Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows, 2011

Sherlock Holmes: A game of shadows,2011
Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Robert Downey Junior, Jude Law, Jared Harris




Stage: Home theatre


Sherlock in short: Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and his longtime trusted associate, Doctor Watson (Jude Law), take on their arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), with the help of Holmes's older brother Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) and a gypsy named Sim (Noomi Rapace).


Preps: This is a hot cake in our theatre's oven. Especially because of my respect for Holmes I need to see it. However because of part one, I doubt I will like it.



Reality: Unfortunately I am correct. As I stated in my critic for part one, part two is a true example of a movie that doesn't have much to do with the figure designed and written about by Doyle. This Sherlock Holmes is a weird detective in Ritchie's eyes. I would expect a weird and somehow wacky enough movie to impress me by Ritchie. The problem is that I read all of Doyle's novels about Sherlock Holmes and I would love to see something like that series we were watching around 15 years ago.

As said, this piece is nothing like this. Combining action features from Matrix and similar movies, it takes us to Kill Bill like scenes, kung fu fighting and escaping bullets quicker than Tom Cruise in MI. A horrible mixture and horrible piece, if you are seeking for true Sherlock like the one depicted by Doyle.
However, if you are not, prepare for the mixture because it might impress you. I wasn't impressed, because I was looking for some true logic and mind games Sherlock Holmes was famous for. Instead, I got a lot of fighing, some gentlemen deeds and fear of love. Bljah. Ritchie was on something when shooting this. Or when reading about Sherlock Holmes. If you are trying to create a movie about a persona, why do it in such a weird style.. least to Holmes. The unfortunate deed for this critic is that I really adored those novels when I was a child. And am still fighting to see a good movie screening of this. Which Game of shadows definitely isn't. But you will find it intriguing if you aren't obsessed with the Doyle's figure.


My personal rate: 2,0 (despite the good movie quality this isn't really about Holmes. It's about Ritchie).


Sherlock on IMDB

Soapdish, 1991

Soapdish, 1991
Director: Michael Hoffmann
Cast: Elisabeth Shue, Kevin Kline, Sally Field, Robert Downey Jr.





Stage: Home TV selection


Soapdish in short: Celeste Talbert has been the queen of the soaps for over two decades. Montana Moorehead needs to get her out of her way before she can move on and begins her program to get her to leave. She hires an old boyfriend of Celeste to be on the show and has Celeste become a murderer in the script, but each attempt has unforseen consequences.

Preps: I have never heard of the piece and the cast in the beginning drives my attention sharp. Therefore I sit and stare :)


Reality: Making soap operas must be a killer in terms of scenarios. Always same issues, same drama, same settings. How to make this interesting and appealing to the crowd, this is the big question.

This movie tries to give a background to the soap operas, however, while doing this, it turns into one of them. This piece is namely, nothing more than previous setting of soap dishes it is trying desperately to give a serious insight into. instead, I am looking at a version of a Jerry Springer meets Oprah Winfrey, seasoned with some of the favourite dishes of the past (Dinasty, Dallas, and some of the spanish http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifcuisine of these days.). The only thing missing is Antonio or Alfonso or Jose, coming with his open arms, claiming everlasting love. Nope, I am wrong, here he is. Kevin Kline in role of Jose Armando or whatever those spanish clowns are in soap operas.

In any case, if you are a fan of soap operas, you might enjoy this one. It doesn't have any body, any realistic story, any plot that I could stick my eyes into and no real ending. Which is quite good for a soap opera remake. But very bad to my standards and definitely not my genre. The cast is awful, eventhough distinguished. As if they were making fun of making the movie or presenting themselves. I am sure all of them can do better.


My personal rate: 1,0 (bljah!!)

Soapdish on IMDB

Due Date, 2010

Due Date, 2010
Director: Todd Philips
Cast: Robert Downey JR., Zach Galifianakis


Stage: Home theatre

Due Date in short: Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) must get to LA in five days to be at the birth of his firstborn. He is about to fly home from Atlanta when his luggage and wallet are sent to LA without him, and he is put on the "no-fly" list. Desperate to get home Peter is forced to accept the offer of Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) to hitch a ride with him cross-country. Peter is about to go on the most terrifying and agonizing journey of his life.



Preps: Hot in cinema, a little less warm in my living room. I only know it by its fame, not by content.


Reality: Yuk. One of the worst movies this year. How come actors accept stupid comedies like this? This one is a Roadtrip wannabe. Not even close to being as funny as that one, that is in my opinion, pretty decent movie. Well, this one will only get on your nerves. Downey in role of this nevrotic guy that urges to come to the labor of his newly born child. Zach in a role of a big child. Should be at least amusing. In my opinion, it underestimates the intelligence of a viewer. Therefore I need to give it a strong disrecommendation. I still feel a bit annoyed for even standing this for 45 minutes. This was at least my level of tolerance, before I shut this one down.

There isn't a good saying deriving from this. Or a good note, that you could appreciate. I strongly believes that it mocks US people and makes fun of their stupidity. At least that is something that would amuse an EU viewer.


