A Study of Sherlocks

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created one of the most famous detectives in the world, so famous in fact some people around the world believe that the occupants of 221B Baker Street exist. I am talking about Sherlock Holmes, the super sleuth who dabbles with narcotics and has a knack for deduction. At the moment the media is currently awash with two depictions of the great detective, on the small screen and on the silver one. Here I shall compare the two franchises and see who takes the proverbial biscuit. Mmm biscuit.

Sherlock Holmes:

Let's start with the great man himself. Played by Benedict Cumberbatch in Steven Moffat's reimaging and Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man) in the two new Guy Ritchie movies. Each bring their own interpretation to the much played detective, actors include Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Mr Cumberbatch brings an aloofness to the character which is apparent in the novels, and his unability to read social situations is expertly delivered. Whereas Downey Jr. is less aloof and more erratic, manic if you will. His Holmes is more frantic than the more laidback version on television. Downey Jr's detective is more hands on, literally, he is handy with his fists and his feet. Both offer different aspects of the character and play them brilliantly opposite Watson.

Winner: Cumberbatch, as good as Downey Jr is, Benedict seems closer to Conan-Doyle's creation.

Dr. John Watson:

Cher to his Sonny. Butch to his Cassidy. Sooty to his Sweep. Dr. John Watson has to put up with Holmes' constant shenanigans but although he moans about his friend he can never leave him. He's the rock, not as in Dwayne Johnson, I mean a man men can rely on. Embodied by Martin Freeman and Jude Law. Freeman brings his great everyman quality to the role like he did as Arthur Dent in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but he can also turn on the darker side. He plays a former veteran of war with great empathy. But let's face it, he isn't as good looking as Jude. Ah Jude. Ok man crush aside. I'm not a big Jude Law fan but he fits Watson's shoes perfectly. A perfect foil for Downey Jr.'s slapdash Holmes and sports an impressive moustache.

Winner: Jude Law. More believable as a doctor and has more facial expressions than Martin Freeeman.

The Past or the Present:

A Study in Scarlet was the first Holmes novel and appeared in 1887, a Victorian P.I. amid the muck and smog of a London which was a hive of scum and villainy. Thank you Obi-Wan. The time period is very much part of the novels and most adaptations have kept the dynamic duo in the 19th Century until now. Guy Ritchie gives us a London that is a melting pot of nationalities, where the upper classes rule and the streets are paved with mud. Not much different from today then. But Moffat has replaced London of then to London of now. It's still dangerous but hansom cabs are now black and Baker Street contains are cafe.

Dead heat: It doesn't matter what time period it is set in, the themes are the same. As clever as the television has been updating the stories to the 21st Century it is still enjoyable seeing Holmes and Watson in the 19th Century.

Professor Moriarty:

The Napoleon of crime doesn't appear much in Conan-Doyle's novels, but he is the arch nemesis of the great detective. Embodied by Jared Harris the son of Richard, he plays the master criminal as the antithesis of Holmes but is equally as charming and smooth. He never over camps it like say Alan Rickman as the sheriff of Nottingham, he could be a Bond villain. Whereas Andrew Scott, taps into the psychotic side and equally pulls it off. He is Jim, not James. More menacing than Harris but just as effective.

Winner: Jared Harris. Although I like Scott's interpretation I prefer Harris' cool, calm and collected take on Moriarty.

Overall Winner: The audience. I know it's a cop-out but both depictions are both fantastic in their own way that we are the winners. This blog was just an opportunity to praise both of them.

Wow, I managed to get through that entire blog without making an obvious Sherlockian pun. That is elementary. Bugger.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II review

Hello, I know the film has been out for a while but here's my review.

This is what it was all about, the final film in the Harry Potter saga. Will Harry go out with a bang or a whimper? He most certainly goes out with a bang, and it is a pretty big one. Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows was extremely disappointing, an over-long film setting up the final battle between Mr Potter and Mr Voldemort. Part II continues where it left off but is much more thrilling and as a film it is almost flawless.

I'll be honest, I'm not a massive fan of the HP series. I remember seeing the first film on the opening night, a spritely 14-year-old and being let down trememdously. Over the next ten years I managed to see the other films in the series barring 2 of them, and the ones I have seen never blew me away. But Part II is on a different level.

