SHERLOCK HOLMES

With the release of a promo for the new Sherlock Holmes television series airing on BBC, I thought it might be fun to revisit the series 2 finale of "The Reichenbach Fall" episode which ended with our hero (Benedict  Cumberbatch)  plunging to his ‘death’ from the top of a high building.  The closing scene had  Dr. Watson (Martin Freeman) in mourning  at Sherlock’s grave – unaware that he was being watched by none other than Sherlock himself.

So for those of you who watched the episode just how did Sherlock survive jumping  off a building  (only confirmation of his death would ensure some of his friends were not killed by assassins in the employ of Moriarty), and landing with an almighty thud on the pavement below?

You might remember that Dr. Watson, who saw Sherlock jump was then knocked over by a cyclist as he moved towards the building.  He was dazed and confused when he arrived at Sherlock’s lifeless and bloody body.

My own theory is that the appearance of Derren Brown in the next series might be extremely significant.  Could he have been involved in aiding Sherlock who might have foreseen Moriarty’s plan? 

I’d like to hear your theories on how he survived.  Please post your comments below.

Read More

Unknown 04:23  1 comment

THE CONJURING

Director: James Wan (Saw,  Insidious )

A disclaimer.  This film purports to be based on true events.  My purpose is to look at the film on its own merits and, as such, I’ll not be touching on the truth of the story or the authenticity of the events it purports to show.

There is something deep in the human spirit that wants to be scared.  It may be a remnant from our ancestors who dealt with danger constantly but which means little to us in our (relatively) safe urban surroundings.  Whatever the reason, cinema-goers continue to flock to films expecting to be terrified whilst watching the movie through our face-covered hands.  The problem is that we’re becoming used to many of the tricks and techniques used by film-makers to scare us (which makes us empathise with the problems faced by the mangers in the original Monsters Inc movie).

The Conjuring does not invent anything new to get this sort of reaction from its audience but what it does do is to use the tools at its disposal in an artful and inventive way.  This, to the film’s further credit, is not accomplished with cgi trickery or an over-reliance on ‘jump’ scares (ega character turns around find themselves face-to-face with a demon).  Instead the director builds a good atmosphere by turning mundane objects like a music box or the sounds of hands clapping into a terrifying spectral phenomena.  Even when it does fall-back on the jump-scare it is skilfully achieved by restricting how many of these take place and the simple make-up and prosthetics achieve their desired effects.

The film’s flaws can mainly be found in the script, which, whilst this is extremely well-written with regards to intimate character interaction – this is particularly true with the paranormal investigators Ed and Loraine  Warren. However, it does falter a little when it comes to the excessive jargon the two speak in for much of the rest of the film . Quite often the family will be nodding their heads when these two lapse into paranormal mumbo-jumbo speak and we’re meant to believe that they understand what they’re saying and believe them totally.  What’s worse is that  a lot of this information is important to the plot and therefore starts to look suspiciously like’deus ex machina’ (information the characters know for no other reason to move the plot along). Some of the dialogue that is supposed to be deadly serious is so can be unintentionally laughable - "she climbed the tree, declared her love for Satan and then hung herself".   Maybe a Valentine’s card to Satan would have been much easier.

The climax of the film, sadly, slips back into the more clichéd exorcism images we have come to expect from this genre. For a film that has shown such restraint it is disappointing indeed when the over-the-top shouting and screaming takes over to remind us how dangerous the demons are.

The director, I feel, does not trust his actors enough to convey the fear and terror via their own talent, as they have done for much of the film, rather than rely on the usual cheap tricks. It’s certainly not a boring finale,our interest and investment in the characters ensure that we still remain gripped (again though this is down to the actors).  One can't help but think that Wan became nervous about showing enough of his spectral antagonist,forgetting perhaps that what you don't see can often be more terrifying than any visual horror. Nonetheless this minor misstep is thankfully not enough to derail the movie as a whole.

FINAL VERDICT -  8/10 extremely well crafted  in executing its  goal.

