Third Time's A Charm

I'm from a small town in South Carolina. Unless you go to a neighboring city, there is literally one movie theater for you to go to, and it only has 8 screens. Now I'm not complaining. In fact, I generally like going to smaller theaters. But trying to go to go see Sherlock Holmes was a bit of a pain over the Christmas holiday -- I ended up having to try the theater on three different occasions before I finally made a showing that wasn't sold out. Apparently, everyone else in town also wanted to go to the movies this weekend. This was, of course, good for Hollywood, but bad for me. But I digress. Back to the point of this post -- Sherlock Holmes (preview post here).

The movie itself was decent. The soundtrack was pretty cool, a sort of mix between Irish and Eastern Eurpoean music (I know that sounds weird, but it's the only way I know to describe it). And the set of London in 1891 was pretty masterfully done. Predictably, Robert Downey Jr. was very good as Sherlock Holmes. He was by far the funniest character in the movie, full of witty comebacks to much of the rest of the cast. But he wasn’t exactly what I expected. Despite his brilliance and superior fighting skills (there are a few scenes where Holmes plans out how he will engage an opponent in battle that are really pretty cool), Holmes was a drunken, disheveled mess for much of the film. And without the help of the more composed Watson (Jude Law), one can’t help but think that Holmes would not have done much, if any, criminal investigation. Watson, by the way, is very much Holmes’s equal (and arguably a better fighter) in the film. The two have a constant internal struggle concerning Watson’s engagement (and subsequent resignation from crime investigation) to the beautiful Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly).

The dynamic duo is joined by Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler, a cunning thief in her own right and Holmes’ love interest. McAdams’ Adler is really only an average character. She doesn’t add much to this movie (despite being nice to look at) as her character is really never given a chance to develop, and I hope her role gets expanded if any sequels are made. She is employed by Moriarty (who does not play much of a role in this film either, but his presence leaves the door open for sequels – he is Holmes’ chief rival in the book series) to assist Holmes in stopping the sinister Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). Through the use of chemistry and other clever tricks, Lord Blackwood has convinced the world that he is the risen dead and has dark magical powers. It’s up to Holmes and company to stop Blackwood and expose him as a fraud. I won’t lie to you. Blackwood is one of the least intimidating villains of any superhero movie of recent memory (I suppose you may not consider Holmes a superhero, but he really is when you think about it).

Despite some pretty solid performances in the film (especially Downey, Jr.), I say that this was only a decent film because the plot itself was somewhat lacking. Most of the movie is just strange events happening that make Lord Blackwood seem supernatural and Holmes and Watson fighting various Blackwood henchmen. Then, Holmes spends about five minutes at the end of the film explaining to Lord Blackwood (and the audience) that he’s figured out how Blackwood has managed to pull off his tricks. It feels very much like watching a cartoon episode of Scooby-Doo and having Velma explain everything at the end. I know that Guy Ritchie fans might have expected just such an ending (consider the ending of Snatch, for example, where we learn that a “pikey” reaction is “quite a f**king thing”). But there is a notable difference between a twist ending and watching a film where you know that truths will ultimately be revealed, only to have them done so in a seemingly arbitrary fashion at the end of the film.

Bottom line: This was a decent movie anchored by some good acting. But it wasn't really a great one. Guy Ritchie's career definitely needed a blockbuster like this, and I think a sequel could be much better than the first. (B-).

Here's the preview:

Guy Ritchie's Last Chance

On Christmas day, Warner Bros. will release Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. And this blogger really hopes that it gets the writer/director back on track to earning all the hype and much-deserved praise he received after Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch (two really excellent films -- Snatch especially -- for anyone who hasn't seen these) came out at the turn of the millenium. Since then, the 21st Century has been disappointing (to put it kindly) for those expecting good things from Ritchie. His 2002 film Swept Away (starring his then-wife Madonna) won five "Razzies" (basically the Oscars but for bad films) including Worst Picture and Worst Director. And 2005's Revolver is really one of the stupidest movies I've ever watched in its entirety. 2008's RocknRolla was definitely a step in the right direction from those two disasters, but it still wasn't on his par with his earlier work.

Enter Robert Downey Jr. (who seems to be currently immune from making anything but good movies over the last few years) to save the day. He'll star as a new-and-improved (and if the previews are any indication, ass-kicking) Sherlock Holmes. Of course, he'll be joined by his sidekick Watson (whose first name is actually John for those who are curious) who'll be played by Jude Law. As the casting of Law would suggest, Watson won't be the goofy, bumbling sidekick most probably envision, but he'll instead be much more of an asset (and equal) to Holmes in their attempt at stopping the destruction of Britain. Everyone's favorite girl next door (well maybe second favorite to the actual Girl Next Door, Elisha Cuthbert), Rachel McAdams, (Wedding Crashers, The Notebook) will also tag along to help the duo and play Holmes's love interest, Irene Adler.

Based on Ritchie's recent work, there's no guarantee that this is going to be a good movie. And if this ends up being a bust, I'm pretty sure we can all stick a fork in him. But the cast is great, and the preview looks really good. If you're someone who traditionally goes to a movie on Christmas afternoon, you probably won't be disappointed if you pick this one (assuming you haven't seen Avatar yet).

