Showing posts with label Guy Ritchie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Ritchie. Show all posts

Friday, 16 August 2019

Snatch (2000)

"You know... fish and chips, cup of tea, bad food, worse weather, Mary fucking Poppins... London!"

I once saw this film, back in uni, and I watched it properly- i.e, after I'd seen Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Sadly I've yet to blog Mr Madonna's acclaimed debut, and am probably blogging things in the wrong order. Well, soz, but I haven't got either on DVD and it's Snatch that happens to be on Netflix. So here we are.

Anyway, I loved it. It's very of its time, very much trying to be a Cockney version of Tarantino, and not much different in style or theme to its predecessor. And no, it doesn't come close to Tarantino- it doesn't have the depth, wit or cinematic literacy, but not many films have. But it nevertheless manages to be funny, cool, and make a complex and non-linear plot easy to follow, which is not exactly an easy feat of writing or directing. And both the cast and direction are top notch. No, it may not be Pulp Fiction, much as its trying to be that kind of film, but it oozes charm and gets away with being derivative through its sheer Cockneyness. Bloody southerners.


I'd single out Jason Statham and a menacing Alan Ford for their performances, while Brad Pitt's performance is certainly unique. Is it racist in how it portrays Irish Travellers (not Roma)? Well, arguably they're eventually shown to be, if anyone is, the goodies, and we still live in a world where racism towards travelling peoples still seems to be seen as ok in a way other kinds of racism aren't- the film is probably no more racist in this area than the society that spawned it.

Aside from that, and a dodgy America-friendly reference to non-existent "social security numbers", the film is a splendidly enjoyable way to spend 100 odd minutes. Mr Madonna done good.

Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)



“I’m on my honeymoon!!!!”

I’m not going to repeat the things I said about Guy Ritchie’s distinctive directorial style in my blog review for this film’s prequel. Nor am I going to point out that this is pretty much an action film version of Sherlock Holmes (though this film emphasises this less), or that Robert Downey Jr is ridiculously good here and undoubtedly the greatest leading man working in Hollywood today. Yes, he’s even a bit better than Johnny Depp. He’s that good.

This film is far more respectful of the source material than its predecessor. Although not exactly a version of The Final Problem, it borrows from it heavily, including the apparent deaths of Holmes and Moriarty at the Reichenbach Falls, although of course we’re not expected to believe that Holmes actually died. Are you listening, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss? If that wasn’t enough, Stephen Fry gives us a version of Mycroft which is both extremely entertaining and extremely faithful to the source material.

Moriarty’s dastardly scheme is delightfully nefarious, if a little dependent on the writers’ knowledge that the First World War would break out twenty three years after the end of the film. Moriarty’s plans to make a gun running fortune from a massive war gives us a good excuse for lots of big budget hijinks as Holmes and Watson speed through France, Germany and, of course, Switzerland.

The bromance between Holmes and Watson is handled rather hilariously, with best man Holmes not being best pleased about Watson’s upcoming marriage. This nice little character point gives Downey a chance to show what a great actor he is, and gives Jude Law a chance to show what, in my opinion, a great actor he isn’t. Jared Harris is a surprisingly middling Moriarty, and one surprisingly faithful to what little references there were to the character in the regional stories. In fact, this faithfulness is taken a little too far: is there really any need to include Colonel Sebastian Moran? Incidentally, doesn’t Moran sound a bit common for a colonel in the Victorian army?

Still, this is enormous fun to watch, if slightly long, and I have to admit it was excellent. In fact, I would admit this film to that elite club of sequels that are better than their originals.

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Sherlock Holmes (2009)




“No girl wants to marry a doctor who can’t tell if a man’s dead or not.”

Before you buy this DVD on film, you might want to consider that it forces you to watch an advert for Blu-Ray lasting several minutes before you get to the menu. This is unacceptable, frankly, and if, unlike me, you don’t prefer your films with subtitles, you’d be much better off recording it off the telly.

Not that my first film to be reviewed in 2012 is particularly great, although Robert Downey Jr’s superlative central performance and Guy Ritchie’s brilliantly executed set pieces make it well worth seeing anyway. It’s a nice idea- Sherlock Holmes as action film- which actually works quite well. Downey’s Holmes is decidedly bohemian, physical, fast-moving and decidedly not asexual, and while this is arguably a departure from “canon”, it’s no more so than many more boring interpretations. And this treatment of the Sherlockian world may not be as good, quality-wise, as Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’ superlative Sherlock, it’s no less legitimate an interpretation.

There’s a touch of plywood to Jude Law’s performance, but Downey really shows what a first class actor he is, arguably the single best leading man in contemporary English-speaking cinema. His rakish charisma is reason alone to make this film worth watching, and he’s superb at physical comedy. His facial acting is first class, and it’s very noticeable that he spends the whole film speaking in an accent not his own (flawlessly, I might add, and I’m British) without forgetting to act as well, something which is all too common. His Holmes is as suited to the big screen as Benedict Cumberbatch’s is to television.

Mr Madonna is also a dab hand behind the camera, giving us enough adrenalin-fuelled action sequences to be worthy of a Michael Bay film, although the style is noticeably the same as Lock, Stock and Snatch, despite the period setting. Victorian London looks great, though, if a bit CGI-ey. Except… there’s a certain lack of substance to the storyline, although there’s certainly enough bangs and excitement to carry us through. This Watson, far from being a bumbler, is full of back-chat; I like that. But the characterisation of Holmes suffers from a slight problem. Actually it makes a lot of sense for him to be an action hero, but the deductive skills fall flat, often relying more on obscure chemistry factoids than the sort of deductive leaps that you really expect.

The plot is a rather odd mish-mash of tropes and explosions, taking us from an attempted virgin sacrifice by cowled figures (a nice familiar trope, that!) to alchemy and a vast conspiracy theories involving thinly veiled Freemasons which seem to come straight out of Alan Moore’s From Hell (if you haven’t already done so, read it!). Lord Blackwood seems to be based on the real life Francis Dashwood, leader of the Hellfire Club during the Eighteenth Century. His plan, bizarrely, involves conquering the United States, one of Britain’s main trading partners at the time, which would be a particularly stupid thing to do as it would entirely bugger up the British economy, and the whole point of the British Empire was to make money. Sorry, my bad: I probably shouldn’t be looking too hard at the plot.

Oh, and the scene where Dashwood is hanged is quite visceral and shocking. I don’t object to the violence per se, but people were still being barbarically killed like this well within living memory, and may presumably have living relatives.

There’s a fair bit of what we Doctor Who fans call fanwank here. The inclusion of Irene Adler (the rather good Rachel McAdams) is surprisingly justified here, though, establishing the non-asexuality of Downey’s Holmes, and I suppose Moriarty is in the film to do a bit of sequel-hunting. It tends to work out. If I might nitpick, though, Tower Bridge is still under construction, which would place this film in 1892. This is rather at odds with the Conan Doyle canon, as Holmes is supposed to have fallen down the Reichenbach Falls in 1891 and disappeared for three years. Not, of course, that this kind of obscure wankery is any excuse not to use a good idea for a set-piece.

So this is a rather good action film, although nothing special, but it’s worth watching for Downey’s performance alone.