Sherlock Holmes (2009) Movie Review

It's always been difficult for filmmakers to make the 19th Century Rock 'n' Roll without their film taking a turn for the ridiculous. Just ask the good people who brought us "Wild Wild West".

"This was definitely a good idea"

However, with his latest effort, gritty-London gangster-flick extraordinaire Guy Ritchie has made a dramatic turn-around in motifs with a big-budget blockbuster; in this case a reboot of the classic Sherlock Holmes franchise, with none other than Robert Downey Jnr. in the driver's seat. And despite being brushed off by some as "Lethal Weapon in Tweed", the ex-Mr. Madonna has delivered a highly satisfactory and enjoyable film.

The premise of the movie makes a decent homage to the original Sherlock Holmes books, as it combines the classical paranormal mystery which was so popular during the 19th Century, and the humorous buddy-cop formula which makes great comtemporary action movies. An old hat it may be, but it's put to good use here. The plot revolves around a mysterious Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who after being hanged for practising nasty-occultist-whatevers, has all of a sudden risen from the dead and disappeared. Suddenly, people are dropping dead left and right, and it's a race against time for Sherlock to yadda yadda yadda. The point is, in the way of dramatic twist-turns, "Sherlock Holmes" delivers nothing new. The culmination of the plot that Holmes discovers is by no means a guessable one, but it all seems somehow familiar. In short, while the storyline is well written and executed, it will all seem oddly reminiscent of something you can't quite put your finger on.

Despite the shortcomings in the story, the film is carried exceptionally well by the two protagonists - the world famous Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, who are each portrayed with a dynamic wit and presence by Robert Downey Jnr. and Jude Law respectively. Robert Downey Jnr's performances post-"Iron Man" often speak for themselves - charismatic, magnetic and quick-witted. Guy Ritchie's envisioning of Holmes in this reboot is by no means the refined, quintessential British Gentleman we know him to be, as Robert Downey Jnr's portrayal is far more reminiscent of Captain Jack Sparrow than any previous representation of the famous detective. Despite this step away from the original series, Downey Jnr. breathes an interesting new perspective into Holmes as a character, replacing the perfect Gentleman for a more grizzled, unwashed eccentric. This, in my humble opinion, makes for a much more interesting character, despite the obvious throwback to Pirates of the Carribbean. This influence allows Holmes to become the archetype "imperfect genius." He is two parts Will Hunting, two parts Ferris Bueller and at least one part Russel Brand. The end product is quite fantastic.

The rest of the ensemble can be given credit as well, as firstly, the typically infuriating Jude Law really brings Watson into his own; transforming him from the plucky side-kick to the partner Holmes likely couldn't live without. The chemistry between the two characters is nothing new - traditional good-cop, bad-cop, but it's marvelous to see nonetheless. Rachel McAdams also gives a decent performance as the femme-fatale/love interest, however, be it bad writing or perhaps a bad bit of casting on Guy Ritchie's part, something about McAdams' character leaves one wanting more - this may be due to her not having enough screen time, or perhaps an underdeveloped character - whatever the case, she delivered a quite forgettable performance, and you will likely find yourself feeling somewhat alienated from the leading lady, as you might find it difficult to give a damn that she's about to be murdered by the bad guy.

"Meh."

Guy Ritchie's traditional style in this one just about peers up through the typical adventure movie CGI glitz. He employs an almost neo-noir style in the lighting, creating a dark, yet somehow magnetic envisioning of Victorian London. Also, Holmes' occasional fighting scenes (in which he envisions each blow in bullet-time-esque slow-motion) are oddly reminiscent of Brad Pitt's bare-knuckle boxing matches in "Snatch." It is nice to spot that Guy the Guv'nor hasn't forgotten his roots even in the wake of some big Hollywood investment.

In a nut shell, Sherlock Holmes is an enjoyable flick, with an unconventional yet exciting collection of action sequences. The acting is for the most part excellent, thanks mostly to the talents of Robert Downey Jnr. and Jude Law, and Guy Ritchie maintains a steady upward trajectory away from the travesty that was "Swept Away". The plot is a tad weak in places, and may be confusing to some, but the open ending has a great potential for sequels which would likely be better than this film. Therefore, I highly reccomend this one for all ages.

8/10

Angels and Demons - Movie Review

2006’s “The Da Vinci Code” hit a nerve with numerous demographics. Christians, Historians, Dan Brown fans and Tom Hanks Hairstyle Enthusiasts (citation needed) all seemed equally appalled by the film’s casual treatment of history, accusations of conspiracy within the Church, and the glorification of numerous ancient societies which are either too insignificant to note or didn’t even exist. Good little film, though.

