The Scarlet Pimpernel (1982)

It is 1792 and the Reign of Terror has begun in Paris, but a daring Englishman has undertaken the task of rescuing as many French nobles from Madame Guillotine as he can.  In the open, Baronett Percy Blakeny (Anthony Andrews) is a dull-witted fop who attends the best parties in Paris.  Behind the scenes, he is the Scarlet Pimpernel, the leader of a small band who save as many as they can.  While playing the fop, he meets the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, Marguerite (Jane Seymour) and falls instantly in love.  However, there is another who seeks her affections, a functionary in the new French government, Chauvelin (Ian McKellen).  Marguerite senses that Percy is not the dandy that he plays, but she doesn't know his secret.  She falls for him and the two are wed.  Bliss in reach, Percy learns something of Marguerite that threatens his marriage and his mission.  Worse, her former flame, Chauvelin, has been tasked with finding the Scarlet Pimpernel!

Anthony Andrews steals the show with his portrayal of the Scarlet Pimpernel.  His focus on the trivial combined with his snooty delivery paints a picture of a wealthy self-centered twit.  I was reminded of his character from Brideshead Revisited.  His claim of being a poet is laughable.  He is such an obnoxious noble that it is no wonder that he was never suspected as the daring and elusive Pimpernel.  "Sink me," is his repeated expression, one I've heard nowhere else but proves quite fitting to the character.  He brings humor to a somber story.  Oddly, the Scarlet Pimpernel, written in 1905, became a blueprint for other wealthy do-gooders who donned a disguise to fight evil: Zorro (1919), the Shadow (1931), and Batman (1939) to name a few.

Jane Seymour is good in her role but has little to do.  Marguerite is subject to the tides of fate, a pawn of Chauvelin and a potential threat to Percy.  It did appear to be her own fault in that she explain how she was implicated in the death of a noble family when it was clearly bothering her husband.

Ian McKellen is not well-served by the script.  He is easily foiled by the Pimpernel.  His one apparent success turns to his greatest failure.  A more challenging adversary would have been better.

I was quite surprised to see Julian Fellowes - creator of Downton Abbey - as the Prince Regent!  I didn't realize he was an actor.  Yes, he has a long list of credits, many in films that I have seen.  Cool.

Overall, a great period piece with good costumes, excellent acting, and an entertaining story.  Great popcorn fun and recommended.

Alfred the Great

Having just seen the movie, I have to say I was less than impressed.  The story opens with Alfred (David Hemmings) being called from seminary only moments before he is to be ordained as a priest.  He finds his elder brother, King Ethelred, who was injured in battle, unable to lead the army against the encroaching Vikings.  Alfred reluctantly takes up the sword, devises a strategy, and trounces the Vikings.  However, the bloodshed troubles him because he enjoys it too much.  He swears never to kill with a sword again and make his return to the monastery.  His brother has other notions, arranging a marriage with Aelhswith (Prunella Ransome), a Mercian Princess.  No sooner are they married than Ethelred dies, making Alfred the king.  Lacking a sufficient army to beat back the Danes, Alfred pays Guthrum (Michael York) to go away and offers his new wife as a hostage.  Of course, Guthrum betrays and Alfred finds himself hiding in a marsh with Roger the Bandit (Ian McKellen).  Eventually, he assembles an army and defeats the Danes at the Battle of Edington.  The movie notes that Alfred is the only English king to ever earn the appellation of Great but it then fails to demonstrate why.  Perhaps this was made for an English audience that would realize that Alfred stopped the Danish conquest and dramatically reversed it in his later years.  This story only offers the point where Anglo-Saxon fortune turns for the better.

The movie only covers the period from about 868 to 878; Alfred ruled until his death in 899.  It shows Alfred marrying Aelhswith on the very day that King Ethelred died.  In fact, Alfred married in 868 and his brother died in 871.  For simplicity, the various Vikings who attacked during that period are consolidated into the single figure of Guthrum.  The sons of Ragnar (see The Vikings on History Channel to be misinformed about Ragnar) are generally overlooked though Ivar the Boneless does appear as one of Guthrum's underlings.