The best films grab you straight away and doesn't let you stop for a breather. Part II does exactly this. The Gringotts break in is exciting and tense as the trio plus a drugged up goblin try to find a horcrux (a piece of Voldemort's soul). All of the action sequences are gripping and much better than the earlier films. The epic battle of Hogwarts could've been removed from a Lord of the Rings film, it was that good.

It seems funnier this time around as well, I mean aside from Rupert Grint's gurning there are some chuckles especially from Professor McGonagall surprisingly. Where the others claim to have been the 'darkest yet' this one definitely takes the biscuit, bourbon if you will. Voldemort's pet snake, Nagini, is pretty terrifying and when it is unleashed on unsuspecting wizards it does its master proud. The tone of the film is quite bleak albeit with a happy ending, Harry loses some loved ones and faces up to his foe but there is always a sense that Harry would win, I mean it's not that dark.

Emotions run high in part II from love to loss. Love is depicted rather well, but it's the loss that loses some of its emphasis. Some of the deaths and they are quite a few, don't worry it doesn't turn into a Jacobean drama, are quite underwhelming. Those that die deserve better.

Verdict: 4/5

Harry and co are given a brilliant send off. By far the best film of the series, but where will the Potter franchise go from here?

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Plot: The Autobots are scattered around the Earth surveying the planet while the Decipticons are hiding away causing havoc. Meanwhile, Sam Witwicky has a new beau and facing the tough task of trying to find a job.

Dark of the Moon is a strange film. A summer blockbuster and the third part of a series based on toys. After the dismal reaction to the second instalment in Revenge of the Fallen, has Mr. Bay bettered himself. Well, Mr Bay knows how to do action and there is plenty of that. There are robots fighting robots, humans fighting robots and humans fighting humans in toilet cubicles. The action is jaw-droppingly amazing and yes pretty darn good in 3D. The epic battle of Chicago which lasts for about 45 minutes is one of the best set pieces in the trilogy.

It turns out the moon landing mission in 1969 was all a ruse to find an Autobot which landing there of on the darkside if the moon, who knew? But where Doctor Who recently played with the past and done it much better, this film tries too much plot-wise and just becomes too convoluted.

What Mr. Bay doesn't know how to do is comedy. There are so many comical characters that it becomes like an episode of Mock the Week. Whereas the quirky comedy worked in the original this time it feels like we are being hit over the head with a joke book every five minutes. Even Agent Simmons (John Tuturro) and John Malkovich who is on good form fails to make the audience raise a smile.

What he does know how to do is piss off Megan Fox as she has been replaced by the curvaceous model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. The camera oggles and perves on her as probably do most of the male section of the audience, maybe some women do as well. She's very pretty but Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) seems to get more emotional when he sees his car. Something's not right there.

This time around the Decepticons seemed more ferocious especially Shockwave who had a giant mechanical worm that tore through buildings. Megatron on the other hand seemed a tad subdued and was experimenting with some fancy headgear which didn't suit him. Never trust a Decepticon and be wary of humans as well for that matter.

Verdict: 2/5 stars

Too long, too much and too unfunny. What could have been a return to form after the disastrous Revenge of the Fallen, Bay has forgotten what was so good about the first one. What next for toy-based films. Well, Battleships is in post-production and Ridley Scott wants to do a film about Monopoly. Can I suggest Mousetrap or Kerplunk. You never know.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

In a recent interview Geoffrey Rush claimed that the Pirates franchise could go as long as the James Bond films. On this showing, I'm afraid Mr Rush is extremely wrong. If the big movie cheeses can persuade Johnny Depp to do his thing til he is in his seventies then maybe. On Stranger Tides is the fourth installment of the multi-million box office blockbuster, and here be my review.

This time, there be mermaids, Blackbeard and Penelope Cruz. Captain Jack and a band of miscreants are off to find the Fountain of Youth, for some reason or another, as are the Spanish, the Royal Navy and Blackbeard. Tides features a series of impressive set pieces, most notable of all in London, Greenwich to be precise. The Royal Naval College provides a terrific backdrop for a horse and cart chase as Cap'n Jack tries to evade His Majesty's guards.

The opening scene is reminiscent in tone and style of the original Pirates outing but once we leave London it fails to pick up the pace. It has all the ingredients to be a worthy entry in the Pirates canon (no pun intended) ok, pun intended, but fails to live up to the hype. The charm and wit have disappeared, possibly to the depths of the Mediterannean. Even Jack Sparrow is lacking something. Johnny Depp does his best drunk Keith Richards impression, but isn't as funny or as engaging. Perhaps its because he can't be bothered or we are tired of the same shtick.

