Skip to main content

Enola Holmes ** (Netflix) - Read Conan Doyle for two hours instead

 I haven't posted many (any?) film reviews because none has struck me as good enough or bad enough to be worth the effort. Unfortunately, Enola Holmes (Netflix)comes in the latter category.

Now, it's pretty hard to mess up a Sherlock Holmes mash-up. Indeed, there have been many highly successful and amusing such films over the years from The Seven Percent Solution, They Might Be GiantsYoung Sherlock Holmes to Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and the Canadian TV series, The Adventures of Shirley Holmes. Of course, the Mark Gatiss/Stephen Moffat series Sherlock deftly combined humour, wit, adventure with a 21st century spin to give us stories that delighted and exasperated in nearly equal measure. There are others, as well as the straight adaptations of the stories.

Masquerading as a ripping yarn for young adults, the bottom line is that Enola Holmes is a woke diatribe. Rich, white, establishment men are bad; young rebellious feminist girls will take over the world. 

The plot is clunky and even when all the threads are resolved, it's surprisingly unsatisfying. 

While the sets and period settings are magnificent, they were not without some poor production decisions.

For example, towards the end, Enola receives a message to meet someone [no spoilers here], at the Royal Academy. Where she goes is to the Drum Court of what is now the Department of the Treasury. Arguably, it wasn't even built at the time the film is set. Okay, if the Royal Academy (and other institutions that occupy the Burlington House complex)was unavailable, why not change the line? Doh!

Another not so sleight of hand in the propaganda is that Sherlock Holmes is very much in the background. His lesser-known brother, Mycroft, is cast as the villain, so as not to upset the millions of Sherlock Holmes fans (who are probably paying the Netflix subscriptions).

While performances are good, they are either inconsistent or very much the stereotypes that the woke brigade condemns. The Holmes' mother (Helena Bonham-Carter) is unfathomable. She is practical and clever, but ultimately irresponsible. She vacillates between Cinderella's Fairy Godmother and Bellatrix Lestrange. 

Frances de la Tour gives a wonderful performance as the White Duchess-like grandmother of the erstwhile hero, but, again, her character and motivation make no sense. She loves her vision of England, yet is willing to kill her own flesh and blood to preserve it.  What does she think she is preserving? A few old buildings and trees?

And, so it goes. 

Millie Bobby Brown is just about plausible as Enola (if anyone can be). She's engaging enough, but her character, too, is muddled. Enola turns on and off her affection at the same speed she switches her ideals and principles (and clothing). Again, there are fatuous blunders. We're led to believe that she is unprepared for the "real world", yet this girl who was brought up in a large country house accepts Diagon Alley standard accommodation as acceptable. Doh, again.

Yes, I watched it to the end, but interrupted my viewing several times to do something to repair my sensibilities. I doubt I could have made it through otherwise.

When you have millions of pounds (or dollars) to spend, consistent scripts, characters and the accurate portrayal of place should be a given. (At one stage, Limehouse appears to be south of the river! - Netflix: you can learn these things on Google Earth for free!).

The depressing thing is someone had to think of the story (for real subscribers' money), and show it to his boss who said, "That's a good idea" (for more subscribers' money) who turns it into film which was viewed by the producers (who think, "That's worth their salaries - and ours!")and then release it.

Such contempt for audiences is despicable, but, what the hey, it furthers the woke message and, I suppose they think that's all right.


For a more plausible Sherlock Holmes' pastiche, read "The Remarkable Adventure of the Royal Society" in my Undivulged Crimes.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: Humphrey and Jack by Ian Thomson

It’s almost impossible to write about Humphrey and Jack without giving spoiler alerts every two sentences, so closely are plot, character and theme woven. So, after this, there are no further alerts. The plot is deceptively simple: an embittered retired lecturer befriends a semi-delinquent youth and both are redeemed. However, the character and social shading of the book are remarkable, and readers are treated to 300+ pages of Thomson’s elegant writing. And here lies part of the skill of the novel: the characters reveal themselves and evolve through action and dialogue, not through the author’s narrative and commentary on the psychological aspects of what is going on. This makes the reader think about what he is reading, which many readers will find too great an effort – but then, they don’t deserve the rewards. Readers are seduced into cosy cynicism with the early encounters with “the Evangelists” a group of grumpy old men who meet in a pub and have ritual rants abou

Was Scrooge Conned?

It would be interesting to trace the tradition of the Christmas ghost story beyond the superficial (see below). I am sure it is related to the darkness and cold of the year and people huddled around a fire for comfort and warmth, but the association with Christmas and ghosts is incongruous - or is it? Yes, there were pagan mid-winter feasts, but it's hard to see why they would emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries when ghost stories rose in popularity. Dickens is, of course, associated with the genre and wrote the quintessential Christmas ghost story. Ironically, given its Christmas theme, God barely gets a look in in A Christmas Carol . There are only a dozen mentions of God - mostly in passing "God bless you"s or the singing of God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen. There is no mention of Christ, Jesus, or Saviour, and no one is seen going to church. So, what we have is a ghost story trading on a secular commercial Christmas so that Dickens and his publisher can sell a few

Repetition, Repetition

I heard the hymn "Love Divine All Love's Excelling" the other day and, once again, the genius of the line in the final verse struck me: "Changed from glory into glory. . . ." The meaning of this repetition is neither readily apparent nor easily understood, yet it makes immediate impact. Why? I have thought about this on and off for a number of years and the best reasons I can come up with are: 1. It's unexpected 2. It presents us with a mystery And that's the point. The line is alluding to something we cannot begin to comprehend. The glories we can imagine in our human forms do not come close to those we will experience on admission to Heaven. It will be a transfiguration that is total, and unknowable to us as mortals. This interpretation fits with the concept of a Divine love that excels all others. I suspect the individual words themselves had more power in the days before hyperbole was literally overused. [That's an example of irony,