 

It was fun to see all the familiar faces.  In addition to Michael York and Ian McKellen, there was Peter Vaughan, who would go on to play Maester Aemon in Game of Thrones, as Aelhswith's father here.  Julian Glover, who appeared as Grand Maester Pycelle in Game of Thrones, is one of Alfred's chief nobles, Aethelstan.  They are all so young!

 

The movie puts entirely too much emphasis on a love-hate relationship with his wife that is not attested in the historical record.  Morever, it shows Alfred to be very foolish in his initial dealings with Guthrum.  Who would blindly agree to allowing Guthrum to pick the hostage of his choice?  Alfred is about the only person surprised and shocked that Guthrum chose Aelhswith.  And then we have Aelhswith falling in love with Guthrum and having an affair with him for the next 4 years of her captivity.  Really?  By what little is known, the marriage was successful and resulted in half a dozen children who survived to adulthood.  The movie shows Edward the future king (899-924) but omits his elder sister, Aethelflaed, future queen of Mercia.  This ill-considered love-triangle detracts from the main story and makes it hard to like Alfred.  It is no wonder the movie didn't do well and is mostly forgotten.

 

Alfred figures prominently in Bernard Cornwell's Saxon Stories and, though the central character has a contentious relationship with Alfred, Alfred clearly earns his greatness.  As most of Cornwell's historical novels, this is a great series for the history buff.  He plays a bit loose with history but he tells you where in his historical notes at the end of each novel.  There are 9 books in the series so far but Alfred only survives to the 6th one.

Mr. Holmes

It is 1947 and Sherlock Holmes (Ian McKellen) has returned from Japan to his country home in England.  He is greeted by Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her son, Roger.  Mr. Holmes has been retired for approximately 30 years, having spent the time maintaining bees in the countryside and, as of late, going senile.  Shortly after the death of his brother Mycroft, he had dared to see a Sherlock Holmes movie, something he had never done.  There were elements that seemed familiar but there was something wrong in it.  He knew this was a retelling of his last case as written by John Watson but he could not recall the truth.

 

The movie tells three stories.  There is the case of The Lady in Grey, his final case and cause of his retirement.  There is his trip to Japan which turned out to be more than it appeared.  Then there is the case of the dead bees in the apiary.  Holmes is 93 years old and frail.  The first plays like a man with amnesia trying to remember something vital to the plot.  It struck me as unlikely that he would forget the case that led to his retirement.  In theory, every time he used his keen observational skills over the last three decades, he would be reminded of why he was no longer using them to solve mysteries.  He demonstrated repeatedly that his deductive powers were still very keen despite his age.  It would have been better had some obscure case become suddenly important in the present.  Holmes had traveled to Japan to acquire a rare plant that was supposedly beneficial in fighting senility.  Why he had to go personally rather than just purchase the plant is never explained.  However, the plant was to be found in Hiroshima, inside the blast radius of the atom bomb.  Really?  And Holmes has the opportunity to look horrified upon seeing the destruction.  Why is this in the movie?  Lastly, Holmes becomes close to Roger, who is a very bright boy who is fascinated by Mr. Holmes.  Roger is only too happy to assist with the apiary and ponder why bees are dying.

 

This is not a standard Sherlock Holmes story.  He solves nothing by means of deduction.  In fact, deduction is shown to be a parlor trick that may provide knowledge but does not provide satisfactory solutions.  In both the Lady in Grey case and his trip to Japan, his deductions are perfect but those who hear them are not consoled by them.  Cold logic is cold and these people needed warmth.  Holmes is made to feel guilty for not being a therapist.  Having read all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I have to say that Holmes was not a sentimental man.  He was usually an arrogant jerk but his brilliance mitigated his abrasiveness.  Of course, Mr. Holmes reveals that Watson had written a fictional version of him which offers an explanation why this Holmes seems so different.

 

Take it or leave it.