Rating: MMMM

Review of ‘geezer’ director Guy Ritchie’s adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic character (and the world’s most famous detective) the inimitable Sherlock Holmes.

Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong, Kelly Reilly, Rachel McAdams
Running time: 128 mins

Infamous British gangster-thriller director Guy Ritchie’s take on the world’s most famous detective may not be the most faithful or accurate depiction of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Victorian detective, but his new Sherlock Holmes film is likely to be the most fun.
At the point in which the film begins, our heroes, the eponymous Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Doctor John Watson (Jude Law) are soon to be separated from being London’s brilliant and unrivaled ‘consulting detective’ partners by Watson’s impending engagement to his love Mary (Kelly Reilly). However, before the pair are to part ways, one more case must be solved – one that requires all of Holmes’ remarkable powers of deduction, observational skills and helping hands of Dr Watson. It is a case unlike any Holmes has ever confronted, apparently defying the laws of logic and science, one that terrorises London in a chain of strange and ritualistic murders and one that is seemingly orchestrated from beyond the grave by the recently deceased Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong).

The first point of praise for Ritchie’s film is that the plot of Sherlock Holmes is well conceived and structured, being complex and intriguing enough to be a believable case that Holmes and Watson have to solve, but straightforward enough for the audience not to be lost. Some parts are messy but never confusing, and the film as a whole is so damn entertaining that even the odd plot contrivance can be forgiven. There is a wonderful tension between the scientific and the gothic, capturing the tone and flavour of two Victorian phenomenons, coupled with a glimpse of the forward march of progress so omnipresnent in the late nineteenth century. The script is well written, clever and funny, is pleasingly lacking in the “me old china” -isms of Ritchie’s repertoir and perhaps more importantly, captures the brilliance and intelligence of Conan Doyle’s original character.

As is to be expected from a Guy Ritchie movie (in the face of his previous work, Lock, Stock, Snatch, Revolver), there is a certain amount of fisticuffs and bare-knuckle fighting in Sherlock Holmes which some might feel incongruous with the tone of the original source material. Surprisingly, however the inclusion of the violence is not to the detriment of the film – the scenes where Holmes takes on a prizefighter in a boxing match are coupled with a voice-over of him explaining his punches and techniques, presenting the violence as another facet of his detective skills.

In terms of performances, the central pair are without a doubt the stars of the show. Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes is excellent, intensely likeable and very charming. Likewise, Jude Law as Watson is also very good. The two together are brilliant, exuding charisma and a fantastic physical comedy that elevates the film above being simply entertaining and makes in out-and-out fun – their bickering ‘old married couple’ act is very well done, to the point where the relationship becomes the heart of the film and the mystery plays second fiddle – this is not a criticism however as the friendship dynamic between the two men worked so well, being funny, poignant and enjoyable.
Mark Strong as the villanous Lord Blackwood is deliciously evil and suitably gothic but never descending into camp devilry, maintaining a malevolent sensibility that is genuinely creepy. The only piece of characterisation that perhaps doesn’t work as well as the rest is Rachel McAdams as Holmes’ female foil and ‘love interest’ despite her being a crucial part of the film’s climax.

Sherlock Holmes is a good, solid, enjoyable and hugely entertaining action blockbuster that packs as many laughs as it does punches – Downey, Jr. and Law’s comic timing is fabulous. Go see.

Rating: MMMM

Review of the latest film of the Harry Potter franchise, sixth film Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which sees Harry and Dumbledore unite to search into Voldemort’s past in an effort to discover secrets that will lead them to destroy him.

Director: David Yates
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Running time: 153 mins

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the second film about the boy wizard to be directed by David Yates (his first outing in the franchise being film #5, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) with films #1 and #2 helmed by Chris Columbus, the third by Alfonso Cuaron and the fourth by Mike Newell. Interestingly, where the second film suffered with a lack of freshness by Columbus once more taking the reins, Half-Blood Prince also suffers.

But just where the film falls down seems on the surface hard to pinpoint. On the whole (with a few glaring exceptions) the performances are reasonably good, the production value and visual effects are faultless, the dialogue is acceptable and for those wishing to pick holes in the book-to-screen transition, there is little to criticise. Where the problem comes however, is in the film’s pace which lacks dynamism and any sense of rhythm. Some scenes concentrate heavily on the mystery surrounding the identity of the Half-Blood Prince (which Harry comes across in an old school textbook) while others neglect this part of the plot completely. Quidditch seems to feature heavily, which seems incongruous to the film’s advertised tone – the franchise getting darker as Voldemort’s power grows. It must be said that far too much of the film is given over to the pangs of teenage love and raging hormones – all of which are important elements in the source material but here take up far too many scenes.

Having said that the performances are fairly good, this is only true of the adult actors and a very small number of their younger counterparts. Daniel Radcliffe is as ever painfully hit-and-miss, with some scenes feeling cringingly awkward whereas others are fairly good (the scene involving the lucky potion Felix Felicis in particular) . In comparison, Jim Broadbent  is excellent as new Potions teacher Professor Horace Slughorn, as is Michael Gambon as the illustrious Albus Dumbledore. Rupert Grint continues to demonstrate brilliant comic timing and excellent performance skills in his reprisal of Ron Weasley. Sadly, as ever, Emma Watson struggles in her portrayal of Hermione Granger as she has done in the previous films. However, she fares better than Bonnie Wright (Ginny Weasley) who is extremely poor – her relationship and ‘blossoming romance’ with Harry withers on screen with a complete lack of chemistry. However, the two young actors as the young Tom Riddle (at ages 11 and 16 respectively), Hero Fiennes-Tiffin and Frank Dillane are superb, with the two performances maintaining a tension between sinister and eerie and a creepy seductiveness.