The are flashes of the old Jack, and some funny cameos from Keith Richards as Jack's dad, Richard Griffiths as King George and Judi Dench who comes in for a shock. These moments are fleeting and soon forgotten. The supporting cast don't help and can't hold a candle to Depp and his wacky wily old sea dog.

Sam Claflin and Astrid Berges-Frisbey (stop giggling), are the new replacements for Keira and Orlando. Their plight is tied to the fountain of youth as the searchers are need of a mermaid's tear, and Mr missionary decides to fall in love with the fishy lady. Both actors wouldn't have gone amiss on board the Queen Anne's Revenge (Blackbeard's ship) as planks.

The previous films have been a jumpy in parts but this time it's difficult to be scared. One moment made me jump at the beginning, but that was it. The character who we were meant to be afraid of was about as scary as a puppy wearing a hat. Captain Blackbeard, played by Ian Macshane, brooding and dark, is just a bit wet. He never strikes fear in other pirates or the audience even if he can control ropes with a magical sword.

The swordplay is impressive, especially in the fight between Sparrow's love interest Angelica played by the heavily bosomed Penelope Cruz. The fight is similiar to the one Jack has with Will in the first movie. She holds her own and is a sassy Spanish match for Sparrow. Captain Jack can't do it all by himself and is admirably let down by the supporting cast.

Once again Hans Zimmer's impressive score adds to the piratey flavour but that can't save the film too confused by adding every piece of pirate lore in it.

Verdict: 2/5

What could have been a return to form to a sinking-ship of a franchise in need of rescuing, isn't, it just re-hashed the same problems with 2 and 3. Too convoluted, characters are two dimensional and even Jack Sparrow can't save the day. I think the ship has definitely sailed on this one. Play the Lego game on the Xbox instead, its amazing.

The Apprentice

Dum-de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, de-dum, dum. It's back and in its seventh series. If you haven't read the title, I'm talking about The Apprentice. This time around the winner is given £250,000 to start up a business with Lord Sugar, instead of a job. So, why has it lasted this long? Yours truly shall rack his brains and work out why we keep going back to the country's most belligerent boss.

Are you up for a challenge?

They're tough, they're exciting and they can be extremely simple for the outsider looking in. Earlier in this series, the two teams were given £250 to spend on fruit and veg, and then make a profit on the money by selling the produce in a variety of ways. I don't know if Lord Sugar thinks of the tasks or if the BBC do, but they are interesting and almost Crystal Maze-esque. Is it a physical, mental or skill. Most tasks require all three of these obstacles. Of course business nous should shine through but it normally doesn't. As a viewer we are screaming at the television telling them where they are going wrong and how to rectify it (well I do). There's almost a sense of dramatic irony as you can see the team cocking up fantastically. But that's why we tune in, isn't it?

It's not personal, Sonny. It's strictly business.

The candidates are meant to be business-minded, but what does that actually mean? Many of them leave jobs already in business to join Lord Sugar's quest for a new apprentice. Surely that's not a very business-minded. They make the show as well as Lord Sugar, their ineptness and idiocy are why we watch the show. These people are human after all, and their business sense goes missing when they need it the most for some reason. Maybe its nerves or pressure but they seem to implode. But its pure entertainment.

Sadism

We all like watching people fail, don't we? Well, I do. What's more satisfying is watching these so called business-minded bods, who know what they're doing fall flat on their faces. I watch with a smile wider than a Cheshire cat (which don't exist, I only found out the other day) when a Mr or Mrs know-it-all loses. That moment in the boardroom when Lord Sugar proclaims those immortal words is the climax we are all waiting for. We don't root for the winner we want to see who doesn't get the job. Tee hee.

Funny how?

The Apprentice is a funny programme, not only do you have the ineptitude of some of the contestants but you also have the clown prince of business, Lord Alan Sugar. I am positive he has a group of writers feeding him zingers. Some of his one-liners are priceless, but there was one candidate who we were definitely laughing at, than with. Stuart 'the brand' Baggs. Not a one-trick pony he was a whole field of ponies running toward the job, to paraphrase one of his many witticisms.