Read More

Unknown 06:21  No comment

NOW YOU SEE ME

I have to confess,  I love magic tricks.  I especially love the big bombastic style of tricks ie making an elephant disappear or levitation. So I think I could reasonably be regarded as among the target audience in relation to this film (someone who is willing to be fooled by illusion and sleight of hand).  The film starts strongly with four independent magicians brought together by a shadowy figure for some unknown purpose.  Suddenly we jump ahead to see them in the big league in Las Vegas with a show  that climaxes in grand larceny .  The rest of the film is essentially, Ocean’s Eleven meets The Prestige with our magicians (collectively called "the horsemen" ) pulling off  robin hood-esque crimes right in front of audiences (and the FBI).

Let’s start with the good news.  The movie has a very slick visual style moves along swiftly with few scenes that serve no purpose.  The magic acts themselves give director Louis Leterrier a chance to indulge in Houdini-like, over the top showmanship without the audience feeling that these scenes have been crowbarred in.  It is also gratifying to note that the film does not give away any “tricks of the trade” in relation to the way in which the illusions are accomplished (beyond the obvious).  The characters too are larger than life befitting the film’s extravagant, showy setting .  It is something of a problem however that the horsemen themselves when considered individually can be a bit bland.  Much more interesting is Mark Ruffalo as FBI agent Dylan Rhodes.  Through his eyes  the audience sees much of the action and can sense his mounting frustration as the horsemen continually leave him lagging behind.  The film also marks the first on screen collaboration between Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine.  Freeman plays Thaddeus, an arrogant know it all who delights in exposing magicians and how they do their tricks.  Is this, one wonders,  a possible dig at the masked magician  a conjurer who broke the magicians’ code by  revealing how many illusions were achieved thereby earning the undying hatred of magicians everywhere?

The problem with the film (as with any magic trick that does not go completely to plan) is the climax. Having been moving at such a fast pace and swinging from statements about corrupt banks and insurance companies  to mysterious hints of an ancient secret society  that guards the mysteries of magic,  the film then seems to become lost at the finale.  Interestingly, mentioning secret societies and rituals was a tactic that real life magicians previously used to make tricks appear to have more weight and gravitas than was actually the case.   This is not the worst ending I've ever seen and I can't deny that the twist did come as a surprise (although it was annoying that something rather important is shown in the trailer) it simply feels rushed and gives the movie an “all flash no substance” feel.  Plot threads are left unanswered or resolved at breakneck speed with one throwaway line of dialogue and the motivations of some of the characters are left unclear.  Some have suggested this is a deliberate ploy in order to pave the way for a possible sequel.  This is a generous interpretation in my opinion.

FINAL VERDICT 4/10  - ultimately fails to pull off its grand illusion but still manages to entertain to some extent along the way.

Read More

Unknown 14:37  No comment

WOLVERINE

When the last cinematic superhero-bubble burst it produced, towards the end, some very weak results (The Phantom). There has been some suggestion that history may be repeating itself with the relatively poor box office performance of Pacific Rim and the fact that all the major heroes have been rebooted several times (Superman, Spiderman, Hulk etc)   This latest offering is certainly not going to do anything to inspire confidence in the future lifespan of such movies.  There have been spin offs from the X-Men trilogy before; the vastly superior X-Men First Class and the faintly ridiculous X Men Origins Wolverine.   Why anyone would want to attempt a repeat of the Wolverine origins story is quite frankly beyond my imagination.

Part of it may be down to Hugh Jackman’s performance as the eponymous character which  has always proven popular with audiences even if they haven’t been too wild about the overall movie (I’m thinking X-Man 3 here).  The set up for this story is promising as the hero is made vulnerable when his ability to heal is taken from him by shadowy forces. Now he has to unravel the conspiracy whilst feeling pain like a normal man. The character is taken out of his element and placed in different country – Japan - with its vastly different culture and attitudes.  Nor is the film simply one action scene after another, a significant portion of the film is given over to plot and characters.