Other elements of the film are also good, the visual effects in particular – the inky thoughts tipping into the Pensieve are excellent, as is the fire wielded by Dumbledore near the film’s climax. However, there is an inescapable feeling of mediocrity running more or less throughout the entire film which cannot be evaded even by the aforementioned firy adventures of Harry and Dumbledore and their consequences. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is perhaps the weakest in the canon since the excellence of film number four – and sadly the curse of keeping the same director is set to continue with Yates at the helm of the franchise’s final instalments.

Rating: MMM

Rating: MM

The first review originally written for Maz’s Movie Memorandum, of Michael Bay’s sequel to his 2007 summer box-office smash, Transformers.

Director: Michael Bay
Starring: Shia La Beouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel, John Turturro
Running Time: 150 mins

As with most Michael Bay films and its predecessor, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is expectedly a triumph of style over substance. The film opens with a frenetic action sequence which gives way to some pleasing lighter scenes, involving the loveable (if somewhat unlikely) hero Sam Witwicky and his family. However, these scenes and other more character-driven moments seem few and far between in a film that is almost entirely composed of explosions and clouds of scattered dust.

Having said this though, the film is good solid summer fare, with a few witty lines here and there and enough charm to keep the audience interested. Where the film falls down however, is in the deployment of a troublesome third act, in which the film loses all sense of pace (the film feels 45 minutes too long) and in fact, narrative trajectory; it takes a monologue of exposition from a new old-man transformer (found and re-awoken by the protagonists at a visit to the Smithsonian Museum, of Night at the Museum 2 fame) to make things clear – a lack of clarity and obscure plot that this film shares with the original, something that Bay and his writers clearly haven’t managed to improve upon, despite a seemingly infinite budget. This, it appears has been spent entirely on visual effects, all of which are admittedly stunning, but are nothing we haven’t seen before.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen demonstrates that in a franchise, both premise and characters need an element of freshness to really succeed. Shia La Boeuf returns as Sam, a likeable enough character, but with far less to do than in the first Transformers film which certainly gave La Beouf more scope to develop the role. Perennial men’s magazine favourite Megan Fox also reprises her role of Sam’s love interest Mikaela, but seems to appear only in the capacity of the token gorgeous girl, wearing skimpy shorts and running around screaming for her boyfriend – her only saving grace being that she can hot-wire a car.

In this second outing of the Transformers franchise there seems to be far less dialogue between characters and much more time given to gratuitous action sequences with more transformers than one can really keep up with. And keeping up appears a hard task – in fact truthfully, staying focused is harder, as the film really does suffer from being just that bit too long. In all, for a summer blockbuster there is enough to keep audiences happy, but only just.

Rating: MM (add another if you’re a fan of the toys/cartoon)

Review of Push first published in a March 2009 issue Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Paul McGuigan
Starring: Chris Evans, Camilla Belle, Dakota Fanning, Djimon Hounsou
Running Time: 111 mins

The title of Paul McGuigan’s sci-fi thriller Push refers to a super power, of ‘pushing’ thoughts into the minds of others, which ‘Pushers’ Djimon Hounsou and Camilla Belle achieve throughout the film with often devastating results – Kira (Belle) uses her ‘Pusher’ mind tricks to force one of her captors into believing that his partner murdered his brother, when he in fact had no brother. ‘Watchers’ (Dakota Fanning being the prime example) can predict the future, ‘Sniffers’ (you guessed it) have a highly developed sense of smell. All of these super abilities are very well dealt with in the film, with the ‘Bleeders’ being the most visually arresting – the chase through Hong Kong market streets with tank after tank exploding with the pressure of the fish inside bleeding to death is an excellent touch. However, although the end result of the Bleeders’ abilities is effortlessly cool, the fact that the powers emanate from mad-eyed screaming men is embarrassingly contrived and laughable.

Chris Evans as Nick is as well-toned and handsome as ever, as is Djimon Hounsou (in a departure from the high-brow fare such as Blood Diamond and Gladiator). However, for arguably talented actors (Hounsou especially) both aren’t really given enough to do. The character of Nick lacks the depth and sympathy needed from a leading role, while Housou’s villain is only just saved from being two-dimensional. Camilla Belle is surprisingly good, perhaps atoning for the drivel that was 10,000 BC, presenting Kira as a strong woman dangerously caught up in a tangled mess of her own making (to say anymore would give away a plot twist at film’s climax). As Cassie the 13-year-old Watcher and unlikely sidekick to Nick, Dakota Fanning gets more and more irritating as the film goes on, apparently possessing the ability to cry whilst maintaining the same bored facial expression but never to look at all pained or sad.

Visually, the film excels, cutting between slick and grainy camerawork, making for an interesting and original visual style that seems more reminiscent of a gritty British drama than a Hollywood superhero movie. The effects are equally good, making clever and cool use of standard computer generated trickery (the two handguns that Nick manipulates into floating mid-air and following him is excellent) and more traditional effects such as different powders exploding in bursts of colour. McGuigan’s use of music is also very slick, using both contemporary and retro tunes to great effect. However, as is the worrying trend among many recent silver-screen outings (and in this case is more disappointing seeing as the premise and other aspects of the film are so promising), Push is let down by a poor and dull script and a rather messy third act that leaves the audience in little else than confusion. This aside, Push makes solid ground on which to hopefully build a better sequel (the end of the film suggests that a sequel must be on the cards, although in a deliciously ambiguous way).

Rating: MMM