Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law return once again as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson in “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows“. In this installment, a series of bombings across Europe has positioned the nations of the world on the brink of war. Holmes is convinced that there is a criminal mastermind behind the numerous, seemingly unrelated events and he believes it is renowned scholar James Moriarty (Jared Harris).
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Watson, well-accustomed to Holmes’ eccentric and erratic behavior, is dubious of Holmes claims. Besides, Watson has his upcoming wedding to focus on, and only deigns to spend time with Holmes at the promise of a stag party at an upscale gentlemen’s club. While the bachelor party includes an entertaining Stephen Fry playing Holmes’ brother, Mycroft, Holmes has ulterior motives for taking Watson to this particular club. Early in the film, Holmes had cleverly intercepted a message from Irene Adler (Amy McAdams), that led him to a fortuneteller named Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), a woman Holmes believes has been targeted for death by Moriarty, who just happens to be working at the gentlemen’s club.
Eventually a meeting with Moriarty is arranged for Holmes. The two intellectuals spar with one another verbally in a civilized manner, with menacing undertones. Holmes isn’t able to convince Moriarty that Watson is no longer a partner in any of his endeavors and, Holmes is forced to take drastic measures to ensure the doctor and his new wife stay out of harm’s way. From Paris to Germany and other European locales, Holmes, Watson, and Simza and her gypsy friends race against time to uncover the diabolical plot that Moriarty has set for their demise in his quest to drive nations to war.
The film is an absolute delight and is a rare sequel that is even better than the previous film in the series. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law have amazing chemistry with one another and their timing is absolutely perfect. The duo deftly mix action and comedy as well as the serious subject matter of the plot line and are utterly captivating and enjoyable to watch every step of the way. Rapace continues to impress in a much softer character than her Lisbeth Salandar role in the “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Swedish trilogy. and is poised to become one of Hollywood’s new leading ladies.
Having become familiar with Harris’ work on the series Mad Men, I was delighted to see him expertly portray such a complex character as Moriarty: a gentleman scholar of impeccable upbringing and education who is also a twisted and evil genius. Harris plays Moriarty perfectly and never lets you forget the dark and sinister side of him without ever becoming a campy or cartoony vaudeville villain.
Guy Ritchie returns as director and lets his stars carry the film. The action has been ramped up this time around with some spectacular action sequences but the action never overshadows the character-driven story. The film was well-paced and an absolute thrill ride from beginning to end mixing fantastic action and some great humor for a very winning combination that is not to be missed. I am already looking forward to future outings of Holmes and Watson on the big screen as this was a truly enjoyable experience that shows you how action comedies are supposed to be made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Debbiereadsbook (1441 KP) rated Poisoned Pawn in Books
Mar 2, 2020
not one for me
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
I am struggling with my review for this one, and I have no idea if any of this will make sense you, since I'm struggling to make sense of the book.
Positives:
It's well written. I saw no spelling or editing errors. It plays well with the Sherlock Holmes and the characters all to do with him, the good and the bad. There is a huge supporting cast of well rounded and developed characters, that fit in, in all the right places. It's very different to my usual reads. I DID like the twist that I did not see coming, not in the slightest!
And I finished it!
Negatives (for me):
Single person point of view, in the first person.
And I have not a single clue about what was the point of the whole book! I kept on reading, since I thought *something* will make sense soon. Something will give me a sign what the whole point of this tale is. And I got nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero clue. There is an EXTREMELY tangled web within the book, and I tried to keep up, I really did, but I got lost somewhere around a key player's murder. I can see HOW everything came together, I just can't see WHY, you know?
Maybe it was just a little TOO far out of my corfort zone, although, pre-kindle days, crime/thriller/police books were my main stay, so I don't know!
Will I read anything else by this author? Probably not, no. Someone will be fully engrossed in the book and it will make total sense to them, but for me? Sorry.
3 stars, since what I read WAS well written, and I DID finish it.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
I am struggling with my review for this one, and I have no idea if any of this will make sense you, since I'm struggling to make sense of the book.
Positives:
It's well written. I saw no spelling or editing errors. It plays well with the Sherlock Holmes and the characters all to do with him, the good and the bad. There is a huge supporting cast of well rounded and developed characters, that fit in, in all the right places. It's very different to my usual reads. I DID like the twist that I did not see coming, not in the slightest!
And I finished it!
Negatives (for me):
Single person point of view, in the first person.
And I have not a single clue about what was the point of the whole book! I kept on reading, since I thought *something* will make sense soon. Something will give me a sign what the whole point of this tale is. And I got nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero clue. There is an EXTREMELY tangled web within the book, and I tried to keep up, I really did, but I got lost somewhere around a key player's murder. I can see HOW everything came together, I just can't see WHY, you know?
Maybe it was just a little TOO far out of my corfort zone, although, pre-kindle days, crime/thriller/police books were my main stay, so I don't know!
Will I read anything else by this author? Probably not, no. Someone will be fully engrossed in the book and it will make total sense to them, but for me? Sorry.