Nick, Margaret, oh and Karren

Where would we be without them? Nick the man with a thousand faces, Margaret, who could kill you with one raise of the eyebrow and Karren, who according to a friend is the 'thinking man's crumpet.' Lord Sugar's trusty aides, his eyes and ears, possibly other body parts help him ascertain who is the weak from the chaff. Their comments are incisive and cutting, perfect foils for his lordness and never have a wasted word.

Thor

When the script for Thor landed on Kenneth Branagh's floor you can see why the experienced thespian took charge of the Norse legend cum Marvel superhero. Sibling rivalry, a complex relationship with his father and a boy who would be king, sounds like it could have been written by the Bard himself. But this isn't Shakespeare, this is Marvel's take on Norse mythology.

Thor, played by Australian Chris Hemsworth complete with full flowing blonde locks and beard bashes his way through the film with his trusty hammer, Mjolnir. Loki, Thor's brother, played with superb anger by Tom Hiddleston, lives his life in Thor's shadow,and slides his way like a slippery eel hellbent on getting the throne.

Thor decides to take his band of fighters, complete with a a Gimli lookalike, to the land of the frost giants after they mysteriously entered the kingdom of Asgard. Odin, his father and the King is pissed off and banishes him to Earth.

Whilst on Earth he must prove himself while falling for Natalie Portman, who wouldn't? Fending off giant metal men who shoot fire from their eyes and getting drunk with Stellan Skarsgard, who wouldn't? Hemsworth plays the troubled God with great bravado plus he is good at shouting and wielding a magical hammer. For fans of Marvel there are little teasers to the Avengers film currently in production.

Earth and Asgard both look very pretty, as does Portman, but that's another blog. Asgard is a shiny place made of gold tin foil and Gods sport funky eye-patches. It has a feel of the Viking mead hall but there is also something futuristic about the decor in the city in the clouds. New Mexico, is an ideal place for Thor to be banished, lots of open desert space for a hammer to be stuck in the ground.

Thor certainly lives up to its god-like status with some humorous moments especially when the God of thunder is on Earth. The film starts with a thunder-clap and doesn't slow down. Even the relationship between Thor and Portman's astrophysicist Jane Foster is engaging and heart felt. A comic book classic which will want you begging for more Norse action.

Film 2010: WTF?

Bring Wossy back, was my first thought after watching the new 'live' version of BBC's flagship film review programme Film 2010 now with Claudia Winkleman. I have cast my eye over the new format and here are my musings.

Where to start. The set. It looked like a cross between Newsround and Daybreak, without Adrian and Christine brightening our television screens in the morning. Wossy's set was a lot more elegant and the red fixtures in the background made you feel at home. The new one is an Ikea catalogue reject and more like The Xtra Factor, if you care to tune into ITV2 after the song contest on ITV1 is finished.

The presenters. Let's start with Miss Winkleman, a Davina McCall clone with fuzzy hair which looks like it belongs to puppet in Avenue Q. The whole set up has changed, we no longer have the presenter sitting behind a desk looking into the camera and giving their learned opinion on a particular film. No, now Winkleman slouches on a garish sofa talking to Danny Leigh (who I have no problem with, he seems to know what he is talking about), about the latest movies. The style of the Film programme has been surgically removed and thrown in the nearest dustbin. Her manic, wacky presenting style is incongruous with the show's ethos and is more suited to a teenage news show.

Ooh we have more presenters, Chris Hewitt Empire News Editor, Antonia Quirke a journalist who is quirky (sorry) and an annoying blogger Charlie Lyne who looks as if he has just escaped the womb. Each give their opinions which are duly noted and much more engaging than the hosts. The voxpopsy style with the others works as we get someone else's opinion about their fave film or a guilty pleasure.

And we're going live in five, four, three...why? What does going live for a film show broadcast at 2245 do for it? It turns it into Live from Studio Five, well maybe not that bad. I can't find a positive of making the show live, other than an interview after a premiere which they did with Keira, Carey and Andrew.

The usual in-depth review is done well, with clips from the film and interviews with the stars. At least they never changed that to an interview on the edge of a cliff or something silly like that.

In short, the phrase pops into my head, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Yes, Jonathan Ross left and they needed a new presenter but, why not choose someone with more gravitas and that is more recognised in the movie critique world. Barry Norman would be turning in his grave, if he was dead of course.