Opinion is divided on the Guy Ritchie interpreation of Conan-Doyles’ work. Personally I like when the first one came out I re-read the books and I thought they captured the essence of the original, rather than the politically correct Basil Ratbone snob accompanied by a bubbling Watson. Sure Watson does not have the analytical mind of Holmes, but he has the good sense and pragmatism his friend lacks.  Again the RD-Jr.  and Law partneship works.

There is the cartoonish feel to this movie as with the previous one and some of the novelty of the original is lost we we get used to the style but it is still greatly entertaining in its larger than life view of the world. These films are not reproductions of the books but rather interpreations of the character drawing from the written volumes – Gang of Four and A Scandal in Bohemia  as well as others are the plot basis here.

The arch villan of Conan-Doyle’s work is of course Professor Moriarity, a shadowy figure who comes out in to the daylight in this offering. This is perhaps a slight weakness as I like my Moriarity as a dark figure, but this is a matter of interpretation. I’m also not sure about Mycroft, Sherlock’s older brother who is actually the smarter one of the two who essntially has an unidentified role in Whitehall  esnuring the safety of the empire and the running of the country. Equally as odd as sherlock he seems just a little front and centre for me, but that said, I think nicely played by Stephen Fry.

The nearest to any timeline here is Watson’s upcoming nuptuals, again Law plays the gambling war-hero with the flaws and strengths of the original. Quietly saving Holmes from himsellf – and others- along the way.

I mentioned some of the books earlier, and indeed the key one is he Final Problem, the book where Conan-Doyle tried to kill-off his creation via the Reichenbach falls, this coming in the second movie of the franchise was a surprise but Ritchie worked well with it – I’m saying no more on that aspect.

When all is said and done it is light-hearted entertainment, just as the original weekly stories were. Holmes has always been open to reinterpretation and reinvention and this series of films is no different.

I’ve come to like Guy Ritchie’s work and this is no different, if you want to spend some time with most of your brain parked outside (retain some mental faculties to keep up with Sherlock!) the cinema and be entertained then this movie will work for you. Not perfect but the flaws perhaps add to it.

6/10 – a solid 3 star movie which earns the ticket price.

Pure shoot-em-up pulp, but that’s what we like about The Underworld series. Kate Beckinsale is back as the Lycan hunting vampire who seems to spend as much time up against her fellow blood suckers as the wolves.

This is the fourth movie in the series and to my mind possibly the weakest, that said it is works as an action movie. Like all action movies there needs to be a bad guy and Stephen Rea plays this part nicely. His usual understated manner hides a darker side which comes out as the movie progresses.

It does not have the same gothic feel as the earlier movies where the metropolis had a more China Mieville or dystopic  feel. It should be noted that like the previous offerings in the franchise, despite the free availability of vampires and werewolves, sorry lycan, it is not a horror (if you want a horror, watch Twilight – scary!).

The movie starts with a summary and update on the situation regarding humanity, the lycan and the vampires. I’m not going to say too much about the story line except to say, this time round there is not much of Michael, but Selene does have a daughter which she acquired thanks to the wonders of modern science and Mr. Rea.

One of the features of the previous outings was the weaponry and not only the design and imagination of the weapons used but also their total inability to run out of ammunition.  Rather than have this as an embarrassing  prop/direction failure, the directors Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein make it a feature.  Speaking of features, I’m generally not a fan of 3D as it usually does not work and leaves me with eye strain but this time it actually worked…in the important places. What this movie shows is the importance of planning for 3D and not just using it as an anti-pirating/novelty device. I’m still not converted to the dark side, but this was one of the better 3D offerings. The fight sequences are still the set-pieces which we have come to expect.

As with the previous outings the cast is a mix of big-draw names like Charles Dance and Stephen Rea supporting Ms Beckinsale  but also relative new comers to the movie stage like Theo James (young –relatively- vampire) or India Eisley, who plays her daughter “Eve” – perhaps not the most original name given the story line. Kris Holden-Ried, fresh from Lost Girl, plays the Ubber-lycan

What is the matter with “Eve” as a name you may ask, well not much except for the DNA work and genetic splicing which are the background plot devices for the movie and so you see not the most original name, but one which perhaps travels trans-nationally and causes no confusion.

Without giving the game away, the ending clearly acts as an advertisement for Underworld: (insert tag) or simply Underworld 5. There are worse franchises and I will probably find myself in the cinema for the next one.