It’s a shame then that with this promising start they chose to do so little with them.  After an initial strong start the film quickly loses its sharp edges and begins to splutter.  One of the main problems is that the characters tend to talk in extremely cliched tones and that caused me to lose interest (count how many times the words ‘honour’ and ‘dishonour’ are used).   It’s also something of a problem that the identity of the dark shadowy puppet master is likely to be figured out by any discerning viewer about halfway through the movie (and that’s being generous).  Some might defend the plot as it’s based on a popular arc from the comics books.  I haven’t read these comic books but my guess is that this is a pretty poor adaption and something must have been lost in the process.  I can't imagine the comic book story being this predictable but it does make for one funny moment when the characters all make shocked faces at something the audience saw coming a mile off.

All of this is a great shame because, as previously mentioned, the action scenes themselves are very impressive - one of the most innovative scene in the film takes place on the roof of a  Japanese bullet train.  The Japanese setting lends itself to some very visually arresting scenes and set pieces – possibly more could have been made of these.    Nor are the performances at fault, the cast deliver their lines with conviction - even when having to deliver some pretty stupid dialogue (we’re back to the honorable and dishonorable lines).

As I said before the set-up of the film had a lot of promise and is definitely a huge improvement over X Men Origins Wolverine, however, it’s my belief that it could have been so much better had more attention being paid to the script.

FINAL VERDICT  5/10  The action scenes are not enough to stop this being  bland and forgettable.

Read More

Unknown 06:23  No comment

WORLD’S END

 The parody genre has been in trouble for a while now, not in a financial sense but in an original and funny sense.  Financially movies such as Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Scary Movie etc have been doing rather well but anyone who compares these movies to the giants of the genre – Airplane, Naked Gun - can see that something is very wrong.  A strong reliance on bad slapstick, crude jokes and gross-out scenes are a strong feature of these movies.  It is refreshing then to see a series of films – Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and now this movie, World’s End,  that seem to properly grasp the concept of what a parody should be. 

One of the key feature that makes this film work is that it does not present us with paper thin characters  that are simply vehicles for the laughs,  instead we get real, fleshed-out individuals whose character traits, faults and strange neuroses provides the laughs.  The film’s main protagonist is Gary King (Simon Pegg) who when taking stock of his life begins to look back nostalgically at a pub crawl he attempted with his school friends when they were 17.  Deciding to reattempt this feat he persuades ,cajoles and emotionally blackmails his old friends into coming back to their hometown..........which has been secretly invaded by aliens. 

One of the film’s positive features is that the sci-fi elements of the plot complement the more down- to-earth comedy angles so well. Much of this is due to the film’s running themes of being stuck in the past and conforming to modern life which allows the science fiction elements to enrich the characters rather than simple window dressing.  The script is, of course, paramount in this process,however, the actors (especially Pegg and Frost)  must take a good share of credit.  Their performances  never lose their driving motivations even as the ‘’World’s End apocalypse’’ is enacted around them. Pegg’s performance as a deeply flawed protagonist is likely to become just as frustrating with the audience as he does for his associates – whilst remaining funny at the same time.  It is only towards the end of the movie that we begin to understand a bit more of his motivation for attempted the pub crawl.

There are some complaints that this film merely represents the culmination of the same film (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) repeated for a third time.   It is of course true that the films contain a general trend  (bland settings strange events, friendships, taking responsibility).   The reason I think that this film works on its own merits is that while familiar elements are indeed there,they are used in new ways and to accomplish new things. The film in fact veers into some rather darker territory than its two predecessors and there are some moments where it is quite easy to forget you are watching a comedy only for a funny line jolt you back into it.  The film does sag somewhat in the middle and you get the impression that the writers were floundering a little on how to develop the characters. The ending is certainly interesting and not at all what one might expect, blurring comic and thought-provoking themes closely together.

FINAL VERDICT 6/10 Not quite up the standards of its two predecessors but still a very interesting funny and thought-provoking film.

Read More

Unknown 04:42  No comment