My personal rating: 1,0 (you truly won't miss a thing missing this)

Due Date on IMDB

Iron man, 2008

Iron man, 2008
Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Junior, Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard



Stage: home theatre/home TV

Short synopsis: When wealthy industrialist Tony Stark is forced to build an armored suit after a life-threatening incident, he ultimately decides to use its technology to fight against evil.


Preps: a recommendation from a friend + suggestion from the newspaper. Since I am in the mood to watch something on TV after a long week and need to relax, seems like a reasonable idea.


Reality: Ufff.. I am dissappointed. Since I am not really a fan of McGyver, James Bond and genre, where male ego points out like the Eiffel in Paris, or I don't acknowledge added value in building cars, weapons and having sex with multiple women at the same time, I don't appreciate the movie. Even the superb cast doesn't make me taste the difference. Well, in this case, the woman drinks martini with lots of olives, dry and shaken.

The movie represents the wealth that creates weapons and one man that stands alone against evil. eh.. maybe it wasn't such a great idea. And of course, government issues regarding Afganistan, etc. I would say it's mocking the system with its view of the things and in such cases I tend to have ironic thoughts. However, I stop watching at the middle, I think. Even the gorgeous Downey can be repellant if put in such a role.

My personal rating: 3,0 (or maybe it's just me not seeing the real value of the movie?)

Iron man on IMDB

Sherlock Holmes 2009

Sherlock Holmes, 2009. Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Jude Law, Robert Downey Jr., Rachel McAdams
Genre: action/adventure



Short synopsis: Detective Sherlock Holmes and his stalwart partner Watson engage in a battle of wits and brawn with a nemesis whose plot is a threat to all of England.

Movie set: Colloseum, Ljubljana.
My mindset at going to watch to the cinema: I have studied Sherlock Holmes my entire childhood. Always wanted to be as clear in judgement, smart, attentive, dedicated, excellent and brilliant in logic. Also went to see the memoriam house in London, have all the books and watched also all the series, etc, revolving around the guy. The highest expectations possible. Could be compared with those I had for the LOTR.

Reality:
I didn't do my homework. Didn't see the background of the movies and was thrilled to see the best born detective in action. In the right timeframe. That at least what I thought I would see. The reality hurts deep inside. The movie is going to be appreciated by those that seek no deeper meaning in Sherlock, by those, that didn't study the guy and sure didn't see what his lab looked like.

Overall experience
The Director's play is put in a pretty much genuine remake of Holmes's appartment in London (yes, the one you can even visit today). At first I thought it was filmed there - however I doubt that, because it's a good London tourist attraction and I believe they made just a remake of that studio. The scenery is pretty much taken from that time - they did their homework. I believed it was the impression of London in that time. The spectator lacks in seeing Sherlock's brilliance and logic (some rare and precious exceptions are in the movie!), but gains in seeing so many fighting sequences I thought it was a kung fu movie I was watching. Since I come from a martial arts background I don't mind the fighting sequences (very similar to The Fight Club, combined with the Matrix technology of stopping the sequences making them more hard to swallow and better to look at). The fights occur at least half of the movie, which surprises me. Plus they are accompanied by irish folk music. It is supposed to be a detective movie, rising from my expectations (see above). Downing's performance isn't stunning, but Law's is. I recommend the dialoges and also believe that the way he poses the humour and opens to the spectator is magnificent- because of Law some scenes in the movie and some dialogues are truly wonderful to watch.

Somewhere in the middle, the movie loses me. It wanders towards sci-fi and suddenly I am wondering what am I doing in the theatre. Like Harry Potter, we wander from the pure logic or a logical criminal case to the X-Files and by myself, I am wondering, how the director is going to solve this. It is supposed to be a movie about a superb detective that solves everything by pure logic and brilliance of a mind. However, the movie poses some evil forces of devil to come along to destroy England? The forces, that can raise from the dead and scare everything that comes up their path?

In the last fifteen minutes, I am relieved somehow. The movie returns to what it was supposed to be. Somewhat a Poirot ending. Where Sherlock explains everything and makes the spectators dumb and ignorant to the obvious logical truth.

I would kindly leave the inner 45 minutes out. Keep the superb sequences: the dive from the parliament, the fight on the 100 meter high bridge construction; the butcher pig sequence (The puzzle they have to solve there and the punishment reminded me of the Saw saga; definitely the dialog between Watson and Holmes - I believe these two actors bring the best out of themselves while rattling around about a piece of evidence or a friendly fight about the clothing, proper wording, etc. Apart from that.. the story is dissappointing, the flow within also.. from a lot of expectations I was growing.. well, I am not sorry because of the dialog I saw and some of the scenario parts.

There is something puzzling in the movie I keep wondering about. Something with the pigs, butchery, dialogues, etc. As said before, I didn't do the homework - didn't know the cast, directors, background. But the movie itself reminds me of something I have already seen. Maybe Inglorious Bastards? I am not sure. The scenes, humour, the way the irony is presented - I see it on the outro - Guy Ritchie. Of course. The best humour from Snatch and Lock, Stock, Two Smoking Barrels pours out here also. Not in the same way, but in the way that makes me smile at the end, when this mystery is solved.


My personal rate: 6,5 (decent fun)



p.s.: IMDB peak: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/