Rating = 6/10 it does the job, but call me old fashioned – I still like my vampires to have that gothic feel to them 🙂

Okay, so there is baggage with this movie, but leave the baggage at the door and go watch a couple of great performances.  I often have a hard time watching Meryl Streep in roles as I usually just see her as Meryl Streep playing a character; here however I saw a portrayal of a character and I was watching that character. Jim Broadbent as Denis Thatcher adds to the strength of the offering. Watching Broadbent reminded me of his role in Iris (Richard Eyre, 2001). There are many similarities to both movies. Great minds suffering from a mental decline and old age which contrasts with their achievements in earlier life. Now both are totally dependent on others.

The Movie opens with the “Iron Lady” shuffling about unrecognised (or ignored) is a small corner store buying milk.  Later we see one of her (heavily armed) security officers getting a dressing down by her nurse for letting her out of the building; this is typical of the subtlety of the movie which get the offering across.

Divorcing ourselves from the history many of us grew up with, we see an elderly woman missing her dead husband and taking cues from many ordinary life events to  return to a safer, warmer world with her dear husband beside her.  Like Citizen Kane there is a narrative of flashback and like Kane they are not chronological or meant as historical lessons but rather her view looking back at memories.

In this movie we see how a woman, once perhaps the most powerful women in the world, is now a virtual prisoner in her own home and perhaps her own mind. What we have here is a study of how power is taken away but the way in which that power affects the person continues.  Is she suffering from dementia or simply surrendering back into her memories and living in a time past.

Streep deserves to be recognised for her efforts here. Like Clooney in The Descendants (see blog entry) she is the central plank of the movie and if she fails, the movie fails, She did not fail. This is not a historical biopic, the historic events within which Mrs. Thatcher had a role are viewed through the prompts which are about the house or arise through conversations, this is about here now, not then. Another aspect of the film is of course the flashbacks, again they work. W.E. is an example of where this does not work, clashing and jarring with the narrative (poor as it was in the first place). I mentioned Iris earlier and there, like The Iron Lady, the flashbacks give us another view to the narrative, adding to the overall story.

The weakness in the movie is the under use of the fantastic supporting cast, even though the temptation might be to over use supports like Richard E. Grant, John Session or Nick Dunning etc. the temptation was so strongly resisted it took away, perhaps, from what they could have added. That said if they had done so it might have been a completely different movie.  I still would have liked to have seen them used more.  If you are going to use prominent actors, you should be prepared to use then for more than wallpaper.

Rating 6/10

Normally a George Clooney vehicle movie would not draw  me but the reviews and his Oscar (c) nomination got me thinking. When our special correspondent  – Catherine –  suggested it, I said why not. It is said that without pathos there is no comedy, there is plenty of pathos in this movie and more than enough comedy to prevent it from being as dark as it might otherwise be. There are a number of laugh out-loud moments, but it is the more subtle humour, often situational, that is far more affecting and adds to the film’s appeal.

Of course being a fan of Alexander Payne’s all to scarce work helped make the decision. So what about the movie? Well it is very much a Payne work and a Clooney vehicle, I don’t think there was a scene without Clooney in it. This is a dangerous gamble, if the lead fails so does the movie. In this case he probably gave the best performance of his career, every scene added to the experience even where he clumsily ran to his friends’ home in his sandles.

If I have one criticism of the movie it is in the publicity material, only Clooney’s name gets major billing; his co-star Shailene Woodley deserves co-billing for her part as his 17 year old daughter. I should also mention Amara Miller who plays her troubled 10 year old sister.

The movie revolves around Clooney’s attempts to bring up his daughters and come to terms with his wife’s deteriorating health as they essentially wait for her to die following a boating accident.  While this dominates family life there is the back issue of he trying to manage the sale of a large area of land which is in an extended family trust. As difficult as all this is, he learns of his wife’s infidelity and seeks our the other man.

As if life was not hard enough already, his daughter “Alexandra”, with whome he has a troubled relationship,  insists on her friend “Sid”, played by Nick Krause accompanying her during the dark days ahead. In a Cassablanca momment later in the movie we learn of just why Sid is so important to Alexandra and the entire family.  In many ways  this fine film in rather like “Little Miss Sunshine” – a road movie about a troubled family as they rise to life’s challenges and try to come out the other side without being too damaged.  How they actually end up is something you will have to watch the movie to find out.

