Movie Review: Destination Tokyo

I wanted to start off by saying that this movie wasn't what I was expecting for a WWII submarine film.

Sure, there are a lot of tense scenes in the second half when the American submarine arrives in Tokyo, and the film ends with a gripping sea battle as the crew tries to leave having accomplished their mission.

But before you get there, the film spends the first hour depicting their journey to Tokyo, and shows viewers what life is like on a submarine. The crew is a variety of characters from a family man captain (played by Cary Grant) to a would-be ladies' man and the slightly comical cook.

It's during this first half that the film really shines. Scenes like Cary Grant recalling his happiest moment is not sinking some Axis ships, but rather just spending time with his son, and the payoff later when his family's faces flashed before his eyes as the sub takes a beating later on just cements the believability of these characters.

Unfortunately, the movie is colored by some 1940s-styled propaganda, mostly whenever the characters talk about the Japanese, but whatever few Japanese characters appeared, they were played by Japanese actors and were not overly simplified.

This war film is more character-oriented, so action buffs may be put off by it. But fans of submarine films should enjoy this film and its realistic take on life underwater.

Doctor Who in Utah

The Game's Afoot

Ever since I was a kid, I had an interest in Sherlock Holmes. The problem was that every time I got one of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's books from the library, my boyish mind couldn't handle the armchair intrigue and teatime discussions of the novels.

Fast forward to 2009, when, yes, the new Sherlock Holmes movie came out, and I decided to give Doyle another go. (One of the things the movie got right was Holmes's dialogue. Why isn't 'discombobulate' used more often in our stagnant culture?) So, I read "A Study in Scarlett." I don't know if it was the whole Morman angle or what, but I wasn't really thrilled with the story. Oh, I remember now. Our Hero, the esteemed Sherlock Holmes, disappears one night and comes back with all of the answers, leaving him to explain to Watson, and you dear reader, in his usually condescending way.

Again fast forwarding, again to another Sherlock Holmes movie, and here I am, reading "The Sign of Four." And I was enjoying it immensely until someone was murdered. Then, watch and be amazed as Sherlock makes astounding leaps of deduction, disappears without telling Watson, and reappearing announcing he's figured everything out. (Sigh.)

It's a little frustrating to keep the reader (and Watson) out of the adventure. Watson is not incompetent, but he's never given a chance to help solve the mystery and neither is the reader. We are all there just to bask in the glory of Holmes.

Still, "Sign of Four" is big improvement on "Study of Scarlett." I hope to read "Scandal in Bohemia" before 2013.

Little tidbits about Mister Holmes:

- I'm surprised that the movies don't mention Holmes's "seven percent solution." Also, while Doyle hints at Holmes's mastery of fencing and boxing, there are, sadly, no extended fight scenes in the novels. Sorry. (Though there is the occasional chase down the Thames.)

- The lovely Kate Beaton has written a few comics on the depiction of faithful Dr. Watson. While the novels never goes into too much physically description, that I've noticed anyway, one can assume that Watson is no Pudgy McRoundbottom nor is he Jude Law. (Ditto for Holmes.)

- In "Sign", Holmes stated that love was a distraction along with about every other emotion. Say goodbye to all those Holmes/Watson fanfics.

The Three Stooges Remake

Wait, back up a moment. A new Three Stooges movie? How? Why? Okay, it's not too bad. They do actually look like the Three Stooges. (Cue clip of a nun coming out of a swimming pool in an ungodly small bikini.) Okay, they ruined it.

In all seriousness, people know that remakes are generally a bad idea, but they get made nevertheless. I have issue with remakes of characters/series that is defined by one actor/actress. Let's take the Three Stooges. Sure, they look like them, they hit like them, but whoever they are, they aren't the original Moe, Larry, and Curly. Not by a longshot.

Another example would be Richard Hurndall in "The Five Doctors." No matter how nice of a job he did, he was still not William Hartnell, and they should have not used the First Doctor instead of hiring a replacement (of sorts) for Harnell. Actors like William Boyd and Clayton Moore became their fictional counterparts. Many children growing up now don't have the experience of watching the "originals" and accept these remakes as new.

But should we view remakes as an insult to the originals? Is it offensive that Sebastian Shaw is deleted from the final moments of Return of the Jedi? In defense of the movie industry, they're just trying to make money any way they can.

There are two series that I can think of that are the exceptions to the rule. The first is the aforementioned "Doctor Who" series which has a built-in dramatic device to explain all the various actors playing the title role. The second is James Bond. Be it Connery, Moore, Brosnan, or the rest. Each actor defined Bond for their decade and their generation.

It's shame that younger generations don't seem to be aware of this.