Early in high school, I decided I want to go into journalism, specifically hoping to be a sports reporter/beat writer. I loved sports and still do and currently have a job with the Chicago Tribune as an editor. Even in my eight years since graduating college, I've seen journalism change drastically. God knows where it will go in eight years. Naturally, I was psyched to see 2015's Spotlight, a movie that shows how important journalism is and should continue to be. Oh, and it's a damn good movie.
It's 2001 at the Boston Globe and the Spotlight desk, led by editor Walter 'Robby' Robinson (Michael Keaton) with its three-man staff, focuses on big, deep, investigative stories that sometimes take months and even years to develop into something. The Globe is getting a new editor, Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber), who wants the Spotlight team to investigate an untold story, one that's gone untouched for years with only a story written here and there. He wants the team to explore the story of a Boston priest who was brought up on charges for child molestation and all the gory details. Even as investigative journalists, they've got their work cut out for them, dealing with the Catholic church and victims that don't necessarily want to be interviewed. Even with that said though, Robby and his team have no idea the depths of what they will find as they investigate deeper and deeper.
A quasi-journalist myself, I'm a sucker for all journalism movies from All the President's Men to State of Play to Kill the Messenger and many more in between. I think movies like this are relevant more than ever now in 2016 as newspapers continue their descent into oblivion of sorts. Where will journalism -- especially print journalism -- go from here? Will it survive? Can it? Movies like 'Spotlight' show a need for this sort of investigative reporting, hard-hitting storytelling and dogged journalists who pursue the truth because someone, anyone has to do it. I loved this movie. It's getting all sorts of Oscar buzz, and it will no doubt pull some serious nominations (and hopefully some wins too). It deserves any and all of the buzz it is getting.
Director Tom McCarthy jumps into this film with a refreshing thought. Simply put, he wants to tell a story. There's no explosions, huge twists, pyrotechnics, nudity or violence to speak of. It is a straightforward, elegantly-told story that tells just that, a true story. Much like The Big Short, 'Spotlight' tells a story that is astonishing in its truth, discomforting down to your very toes and unsettling to the point it can be hard to believe you are in fact watching something that actually happened. The story drifts along with the investigation as it gets deeper and darker, the Spotlight team truly understanding the depths and horrors of what goes on with priests in the Catholic church. It's not often you see films like this that are just so perfectly professionally done. It doesn't need a ton of style or an in-your-face mentality. Like its main characters, McCarthy's film simply is looking to find the truth and tell a story.
'Spotlight' is a film that respects its characters and what they do without glorifying them. These reporters want to tell a story, sometimes ones that are incredibly difficult to track and nail down. Some pretty talented actors were picked to bring these real-life reporters to life, including Keaton's Robby, Mark Ruffalo's Mike Rezendes, Rachel McAdams' Sacha Pfeiffer, and Brian d'Arcy James' Matt Carroll. In brief snippets, we get to know about them and their personal lives, nice touches that help us as we go along with the investigation. There isn't a weak performance in the group, and they feel incredibly authentic in bringing them to life. Even when it seems like they've hit a dead-end, they keep looking, keep investigating, even when the truth sounds impossible. Schreiber too is excellent as new editor Marty Baron with John Slattery doing a fine turn as Ben Bradlee Jr., an editor with the Globe who plays an integral part in the clergy cover-up investigation.
But wait...there's more! Because the above-mentioned performances weren't enough, right? I think Stanley Tucci has the ability to walk into a room and steal every scene he's in, an ability he shows off here as a lawyer who wants to do right, who wants to fight for his clients, often the victims and survivors of clergy abuse. Also look for Billy Crudup, Jamey Sheridan, Paul Guilfoyle, an uncredited Richard Jenkins lending his voice to a key role over the phone, and Len Cariou.
Working off the true story, McCarthy tells his story on the ground, in the newsrooms and cramped offices, at the reporters' desks with their desktop computers, phones ringing and notebooks in hand in just about every passing scene. We see them on the phones, pursuing leads, digging through old clips and paperwork, and you get the sense of this is what journalism IS and what it SHOULD BE. It feels authentic. It feels real, and that's why the movie is so criminally straightforward and memorable. 'Spotlight' does not pull any punches. This is the true story of a horrific cover-up that you just shake your head at that something this horrifying could go uncovered, unreported for so long. Will it bring home a bunch of Oscars? Who knows for sure? I know this though. It definitely should.
Great movie. Go see it.
Spotlight (2015): ****/****
The Sons of Katie Elder
"First, we reunite, then find Ma and Pa's killer...then read some reviews."
Showing posts with label Rachel McAdams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel McAdams. Show all posts
Monday, January 11, 2016
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Southpaw
I love sports movies. There I've said it. I came to a not-so-surprising but still somewhat surprising revelation after recently watching 2015's Southpaw. I've thought of it before, but it hit me square in the face this time around. All boxing movies are remakes of Rocky to one extent or another. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it do make things a tad predictable at times...