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks return for 2009’s follow-up, “Angels and Demons”, which in a nut shell delivers more of the same. A fast paced, intriguing, and entirely made-up storyline accompanied by edgy Bond-like violence and Tom Hanks, somehow landing profoundly on the line between looking like a lost puppy and a street-wise super-spy. Well - if you can take your eyes off of that ridiculous hair.

One thing to note about “Angels and Demons” seems to be that no one can decide whether it’s a sequel or a prequel. This all seems to depend on who you ask. Tom Hanks said in an interview prior to the release of the film that it was a prequel; and perhaps he’s right – the book was a prequel. Interestingly, however, one reference is made later on in the film to Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon having a past discretion with the Catholic Church – presumably referring to the events of the first film. And even more interestingly, this seems to be the only reason Langdon is involved in the storyline at all. This background seems to be discussed literally as little as possible during the film, so there’s a good chance the writing staff weren’t sure either.

But anyway, the story is, some anti-matter has been stolen from the LHC at CERN in Switzerland. “What else is new?” You might find yourself saying. But due to some inconvenient “physics” which was likely researched on Wikipedia on a slow day, tiny amounts of anti-matter cause cataclysmic explosions once the encasement device has ran out of battery. The next thing we know, this incredibly unlikely super-bomb has been planted somewhere in the Vatican, and it’s up to Tom Hanks and plucky Cardinal Ewan McGregor to find it before it inexplicably explodes.

The impact of this film is highly reminiscent of its predecessor. Tom Hanks carries the film by playing his character with the profound combination of mild confusion and inspiring genius - being completely out of the loop one moment and explaining the plotline to the smallest detail the next. Combined with fast paced editing and an insightful, visually excellent style of direction on the part of Ron Howard – helped in part by the aestheic beauty of Rome by night, this makes the film a mostly believable visual treat, and it could be argued it bests The Da Vinci Code simply with a superior pace. In fact, as a stand-alone film, despite its historical and scientific inaccuracies, it makes for a fine thriller.

However, as hard as it tries (especially in the case of the missing back-story), Angels and Demons fails to escape any comparison that would be made with The Da Vinci Code. This is particularly because of the obvious comparisons that can be made with the archetypal characters laid out by the first film. Firstly, Robert Langdon returns, but with a significant amount less character development than last time. As a character in The Da Vinci Code, it was ultimately his personal goal to overcome his irrational fears developed in his youth and clear his name. However, in this sequel, no such goals are outlined for Langdon, and he strangely appears hugely committed to risking his life for no apparent reason. The viewer can only assume that, much like Hanks, Langdon is in his “just tell me when the cheque clears” stage of his career.

The female side-kick also makes a return – although not with the same interesting character as Audrey Tatou’s Sophie Neuveu. Ayelet Zurer’s physicist Vittoria Vettra inexplicably sees fit to follow Langdon around – presumably so that he has someone to explain the plot to. A most disappointing character. Stellan Skarsgard also takes a turn where Jean Reno left off, with the grizzled, tough guy, by-the-book cop. Skarsgard does a decent job as always, but his character serves as little more than a plot obstacle.

However, the real star of the show is Ewan McGregor, who plays Carmelengo Patrick McKenna – an Irish priest, adopted by the Pope after being orphaned as a young boy. While it’s unfortunate that McGregor occasionally stumbles over his accent, his performance is still solid, particularly in the delivery of one monologue late into the film which delivers an unexpected, yet powerful message. Summarily, he implies that Religion may not, after all be the vindictive, oppressive shackle on humanity that the Internet and all those pesky scientists would have us believe, but actually more of a strict, but ultimately well-meaning parent. Suddenly, you’ve stopped trying to keep up with whatever cryptic who-summa-fudge Tom Hanks is trying to decipher in the nick of time, and against all odds, this silly film that the critics have been bashing has actually got you thinking. And it’s all thanks to Ewan McGregor. Not bad for a man who once dived into a toilet to rescue a rectal suppository.

Ultimately, Angels and Demons is a fun thriller. Not to be taken too seriously – at least, not as seriously as the film itself would like you to take it. But, from start to finish, it is mostly well written, mostly well acted and mostly factually inaccurate. Despite this however, it is a fast paced, thought provoking thrill-ride, which culminates in a spectacular special effects display and an unexpected twist in a climax which is far and away the single best aspect of the entire series thus far.

Due to its impressive showing at the box office, The Dan Brown series could easily see a third instalment in years to come, which will likely add unnecessary baggage to two films which probably would’ve been better off on their own in the first place. Whether or not Ron Howard and Tom Hanks will return for a third film remains to be speculated, but since Creativity and Hollywood got divorced in 2007 (the writer’s strike), you can probably bet your mortgage on either a sequel within ten years, or a remake within twenty to thirty. This “re-imagining” will probably star someone who was still wetting the bed when Tom Hanks was in his prime. Until then however, we can all enjoy this film of which, for all of its flaws, Ron Howard and co. can still be proud.

8/10