Here's the preview:

Lost Treasures: A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

As I scrolled through the "Watch Instantly" feature on my Netflix account, I stumbled across a 2006 film that I had never heard of, A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints. I noticed that it starred Robert Downey Jr. (just before his big breakout) so I decided to give it a shot. And I'm glad I did. It turns out the movie is actually pretty good. It's just that nobody has heard of it (well, nobody except the higher-ups at Sundance who gave it the Director's Award and Special Jury Prize in 2006). The film is a well-paced 100 minutes full of terrific acting (actually done by some very famous actors that would make for a huge movie if it was coming out today) and scenes of life in Queens, NY during the 1980's that seemed very genuine, but often heartbreaking and terrible at the same time.

I won't go into the details of the plot too much because, honestly, there isn't a lot to it. The movie is essentially a myriad of flashbacks from the real life of Dito Montiel (played in present day by Robert Downey Jr. and played in the past by Transformers star Shia Labeouf), and the events that led up to him leaving his hometown behind on a bus to California. Dito's day-to-day basically consists of hanging out with his friends, especially his best friend Antonio (basically the thug of the group; played really well by an actor I generally don't care for -- G.I. Joe and Fighting's Channing Tatum), during the day and getting into minor trouble here and there. They often spend time at Dito's house, talking to his father (played by Chaz Plaminteri from The Usual Suspects) and mother (played by Dianne West). And their nights are generally filled hanging out with a group of neighborhood girls, including Dito's high school girlfriend, Laurie (played in present day by Rosario Dawsome and in the past by relative unknown Melonie Diaz).

But, as the film progresses, tragedy strikes in various ways, including a conflict with group of neighborhood grafiti artists that really escalates in large part to Antonio. As things get worse and Dito's relationship with outsider Mike O'Shea (Martin Compston) begins to influence his thinking, Dito realizes he wants out of New York and wants to escape his troubles to flee to California. It is there that he becomes a famous writer before finally returning home 15 years later.

As I said before, the movie honestly doesn't have a great or powerful plot. It really is just a series of memories from Dito's life. But most of the scenes are compelling in their own way, and you aren't left feeling shortchanged at all. On top of that, the acting is really very good. Despite my opinion that he is usually not a very good actor, Channing Tatum may have had the best performance of the movie. And Labeouf does an admirable job as well.

The movie also used a couple of unique effects that I really liked. For one, it highlighted important dialogue between Dito and Mike as well as Dito and his father by silencing out all background noises so you only heard the two talking. That may not be the best way to describe it, but you'll see what I'm talking about if you ever see it. Another unique thing that the movie did was have its characters periodically look into the camera and say simple things that really define their characters (for example, Antonio looks into the camera and says, "I'm Antonio. I'm a piece of shit, and everyone knows it"), and, for reasons I can't explain, these seemed to resonate with me as I watched.

Bottom line: It's hard for me to understand why a movie packed with so many stars and so well received by critics flew under the radar like this one did. It's definitely worth checking out. (B)

Here's the preview:

Just Another Stop on the Robert Downey Jr. "Comeback" Tour

Admittedly, this post should have probably have been written months ago when The Soloist was still creating Oscar hype prior to its release and ultimate flop at the box office (the movie only made back half of its $60M budget). But I didn't get to see it until tonight, and I figure it's better late than never (which is actually sort of a recurring theme in the movie). It follows the true story of writer Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) as he tries to help Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx), a once promising cellist that is now homeless on the streets of L.A. Eventually, Lopez helps Ayers to get his life headed back in the right direction, but it's a difficult journey.

The coolest part about this movie is that it's based on a true story, and the real-life Steve Lopez has been able to use it (and the book its based off of) as a springboard to actually help homeless people. You can find out more here. The movie has other qualities. Downey Jr. (whose comeback is now only one by name -- the comeback is over; he's here to stay) and Foxx (who is one of the most all-around talented men in America) give truly great performances. And despite the uplifting nature of the tale, the script doesn't try to force inspirational moments when they don't exist. It also does a good job exploring the mental illness Foxx's Ayers suffers from and provides viewers with a series of flashbacks that let us dive even deeper into who Ayers is and where he came from.

But in the end, the movie itself is just OK. Despite direction from Joe Wright (whose book-to-film adaptations of Atonement and Pride and Prejudice were both done very well in this blogger's opinion) and the aforementioned performances of Foxx and Downey Jr., the plot ultimately left me feeling that the story had yet to really reach its conclusion, and I was expecting it to go on for another 20 or 30 minutes. It easily could have created the room for these minutes too. By getting rid of some of the unnecessarily long musical montages where not much happens (including one 2+ minute scene of randomly colored lights that made me feel like I was watching Disney's Fantasia) or the poorly executed subplot concerning Downey Jr.'s Lopez and his ex-wife (played by The 40 Year Old Virgin's Catherine Keener) that doesn't really give us enough material to get a true feel of the problems in their relationship or why we should care if they ever get back together, the movie could have been much more cohesive and whole.

Bottom line: I'd say it's worth a watch but not a buy. No reason you can't wait until it comes to HBO. (B-)