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

Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides, 2011

Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides, 2011
Director: Rob Marshall
Cast: Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Ian McShane, Geoffrey Rush



Stage: Local theatre, 3D with glasses (can you imagine the fact that you pay extra for the 3D show and after that, you still need to pay for the glasses before you enter the theatre? Feels like an undeveloped state..)

Pirates in short: Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) crosses paths with a woman from his past (Cruz), and he's not sure if it's love -- or if she's a ruthless con artist who's using him to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. When she forces him aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge, the ship of the formidable pirate Blackbeard (McShane), Jack finds himself on an unexpected adventure in which he doesn't know who to fear more: Blackbeard or the woman from his past.


Preps: Wow, is it the fourth in the row? So silent launch, I accidentally found the news about the premiere on the local news. I cannot believe it - I think I heard some rumours in this week. I am anxious to get my hands on this piece, as I am a huge fan of Carribean Pirates, not to say Johnny Depp as first obviously ;)


Reality: I feel like I'm stuck in a cartoon. And I never want to be drug out of this one. Sparrow remains Sparrow, the mistery they are solving this time seems similar, the dame is another and main villains are also somewhat same.
What makes this a masterpiece? Well, the bundle, I guess. The music is stimulating and makes you want to dance while you are watching. The move Sparrow keeps making makes me want to repeat it, same as some fans want to still repeat Jackson's moves :)
It is the same and at this point, I think I know it by heart. It just gives an add on to all the fights.

The humour is also one of the main characters of the movie. You need to get into the mood "everything is possible", to cope with this piece. I think that in any other brain mindset you will get lost in all the doubtful stories, all the actions of stealing something right before your nose. And of course, all get well and noone will get hurt. If not submerged to the pirate's laws :)

In Slovenia, we have a good comic book by Miki Muster. When I was young, I wanted to read this constantly. And I could never get fed up by those three characters. Stories similar, fights changed only in scene positioning, but solid good humour and fun to read. The same feeling I have here with the saga of the Pirates - I am absolutely a fan, although I admit it's not rocket science now with the fourth sequel. Now, as we are marketeered by the first piece and the audience usually gets accomodated with the first part (and normally hates the other parts), in this case, you cannot hate this part. It is just as fun to watch as the first one. But I do admit the first one was a hit in the heart for most of the viewers, including me. The scenery couldn't be more magical - most of the scenes were shot in the jungle of Dominica. And some of Photo Shop helps, of course. Still, you will enjoy your ride with the Pirates, if you liked the first parts.


My personal rate: 6,0 (a good piece, especially regarding the fact that it's the fourth in the row - normalwise, the fun and the quality staggers when the director wants to make a second last sentence or even third or fourth).


Pirates on IMDB

Pirates official home page

King Kong, 2005

King Kong, 2005
Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody


Stage: Home TV selection


King Kong in short: Carl Denham needs to finish his movie and has the perfect location; Skull Island. But he still needs to find a leading lady. This 'soon-to-be-unfortunate' soul is Ann Darrow. No one knows what they will encounter on this island and why it is so mysterious, but once they reach it, they will soon find out. Living on this hidden island is a giant gorilla and this beast now has Ann is its grasps. Carl and Ann's new love, Jack Driscoll must travel through the jungle looking for Kong and Ann, whilst avoiding all sorts of creatures and beasts. But Carl has another plan in mind.


Preps: Just the background of a Saturday evening. Nothing special, as I have seen it before. I wanted to see if I changed my mind about this movie.


Reality: Hm.. the xxxth remake of King Kong and Peter Jackson. Well, the name I want to see again, but not in this role. It's supposed to be a spectacle. And in the movies it was. I remember seeing this in the local theatre. And I cryed. As I always did when seeing the King Kong. I actually despise movies about animal abuse. However, I do agree that in some extent they are necessary to keep us from doing even more such things. And we all love big monkeys, orangutans, gorillas. And we don't want to see them hurt. Which is quite the opposite here. So the movie touches everyone with at least some decent cells within. Or it touches deeply a soul like mine is. In this psychological, animal abuse, sense.

Apart from that, the familiar story, remake as it is expected in the new era of cinemascopy, with all possible effects. To me, a good distinction between real and fiction is really visible here, which makes a minus to this movie. Film it in the studio and then later make the background.. naah, it doesn't pay my bill. Jackson here doesn't exceed LOTR or some of his greatest achievements. The script seems poor, the storyline barely believable. How did they transport the animal in the small boat still remains a secret. The movie could be at least one hour shorter. And the action seems somehow similar to Jurassic park. Ok, it's quite predictable or believable to keep all sorts of weird animals on a deserted island, but somewhere you should pull a line between barely believable and something that's just copied from another movie.