In short this is a fantastically engaging movie where only the worst sociopath could not empathise with just about all of the wonderfully scripted cast in the King family. Payne has two more movies out next year…good! time to dig out Sideways again.

Rating = 8/10 – the movie is not flawless, but what little falws there are are not worth talking about  – watch it, enjoy it

Now, you can  see this is an example of a movie that will never go down in history as one of the greats, but it is enjoyable.

From the opening bar scene Gina Carano is the star, we migh havw a new action hero in the making here. The support cast is largely first-class, however one problem in  having such talented support as Mssrs Banderas, Douglas or McGregor is that the not so great additional support is really shown up; Channing Tatum showed all the acting skill of the background paint – not his best effort (actually it might have been…).

The Scenes in Barcelona and Dublin were fun, the only distraction was in knowing both cities I was tempted to look for continuity breaks lke rounding one corner to come out somewhere on the other side of the citiy (as in  Flight of the Doves, 1971), but thankfully nothing too bad here.

The plot seems almost like an afterthought and I’m convinced that one or two scenes were added to try and explain it. In short the plot line was so loose and almost non-existant that there almost was none. That that was only a secondary issue, no body went to that movie for the plot, or at least I hope not!

The movie moved well, the action sequences were great and it was novel to see Dublinin a spy/action flic. Not the best movie ever made, but not the worst, well worth a watch, if for nothing else other than for a few minutes of good old fashioned escapism.

Does it live up to its name, yes it certainly is Haywire 🙂

Rating = 6/10 – average

Let’s get straight to the point, she might be able to sing, but directing is not one of Madge’s strong points.

W.E. is a meandering, badly shot, trip along the day-dreams of a lonely middle-class New Yorker who dreams of W.E’s romance.

So what was wrong with the movie? From the very start the directing mistakes were obvious, the sound recording was off and the random “flashbacks” took some getting used to.

I’ll ignore the bad sound editing, the very badly held together plot threads and the Russian security guard with the NY Loft appartment full of antique furniture…if being a security guard at an auction house pays that much, well then I’m outta here!

Some of the more serious faults of the movie were the simple script mistakes compounded by the doubling over of props when they should not have been used.

Some movies you go to are just poor or bad, subjectively; but this movie is in my humble opinion technically the worst movie I have seen in years.

That said the soundtrack to the movie is good, or maybe it seems good given the low bar it has to work to…..if you are planning on seeing this movie, then I might suggest the time would be better filing some tax returns….

Rating 2/10 and that is only for the music

A friend loved the movie, because of the romance of it all. I might be all too hard-nosed but my biggest question as I sat in agony was – is it okay to walk out now?

This is one of those movies that you will either love or hate…before the credits even roll.  We’re all used to the old silent movies and pretty soon into watching The Artist you settle in to the modern take on the oldest movie format.

Michel Hazanavicius is not the best known director out there, his best known works to date are the OSS 117 movies which, let’s face it, are not all that well known. This movie should change all that.

Don’t be fooled, it is a great movie, but one which you have to want to watch.  If silent movies shot in black and white about the silent movie era are not your thing then watch out.

However, if like me, you are open to the experience, then this movie rewards you.

Jean Dujardin, who has worked with Hazanavicius in the past gives a career redefining role, Berenice Bejo is equally as strong supporting the silent movie star.  I expect to see a lot more of these two in the future.

Without giving te game away the movie follows the ups and downs of two silent movie stars, one well established house-hold name and a rising young starlet as the talkies come to Hollywood.

The support acting from John Goodman and James Cromwell and others tops off a great movie.

The star of the show is Uggie the dog – he should have been nominated for something!

It would only be right to mention the off-screen team also. Firstly the incidental music really adds to the mood and intensity of scenes as the film progresses. The cinematography lends to the sence of fun in the movie, try to notice the different camera styles and shots; Hazanavicius was evidently having fun with his subtle tributes to Wells, Hitchcock and the rest, excellentlt done!

Go watch it! it is one of those movies where you’ll come out of the cinema asking was it a really good or bad movie, five minutes later you’ll have answered that question, in my case it falls into the category “really good”

Go see it.

Some upcoming blogs:

W.E. – the worst movie I’ve seen in years

Underworld: awakening – does what it says on the label

The Iron Lady – park your opinions and go see it

Haywire – mad, bad…but entertaining

J.Edgar

Coriolanus – what to do with one of his least loved plays…

The descendants

War Horse…