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 fantasy feast for the eyes from ‘maverick’ director Terry Gilliam.

Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Heath Ledger, Christopher Plummer, Lily Cole, Verne Troyer, Tom Waits, Andrew Garfield
Running time: 122 mins

Terry Gilliam is not known in the film industry for having the best luck with his projects; as documentary Lost in La Mancha proves, he has been unfortunate enough to have film sets and equipment float away following mass flooding on location. But Gilliam and show business as a whole was struck the heaviest of blows with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the star of Gilliam’s latest film. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a strange merging of worlds which sees a topsy-turvy olde worlde sideshow (the ‘imaginarium’) incongruously placed in contemporary London. Dr Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) is an aging monk, who with his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) and other oddball characters, tries to scratch out a living by travelling around and ‘performing’ for the public. They are joined by Ledger’s Tony, who attempts to glamorise the show and generate more revenue for the group. From this point onwards, things spiral out of control (and comprehension), sending the characters into vivid and spectacular dimensions, requiring twice as many eyes to fully appreciate them.

It is sad to say that despite the legacy of wonderful performances that the late Heath Ledger leaves behind (Brokeback Mountain, The Dark Knight and even early work such as teen hit 10 Things I Hate About You), his final work on celluloid in Terry Gilliam’s latest film is not Ledger’s best. As Tony, the mysterious stranger who joins the oddball ‘family’ of a travelling sideshow, Ledger gives a bland and mediocre performance, a turn which lacks the spark he so clearly displayed in other roles. But Ledger can hardly be blamed for this, given that his character is so confusedly written, creating a role which (even in different circumstances) would be difficult for any actor to make sense of, even one with Ledger’s talent. Following his death, a trio of actors (and friends) Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped in to play different aspects of Tony’s personality, a feature which works well and certainly adds to the character. This is surprising seeing as this element of the film is potentially problematic to say the least, but is instead one of the most successful parts of the film.

As for the rest of the cast, Christopher Plummer as the titular Parnassus is solid, as is newcomer Andrew Garfield as Anton. Music fans may be able to recognise Tom Waits in a bizarre turn as Mr Nick, the demonic foil to Parnassus. Verne Troyer of Austin Powers fame is similarly awkward, cracking wise with clichéd one-liners. However, plaudits must go to model-turned-actress Lily Cole who gives a surprisingly subtle and convincing performance as Parnassus’ daughter, the flame-haired Valentina, proving that she is much more than a doll-like face. But fundamentally, Gilliam’s fantasy opus is deeply flawed. Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson once said that the key to great storytelling (and good filmmaking) is to strategically ask and answer a series of questions in the audience’s mind, and Gilliam, for all his wonderful ideas and creative talent fails to do this, leaving the audience asking more questions (arguably the location of any kind of plot structure) than the film is capable of answering. Instead of being taken on an adventure through breathtaking fantasy worlds, the audience is left floundering. The messy structure and lack of narrative rhythm make The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus a thoroughly strange experience – a visual masterpiece with a story that is virtually impossible to understand.

Gilliam’s moments of true genius (and these are many) are overshadowed by a sense of bewildering confusion. There is a certain amount of cruel irony in Tony’s speech to Parnassus, how he must meet the public half way between what they want and what he wishes to show them – if only Gilliam could live by his own character’s words. Once Gilliam marries his vision and creativity with well structured plot and narrative, we will surely have a masterpiece on our hands. Until that day comes however, we are left with a film that is as confusing as it is visually arresting.

Rating: MM

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

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

Director: John Patrick Shanley
Starring: Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams
Running time: 104 mins

For those who have only seen Meryl Streep in recent summer romp Mamma Mia or the fashion-themed fun of The Devil Wears Prada, John Patrick Shanley’s Doubt is a great window onto some of her more serious performances. This is for the primary reason that Doubt is well and truly Streep’s film, despite what the film’s Oscar nominations might suggest (an acting nomination for Streep, Hoffman and Adams). But this is also one of the main detractions from the film: Streep’s powerful performance (which undoubtedly – pun intended – is excellent) is left to dominate and overshadow the film itself. Adams’ performance is very good, although she seems to maintain a look of anxious trepidation throughout the entire film. Hoffman’s performance follows his usual excellent standards, simultaneously conveying an uncomfortable creepiness and kind benevolence.

The film features some clever subtle moments, one where Sister Aloysius (Streep) forces Sister James (Adams) to eat a piece of gristle that she previously spit out and put on her plate with one piercing look from her beady eyes – conveying the silent power and domination that Sister Aloysius holds over Saint Nicholas School and the rest of the nuns.  The nun who is suffering from sight deterioration placing the figures in the nativity crib at Christmas is also deftly handled. So is the cinematography, with some interesting off-balance and low-angle shots.

However, aside from three very good performances, Doubt fails to deliver on pretty much any other level. The film’s premise is basically all that happens in the film: nun/principal of Catholic school suspects and accuses priest of having a questionable relationship with a student. Doubt tries but never succeeds in escaping from this problem – nothing happens in the film that you haven’t already seen in the trailer. As for the ending: on one hand, the film’s climax which breaks with conventional explorations of mystery (by giving no answer one way or the other whether Sister Aloysius’s suspicions were correct or not) is an interesting one, leaving the audience to work out their own conclusions and judgements. On the other hand however, the film’s ending leaves the audience with a lack of real resolution and ‘closure’, forcing further questions to be asked than any to be answered. For some this would be to the film’s credit, but sadly not for this critic. There is an overriding sense of heavy-handedness in the film’s dialogue and smaller lead-up scenes which begins to grate and eventually becomes very irritating: “it takes a cat to catch a mouse” and “the wind has changed” are both lines that smack of poor writing that scream of try-hard symbolism.

All in all, Doubt marks another great performance from the ever-excellent Streep and Hoffman, and further establishes Adams’ reputation from being a star on the rise. But the overwhelming lack of dynamism and pace makes what could otherwise be a tense and intriguing drama into a tedious and dull 100 minutes. Perhaps Doubt works better on the stage (the film is a celluloid version of Shanley’s own play), but to be frank, I’ve seen enough.

Rating: MMM