3 stars, since what I read WAS well written, and I DID finish it.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Faction Paradox: Newtons Sleep (Faction Paradox, #6) in Books
Nov 30, 2020
You know, prior to reading 'Newtons Sleep', I had come to regard Lawrence Miles' 'FP: This Town Will Never Let Us Go' as the one of the best of the FP series overall, with Kelly Hales' 'FP: Erasing Sherlock' as one of the worst. Having finish it last night, I think I would have to rate 'Newtons Sleep' even higher than 'This Town..'.
To describe it.. FWOAR! There's a heckuva lot going on, some of it will make your brain long after you're done! Set in England during the later half of the 17th Century, it deals with the effects of the "War in Heaven" (see also Lawrence Miles' 'FP: The Book of the War'), a War between Gallifrey (referred to as "the Homeworld") and the unnamed Enemy, with Faction Paradox caught in the midst of it. The story has political intrigue, metaphysics, sex, science fiction, and much that will make you scratch your head at times as well as prompting a trip to Wiki (while I have a general knowledge of that period of history, it is not something I am well-versed) now and again.
There are notable real history characters (the poetess, and spy, Aphra Behn) as well as fictional characters such as Nicholas Silver (who has SUCH a role to play!) and..well. SPOILERS! Seriously well-written characters all around, fleshed out enough to get a feel for each and every one. All had a unique voice when I read their dialogue.
The story is twisty-turny, but at the end it all comes together. I will caution you to read it carefully: this is NOT a book to run through quickly! I've been told it will altogether better the second time round, so I expect I will re-read it again sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Read it now: you won't be disappointed!
To describe it.. FWOAR! There's a heckuva lot going on, some of it will make your brain long after you're done! Set in England during the later half of the 17th Century, it deals with the effects of the "War in Heaven" (see also Lawrence Miles' 'FP: The Book of the War'), a War between Gallifrey (referred to as "the Homeworld") and the unnamed Enemy, with Faction Paradox caught in the midst of it. The story has political intrigue, metaphysics, sex, science fiction, and much that will make you scratch your head at times as well as prompting a trip to Wiki (while I have a general knowledge of that period of history, it is not something I am well-versed) now and again.
There are notable real history characters (the poetess, and spy, Aphra Behn) as well as fictional characters such as Nicholas Silver (who has SUCH a role to play!) and..well. SPOILERS! Seriously well-written characters all around, fleshed out enough to get a feel for each and every one. All had a unique voice when I read their dialogue.
The story is twisty-turny, but at the end it all comes together. I will caution you to read it carefully: this is NOT a book to run through quickly! I've been told it will altogether better the second time round, so I expect I will re-read it again sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Read it now: you won't be disappointed!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Last of August (Charlotte Holmes #2) in Books
Jan 31, 2018
The Last of August introduces us to even more members of the Holmes and Moriarty families. After being framed for murder, what other trouble could Charlotte and Jamie possibly get themselves into? You’d be surprised. Charlotte and Jamie decide to spend Christmas break together in Europe. First, they visit Jamie’s mom where Charlotte gets to experience a more normal family life. Then, they travel to the Holmes manor in Sussex which is much less welcoming and far more confusing. Charlotte’s father, Alistair is imposing, her mother Emma questions Jamie’s motives, and her brother Milo rarely leaves his flat in Berlin. Charlotte’s family is not particularly warm and friendly, so it’s a welcome change when Jamie meets his father’s best friend and Charlotte’s Uncle Leander Holmes. Leander is sociable and kind, more comfortable at parties than the other members of his family and frequently hired to discover art crime/forgeries.
Their uneventful break ends suddenly when Leander disappears mysteriously and Charlotte’s mother is poisoned. These events set Charlotte and Jamie on a whirlwind adventure across Europe to discover the truth. They are joined by August Moriarty, to Jamie’s dismay and a contingent of Milo’s hired grunts. August is likable even though he is a Moriarty and we’re not always sure if we can trust him. We are introduced to his brother Hadrian and his sister Philippa, but not the more ruthless Lucien. I expect he will be the “big bad” for the third book, if not his parents so the reveal and development of their characters will wait until then.
Overall, the mystery and plot of this book were just as interested as the first in the series. There isn’t much else to add without spoilers, so just go read it. Highly recommended to young adult/teen fans of mystery, contemporary, or the classic Sherlock Holmes novels. I fell in love with this series and can’t wait to see how the series is concluded.
Their uneventful break ends suddenly when Leander disappears mysteriously and Charlotte’s mother is poisoned. These events set Charlotte and Jamie on a whirlwind adventure across Europe to discover the truth. They are joined by August Moriarty, to Jamie’s dismay and a contingent of Milo’s hired grunts. August is likable even though he is a Moriarty and we’re not always sure if we can trust him. We are introduced to his brother Hadrian and his sister Philippa, but not the more ruthless Lucien. I expect he will be the “big bad” for the third book, if not his parents so the reveal and development of their characters will wait until then.
