the script makes the villainess her own worst enemy.  Sumuru decides to kidnap the guy trying to thwart her.  Sensible enough.  Having done so, she then ... tells him all her plans. Yes, it's in the context of trying to blackmail him to work for her, but still, it's rather clumsy and an obvious way to avoid him having to do any actual investigation.

The film also features a fair number of efforts comedy.  Many of these seem to have been directly inspired by Looney Tunes, including an obvious variation of Bugs and Daffy's classic "duck season"/"rabbit season" sequence.

The other source of 'humour' is basically 'Frankie Avalon's been in musicals!', which ... I mean, okay, I can excuse one gag in this line, given that he is your star.  But the film returns to the well a number of times, which would rather be like if Deadpool 3 cracks a whole bunch of jokes about the fact that Hugh Jackman was in The Boy from Oz. 

But at least the film will have a big action finale where the good guys (who are all men, of course) storm the beaches of Sumuru's island, right?  A large scale sequence clearly inspired by the James Bond films of the period.  That'll be fun, right?  Well, it would be, if it was executed well.  Alas, it is static and dull, with unconvincing action choreography.

The 60s delivered some fun, cheesy action espionage films.  This aspires to be one of them, but falls far short of the mark.

Stitchers, Season 1 (2015)

 

Kirsten Clark is a brilliant but emotionally closed off Caltech student. Her seemingly cold demeanour is a symptom of her medical condition: temporal dysplasia. This (invented for the show) condition makes a person unable to sense the passing of time. This hinders Kirtsen's ability to form emotional relationships with others, as she does not seem to have normal reactions to events.  An example Kirsten herself gives in the show is that when she was told her foster father was dead, then to her he had been dead forever. 

Kirsten's medical condition is important because it makes her an ideal candidate for a secret government agency that employs a highly experimental process known as "stitching".  This technology allows the subject to view the slowly fragmenting memories of a recently deceased person.  The process is dangerous and can be unreliable, but it makes it possible to find the answers to mysteries that would otherwise go unsolved.

Of course, the government doesn't invest huge amounts of money into a process just to solve a few crimes.  Nor is Kirsten's suitability for the process a mere coincidence.  But you'll have to watch the show to learn the deeper secrets at play here: and you will also need to prepare yourself for not all those questions being answered, because the show as cancelled on a cliffhanger after three seasons.

The real question then is, is the journey good enough to survive the lack of an ending? 

Well.  There are a number of restaurants near my old house, many of which I visited while I was living there. At some of them I had great meals, at some the meal was a disappointment ... but the one that is relevant to this review is the one that was reliably 'alright'. I never had a bad meal there, but I also never walked out thinking 'I need to recommend this place to people'. It was the definition of 'adequate'.

Stitchers is that restaurant's TV show equivalent. The cast are likeable, the episode plots are fine, there's a longer arc at play that - although moving a little slowly, is at least recognisably moving - and I never once shouted at the TV in frustration. But it also never really rises above "an okay way to pass the time".

Let's start with the cast, which includes Alison Scoglietti of Warehouse 13 and Salli Richardson-Whitfield of Eureka. They're both solid hands and I wish they'd been given a little more to do: Richardson-Whitfield is just the tightly buttoned boss lady, while Scagliotti is largely just playing a slightly more sexual version of her Warehouse 13 character.

"I wish they'd been given more to do" is actually a problem all of the actors face with their roles.  The characters in general are a little 'flat' and lacking in much depth. They are mostly a set of plot points in human form.

As for the plots, well like I said, they're fairly solid and there's an over-arching story that is slowly unfolding.  The "stitching" concept is of course pure science fiction plot device, but I'll give the writers some credit here: they're relatively consistent with how their made-up technology works within the fiction.  I've seen plenty of shows where the capabilities and limitations of technology fluctuate wildly to meet an immediate narrative need: I appreciate it when I see a bit more effort expended, as it has been here.

 

Ultimately, though, the show doesn't quite have enough to draw me into watching more - particularly since I know it won't get a tidy conclusion.

 

One last note if you do choose to watch this show: episode "11" of this season is a Halloween episode.  It is actually set before episode 10.  So I suggest you watch it after episode 9, but before 10. Then watch 10 as the season finale - because that is what it is.

Also be aware that that the Halloween episode is quite a change of tone for the show and feels a little out of place in general.  A case I think of forcing a concept onto a show to which it was not especially well-suited.