Night Train to Lisbon (2013)

One rainy morning in Bern, Switzerland, Raimund Gregorius (Jeremy Irons) was rushing to work when he spotted a young woman about to jump off a bridge.  He tackled her, preventing her from suicide, and then escorted her to his classroom.  She sat in the room briefly before fleeing.  Raimund saw that she had left her coat.  He grabbed it and went to find her; she was gone.  He checked the bridge but did not see her body in the river below.  He found a book in her coat and began reading it.  There was a train ticket enclosed.  On the spur of the moment, he went to the train station and took that train to Lisbon.

In Lisbon, Raimund sought the author of the book, a man named Amadeu Prado.  It turned out that he had died in 1974.  Raimund set about interviewing those who knew him and, in the process, discovering Amadeu's role in fighting the Salazar Regime.

This is a story told out of order.  Each person offers a part of the story that may come before, after, or coincident with parts already revealed.  All of this is in flashback.  As such, each part is played by two actors, the young one and the old one.  No aging makeup here.  He chatted with Amadeu's sister (Charlotte Rampling), his priest (Christopher Lee), Joao from the Resistance, his best friend Jorge, and the mystery woman, Estefania (Lena Olin).  If he took notes, he could write a biography.  Would it have been easier to just tell the story of Amadeu without this framing of Raimund's awkward investigation?  Maybe.  Then again, by framing it this way, we see the contrast between their fiery youth and their sunset years, providing an opportunity to explore the long-term impact of their actions.

I had started the book in 2019.  I was traveling to Portugal that summer.  The book did not hold me.  I put it down after 100 pages or so and never picked it up again.  Seeing the movie, I'm not suddenly interested in finishing the book.

The movie is just okay.

Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady (1991)

In 1910, a Viennese inventor has created a remote detonator.  He views this as extremely dangerous and decides that only the British can be trusted with it.  No sooner has it been handed to the British ambassador than a thief grabs the case and flees.  The inventor gives chase, following the criminal into a theater.  A struggle ensues in the rafters and the inventor plummets to his death on the stage.

In London, Mycroft Holmes demands that his brother depart for Vienna immediately and recover both the prototype of the detonator and the plans.  Though he initially objects, Holmes (Christopher Lee) soon agrees; he and Watson (Patrick Macnee) are bound for Vienna.  Upon arrival, they start with the scene of the crime before migrating to the theater.  Who should be the leading lady but Irene Adler (Morgan Fairchild).  While Holmes and Watson investigate, the thieves plot what to do with both the blueprints to the device and the prototype.  The thieves are Serbs who detest the Austro-Hungarian Empire and want to strike a blow with the detonator.  To complicate matters, Holmes is helped, or more likely hindered, by an over-eager embassy employee, Simpson-Makepeace.  Then there is a peculiar American, Mr. Elliot, who is enamored of Miss Adler, but strangely curious about the missing detonator.

This three-part miniseries is quite slow.  For as much time as it has to develop the characters, it doesn't.  Irene is determined to seduce Sherlock, who proves oblivious to her efforts.  He is interested in nothing but his investigation.  The villains are murderous - or not - depending on the needs of the plot at that time.  For instance, they were more than willing to kill Irene - accidentally getting a different woman - at one point but then later go to the trouble of kidnapping her.  Given why they did it, there was no point in keeping her alive.  When they have the drop on Holmes, they start monologuing rather than shooting.  Is the scriptwriter familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's work?  As both Lee and Macnee were in their late sixties when this was made, the action is limited.  Watson chasing a drunkard across town is played for laughs.

As it takes place in Vienna in 1910, it was a requirement that Sigmund Freud appear.  Indeed, he has a large role both in hypnotizing a witness and then accompanying Holmes to replace Watson, who was otherwise engaged.  The inclusion of Freud is just schtick.  For a much better appearance of Freud with Holmes, watch The Seven-Per-Cent Solution instead.

Lee is not a convincing Holmes.  He looks the part, but he lacks the energetic spark.  When Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone had an insight, they would talk at lightning speed, their tongue barely keeping pace with their thoughts.  There is more thinking to be done so these Holmes communicate quickly so they can get back to the more important task of deduction.  By contrast, Lee has this deep sonorous voice that will not be rushed.  His insights are offered in a deliberative speech; it's not as if he has anything else to do than explain to his fellows.  However, this is an older Holmes, so I may be quibbling.  That his deductions were run-of-the-mill did not help.  There is a lot of filler that doesn't advance the story.

Mediocre.  Skip.