There are some scenes that are a masterpiece, but it's merely a few. And they don't make it up for the looooong suffer you will engage when watching this and waiting for its finish. It will keep you weeping if you see the slaughter of the great animal. In my opinion, it wasn't worth making a remake and making some more money out of emotional-oriented crowd.


My personal rating: 4,0 (merely as a strong warning how cruel people can act towards nature and its wonders. Even if in this case Kong only impersonates the wonders)

King Kong on IMDB

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows, 2010

Harry Potter And The Deathly Hollows, 2010
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint


Stage: Local Colloseum, movie theatre. The morning edition


Harry Potter in short: As Harry races against time and evil to destroy the Horcruxes, he uncovers the existence of three most powerful objects in the wizarding world: the Deathly Hallows.
The story plot: Voldemort's power is growing stronger. He now has control over the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry, Ron, and Hermione decide to finish Dumbledore's work and find the rest of the Horcruxes to defeat the Dark Lord. But little hope remains for the Trio, and the rest of the Wizarding World, so everything they do must go as planned.


Preps: Haven't read the book really. Remember starting it, but so far haven't finished it. In these times sometimes you can see a better piece on screen than printed out. In many cases this isn't so. I am curious, as the masses are running around to see this.


Reality: Well, it's the seventh part. As I claimed in the saga Saw, this is something a bit different. In a sense, you can watch each part by itself, because they are pretty much independent. Nevertheless, the seventh, the last part was made actually in two parts. A good marketing perspective. Reminds kind of on LOTR. On the other hand, it makes the movie too long in its first half and making the viewer swallow the dead ends (sitting in the forest, doing nothing, main actors dealing with themselves - and not including viewer into this - in a sense, remaining boring in its middle.

On the other hand Potter now upgrades action, everything moves to 3D and I am surprised Potter isn't filmed in 3D, because some scenes are truly meant to be in this technique. Why would a snake bite into the middle of the screen if not? And for many other reasons too. Witch world is fantasy world, therefore the director can pretty much depict everything he desires, because the viewer will believe this.

The haunt for the hollows is deadly and some scenes make you fly through them, on the others (more static ones) you dwell and wait for some action to happen. The love story between Hermiona and Ron remains in secret, the story between Potter and Ginny is also in clouds, but I see this as a good point, as the movie should really focus on the deathly hollows, as it does. The muggle scenes are hideous, as you imagine the rage with which they are haunted, and the magic scenes are incredible, as you wish you were capable of going into an institution like this to learn something a bit similar to those spells that the kids use. Definitely worth seeing for all Potter fans, those that read it and those that feel a citizen duty to see it even though they didn't.




My personal rate: 7,5 (an upgrade from the other versions of the Potter, however, it lacks some action inbetween and more comprehensive script in many cases.

Harry on IMDB

Harry official page

Timeline, 2003

Timeline, 2003
Director: Richard Donner
Cast: Paul Walker, Frances O'connor, Gerard Butler, Billy Connoly



Short synopsis: A group of archaeological students become trapped in the past when they go there to retrieve their professor. The group must survive in 14th century France long enough to be rescued.

Stage: Home TV, randomly chosen movie on the TV

Preps: I remember seeing this once and I loved the idea of seeing it again, this time with a bit maturer, different eyes, perhaps different feelings. Time travel is a very grateful topic, everyone wants to do it. Go in the future, dig up the past, very tempting and ideal to build a movie story around it. In my opinion, one of the best comedies in this sense was an oldie - Back to the future. Still one of my favourite attempts to show how it could look like - time travel.


Reality: This isn't one of the greatest gifts to the movie industry. It's full of mistakes, smartly hidden in the movie - from dissappearing when already dead, appearing alive on the other side (in the future), to achieving what any normal being couldn't (in unimaginative circumstances). I am dissappointed this time even more, the movie shows potential, but nothing more - I mean in terms of story and the flow. The hunt for the missing professor and getting killed inbetween shows some credibility to virtues and vain missions.

Nevertheless, I like the idea that is exposed - to like the time you aren't a part of, so much that you want to live there forever - we have seen this in prior movies and in later ones (for instance Avatar). The idea of succeeding in a world where noone knows about you and your sins, problems, background is so tempting that some of the characters decide to stay here forever. Even if it will be in middle ages.

The scenery is impressive, the costumes, the streets and the landscape is pretty authentic, I am more than impressed. But this is unfortunately the best that this movie has inside.


My personal rating: 4,0
Timeline on IMDB
Official pages