Millie Bobby Brown is superb as usual, and the film usually kept me interested. But there are too many contrived coincidences. Enola is randomly walking in London and sees a ribbon tied on a door by her mother. She randomly walks through a forest and sees the tree house. Arthur Conan Doyle would never have used such contrived incidents to move the plot forward.
shareJust another sign of the decay of Western Civilisation. Few can be bothered making the effort to produce first class work anymore. Slap dash is good enough.
She wasn't randomly there though, she deduced the location from some clue.
Nope. If we don't see her do that we can't make that assumption. And if that's what Springer wants us to assume it's even worse writing.
share
It's not an assumption, it was shown on screen. I remember this bit specifically.
You should rewatch.
OK, what was he specific clue about where she would find the ribbon? And what was the specific clue about where she would find the treehouse?
shareThe things that bothered me more were like the all important Bill that young Tewkesbury was going to vote for in the Parliament that was the reason his grandmother tried to murder him wasn't explained. It was probably one of the most important plot points of the film and it was ignored.
It was for some kind of reform, they mentioned it throughout the movie. His staid uncle would have voted against it, but the young liberal Marquess would have voted for it, and that was a problem for the grandma.
Yes but what kind of reform was it ? What was so important that Tewkesbury's grandmother wanted to kill him to prevent it becoming law ?
Enola Holmes movie should be set in 1884 when Representation of the People Act 1884, or the Third Reform Act, was passed. That should be the reform bill mentioned in the movie, at least chronologically, if we are faithful to the history.
That bill extended voting rights to about 60% of men, that means significantly more commoners are allowed to vote.
Right well there you go thank you. The Aristocrats thought the rabble were at the gates so that was the motive for the attempted murder. Don't you think they might have made that clear ?
I think the ambiguity was on purpose because these women would not have fought and even prepared to use bombs to assassinate lords because of a bill like this (the bill only allowed men to vote).
Representation of the People Act 1918 or women’s voting right bill is another bill hinted in the movie, that bill was more likely what these women were fighting for. But the grandmother might not have felt too strongly about that. Also this bill was not right chronologically because the Homes story was set in late 19th century, not earlier 20th century.
Neither bill fits the story perfectly I think that was the reason for ambiguity. I think the movie was hinting at some sort of universal suffrage bill, but that would mean changing of history.
Maybe so, or perhaps they didn't think the young target audience would be interested in it. But as it was it made the Grandmother look like a lunatic and her henchman look like a psycho when actually they saw themselves as true patriots defending England's old way of life.
They were in a way. Leaving the fate of the country to the hardly educated people is kind of crazy to think about it.
But they were worrying for nothing. Concentrated media ownership leaving majority of uneducated clueless what is really going on. Establishment parties largely funded by corporate money made sure only properly screened candidates can be elected. So corporate elites are still controlling the country, though aristocrats are no longer big part of it.
Well the Aristocrats had a very low opinion of people who made their money in trade so your opinion that they had nothing to worry about may not have reassured them. And as things have turned out maybe they were right.
I think that is why monarchy is still there. People might be clueless but they are not stupid enough to trust the "leaders" they have no choice but electing.
I think more often than not people don't want either of the candidates they are allowed to choose from even they don't know both have been approved by the two main factions of corporate elites (progressives and conservatives).
I think France did better, a minor third party candidate (Emmanuel Macron) was able to quickly gain popularity and get elected. Then again people quickly realized he was just another corporate stooge (silly people, how could they possibly know the candidates without the blessings from media moguls?). That just shows how far corporate money could reach, how perfect the system has become.
Anyway, my point is we are still ruled by elites. I think even after most people realized that they would still probably think that is better than letting the uneducated mass actually run the country.
I am sure the grandmother and the assassin would have rested easier if they knew how things turned out, they might not be very happy letting merchants running the country but at least they probably would not have killed to prevent it from happening. If they were patriots.