Overall, the mystery and plot of this book were just as interested as the first in the series. There isn’t much else to add without spoilers, so just go read it. Highly recommended to young adult/teen fans of mystery, contemporary, or the classic Sherlock Holmes novels. I fell in love with this series and can’t wait to see how the series is concluded.
JT (287 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Guy Richie back to doing what he does best (1 more)
Excellent cast
Twists, turns and carnage
Since Snatch Guy Richie hasn’t covered himself in glory with some of his recent films. The likes of Swept Away, Revolver and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword did little to enhance his street cred.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Holmes and Watson (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2020
They can't all be winners
Well...they can't all be winners.
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I know that Will Ferrell is an "acquired taste" - either you like the "all in" comedy of this man, or you don't. I happen to like Ferrell, his comedy has aged on me like a fine wine. I find that some of his most recent films like THE OTHER GUYS and THE HOUSE are very funny (maybe not as funny as ANCHORMAN...but what is). I think this comedian still has his fastball.
But, sometimes, wine doesn't age well, it turns into vinegar. And for Ferrell, this vinegar is the comedic dud that is HOLMES & WATSON.
Partnering with familiar on-screen partner John C. Reilly (who paired with Ferrell in films like STEP BROTHERS and TALLEDEGA NIGHTS) this film is a parody of the multitude of Sherlock Holmes films - this time showing that not only is Holmes and idiot but so is Watson. But, somehow, they manage to solve the crime and save the day anyway.
Ferrell is (typically) over-the-top and obtuse as Holmes. Usually, this combination works for him (see ANCHORMAN) but it just falls flat here. Same thing for John C. Reilly's Watson - he is just as over-the-top and obtuse and (I think) that's the beginning of the problem here. The two just bounce off each other without the joke landing on either of them - nor does it land of the audience.
Ralph Fiennes (Moriarty), Rebecca Hall (potential girlfriend), Rob Brydon (Inspector Lestrade) and Kelly Macdonald (Mrs. Hudson) all fair poorly with poor material to work with.
Writer/Director Etan (that's Etan, not Ethan) Cohen (IDIOCRACY) does nothing to help things here with either his writing or his direction. My only thought here is that he thought that Ferrell and Reilly could improvise themselves into a good film.
It didn't happen.
Letter Grade: C (because I guffawed out loud - despite myself - a couple of times)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Hazel (2934 KP) rated A Link To Kill (Hawthorne & Horowitz Mystery #3) in Books
Aug 29, 2021
I haven't read anything by Mr Horowitz before and was a little apprehensive about reading this, with it being the third in the series, but I needn't have worried - this is a unique and enjoyable mystery.
I have never read a book where the author puts himself as one of the main characters in a book but here he is joining up with an ex-Detective Inspector Hawthorne and, I must say, it really worked for me. Mr Horowitz doesn't take himself too seriously and he comes across as a Dr Watson-type character to Hawthorne's Sherlock Holmes - which, let's face it, isn't a bad thing at all. How much the fictional Horowitz is like the real Horowitz, I don't know but I like him!
Anyway, Horowitz and Hawthorne have been invited to take part in a literary festival on the island of Alderney. A murder ensues and Hawthorne is asked to assist the local constabulary to investigate with Horowitz in tow. The relationship between the two is a complex one ... do they really like each other or do they just tolerate each other for the purposes of writing books? I am still working that one out but I am liking it.
This is a proper old-style mystery with a cast of excellent characters many of whom have their own secrets which creates multiple suspects and I for one must have said "I knew it was them all along" numerous times and was wrong! There is a lot of humour and tongue-in-cheek moments which make this a fun and enjoyable read with a very satisfying ending.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and it was quite nice to read a murder/mystery without a plethora of violence for once and I am very much looking forward to more "adventures" from Hawthorne and Horowitz.
A thank you must go to Penguin Random House UK / Cornerstone via NetGalley for my copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
I have never read a book where the author puts himself as one of the main characters in a book but here he is joining up with an ex-Detective Inspector Hawthorne and, I must say, it really worked for me. Mr Horowitz doesn't take himself too seriously and he comes across as a Dr Watson-type character to Hawthorne's Sherlock Holmes - which, let's face it, isn't a bad thing at all. How much the fictional Horowitz is like the real Horowitz, I don't know but I like him!
Anyway, Horowitz and Hawthorne have been invited to take part in a literary festival on the island of Alderney. A murder ensues and Hawthorne is asked to assist the local constabulary to investigate with Horowitz in tow. The relationship between the two is a complex one ... do they really like each other or do they just tolerate each other for the purposes of writing books? I am still working that one out but I am liking it.
This is a proper old-style mystery with a cast of excellent characters many of whom have their own secrets which creates multiple suspects and I for one must have said "I knew it was them all along" numerous times and was wrong! There is a lot of humour and tongue-in-cheek moments which make this a fun and enjoyable read with a very satisfying ending.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and it was quite nice to read a murder/mystery without a plethora of violence for once and I am very much looking forward to more "adventures" from Hawthorne and Horowitz.
A thank you must go to Penguin Random House UK / Cornerstone via NetGalley for my copy in return for an unbiased and unedited review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.