The Wolfman (2010)

Note a completed Tower Bridge in the background

Remakes, in general, are a bad idea... and this was a remake of a B-film.  Perhaps Universal, the owners of the franchise, were looking for a way to extend their copyright on their classic horror film.  The shoot itself seemed to be cursed with uncomfortable costumes, short-tempered actors, alternate endings and multiple rewrites.  Of course all of this might point to the extreme efforts by many to actually make a good film out of a cheesy if beloved precursor.  Regardless, the result is an uneven product. 

This version weaves father-son tension, filial jealousy and uxorcide into the often gory scenes.  While these themes are clearly there to "explain" a son's fear and hatred of his father and a penchant for roaming, no one element is ever fully explored.  This lack of completeness lands the film on the wrong side of the tracks, I'm afraid.  Rather than lend credibility and convince the audience that this film was taken seriously; it merely reveals that it only wanted us to think it was being taken seriously.

Someone in the production team (it's nearly impossible to divine who) actually has a penchant for Victorian-era philosophy and social constructs.  The underlying details are quite thoughtful.  Colonialism, Orientalism, Freudian scholarship, gothic literature, Darwinism, and the crumbling aristocracy are touched upon.  Sadly, none is ever followed through.  The biggest miss is most certainly the story of Singh, the father's valet from India.  Yet, for all this research and attention to detail there a glaring mistake.  The film is supposedly set in 1891, as announced in the opening moments.  But, a completed Tower Bridge is spanning the Thames in two specific shots (the bridge was opened in 1894).

Hugo Weaving

Thankfully, the "monster" scenes are few.  The fur and makeup were not convincing, or even very frightening.  They are gory, but in a drive-in movie sort of way.  Anthony Hopkins brings just a smidgen of Hannibal back to the screen and plays his shallow role with as much professionalism as an Oscar-winning role.  Benecio del Toro is less satisfying.  He is more emo than angsty.  Emily Blunt is lovely and superb.  I look forward to watching her in years to come.  But it is Hugo Weaving as the Scotland Yard inspector who steals every scene.  He full embodies every Lestrade, Whicher, and Japp ever played.

Lighting and motion captured by Shelly Johnson

The strongest part of the film is the cinematography by Shelly Johnson.  Every shot is gorgeous and ethereal.  Lowlight, candlelight, moonlight, fog, lantern - you name it, he can shoot it.  It is clear that he too has read his Sherlock Holmes and studied his Caspar David Friedrich.  Without his rich vision, the film would have been entirely unwatchable.  In fact, look for a shot the looks just like this painting by Friedrich.

Two Men Contemplating the Moon by C.D. Friedrich

The Young Victoria

The Brits have a love/hate obsession with their royals that is still somewhat a mystery to Americans. We have our celebrities that we love to hate but rarely, if ever, do we follow their story from birth to death. The young princes William and Harry have been speculated about since before they were born. For England, it has been true since the monarchy was installed. And as Americans, we have a limited, cursory view of the woman whose name inspired an era synonymous with propriety and staid relationships.

Seeing Academy Award winning screenwriter Julian Fellowes tender dramatization of Queen Victoria's early years was refreshing, lovely and often amusing. He interpreted a time in her life before she had become comfortable with power. Having been groomed to be nothing but a figurehead, she defied numerous pressures to take her place as the longest reigning English monarch to date.

Emily Blunt (who looks more than a little like HRH) brings an understated, light honesty to the role. She manages to show Victoria's humor, stubbornness, strength, compassion and uncertainty. Rupert Friend takes on the awkward but sweet and sincere Prince Albert of Saxon-Coburg. Their onscreen chemistry enhances the flirtatious nature of their courtship.

Most striking about the film's presentation is how accessible it is. Despite the depictions of excessive wealth, power, inane protocol, the audience is constantly aware that these are just people. It is more than a costume drama. It makes one of history's most notable love affairs as simple as a college sweetheart romance. They are nervous, excited, and have fights, just like any couple. The audience was actually cheering when the two finally become engaged -- even though we all knew the Victoria and Albert were a couple.

Additionally, Jim Broadbent's boisterous King William is very funny, and again underscores that everyone has an ungrateful aunt, a difficult uncle or an annoying cousin. Families will be families, no matter how blue their blood.

The Young Victoria bases itself on true events, including Sir John's vehement wish for a Regency, the attempt on Victoria's life and Victoria and Albert's adjoining desks. Of course, much of the dialogue is speculation, but Fellowes embeds so much that we cannot help but fall in love with the royals, just like any Brit.