From nothing to greatness, boxer Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) is the light heavyweight champion of the world. He grew up in the system and made something out of himself because of his boxing ability, which his 43-0 record attests to. Billy loves his wife, Maureen (Rachel McAdams), and their daughter, Leila (Oona Laurence), more than anything. It's the point in his career though where Billy doesn't win as easily, taking far more of a pounding in the ring than he used to. Still, he believes and his manager believes that his best days are still ahead of him. That plan and hope for the future though is ripped apart when tragedy strikes his family, putting Billy into a tailspin that causes him to lose everything, including his daughter. He sinks to rock bottom and has nowhere to go but up. Where will he hopefully find his redemption? Back in the ring, going back to the basics of the sport he love(d) so much.
What is it about boxing stories that work so well in film? My thought is the underdog status that hovers above the sport. Boxing is a sport that can chew up its competitors and spit them out in an instant. One loss, and that's potentially it. Your career could be over, your chance at a title belt gone because of one punch, one fist landed. So what do folks love so much about that premise? The redemption factor, a second chance, an opportunity to prove what you're capable of, fighting back against the sport that seemingly wants you to fail. When those second chances turn into success stories...yeah, it makes for a good movie.
From director Antoine Fuqua, 'Southpaw' is a really solid, familiar and well-acted boxing story that certainly shows the impact of Rocky some 40 years since the original's release. It's not that 'Southpaw' isn't good. It is. It's really good, but no matter what I did I couldn't help but feel I'd seen the movie already. First off, the trailer (I'll include the link below as always) gives away a HUGE FREAKING TWIST so don't watch it. Fighter is at the top of his game, he tumbles, must climb back up. Whole scenes felt duplicated from Rocky, from Million Dollar Baby, from Warrior and plenty of others I'm probably forgetting. Now the beauty of that quasi-duplication is that what it's mimicking (or following in footsteps) are damn good to classic movies. So yeah, that's my biggest complaint. It isn't original. If you've watched sports movies, you've seen Southpaw...but it's good, really good.
Man, Jake Gyllenhaal is the absolute best. I don't know if there's a more talented actor currently working in film. He follows up his best performance yet -- last year's Nightcrawler -- with another excellent performance, bringing to life the rags-to-riches-to-rags Billy Hope, a fighter who's made something out of himself with the unwavering support of his wife, Maureen (an excellent part for McAdams). For starters, Gyllenhaal got into extreme physical shape and certainly looks the part of a champion boxer. He looks natural and believable in the ring, a vital part of any sports flick, a believable athlete in the lead. More than that though, it's an acting performance dripping with intensity, rage and tension, a man not too far from going over the edge and constantly pulling himself back to try and make things right. There are some huge, gutting, absolutely draining moments that Gyllenhaal shows (again) what a great actor he is. Can't wait to see what he's up to next!
What does a good underdog need? A coach who isn't gonna take his crap, who instead is gonna push him to his limits and then keep going. In the Mick role, Forrest Whitaker is a scene-stealer, a great match to Gyllenhaal as Tick Wills, a gym owner who works with kids in the city and a former boxer himself who saw his fighting career cut tragically short. He's worn down, beat up by the world but keeps on going. The movie's most effective moments are these two beat-up fighters just talking, shooting the breeze, feeling each other out. Their chemistry is pretty flawless developing a relationship with some extreme highs and lows. Along with McAdams and Laurence (a very talented young actress), look for 50 Cent in slimeball mode as Billy's boxing manager, Naomie Harris as a social worker, Beau Knapp as a friend of Billy's who on his training team, and Skylan Brooks as Hoppy, a teenage fighter Billy works with at Tick's gym.
As emotionally effective and heartfelt as the more emotional scenes are, 'Southpaw' is at its most comfortable in the gym and in the ring. The fights are well-choreographed and brutal as a high-level fight should be. You grimace as the punches land, as the blood starts to flow and the fighters try to punch their way through a fight. Billy's principal rival -- in more ways than one -- is a tough, fast-talking Colombian fighter, Miguel 'Magic' Escobar (Miguel Gomez), outfitted with a brutal punch but the fundamentals and footwork to match it, an all-around specimen. The finale packs the biggest wallop, both in terms of the adrenaline-pumping fight but also the emotion wrapped up in it. Like the best sports movies, you find yourself rooting for our guy, for Billy to come through, to put his demons aside and do what he couldn't. Excellent ending full of excitement as one round turns to two and on and on. Oh, and the training montage is superb. You need a superb training montage.
Nothing flashy, but an excellent cast -- especially Gyllenhaal and Whitaker -- with a familiar but extremely well-told underdog boxing story. Highly recommended. Now bring on the newest flick in the Rocky franchise, Creed!
Southpaw (2015): ***/****
From nothing to greatness, boxer Billy Hope (Jake Gyllenhaal) is the light heavyweight champion of the world. He grew up in the system and made something out of himself because of his boxing ability, which his 43-0 record attests to. Billy loves his wife, Maureen (Rachel McAdams), and their daughter, Leila (Oona Laurence), more than anything. It's the point in his career though where Billy doesn't win as easily, taking far more of a pounding in the ring than he used to. Still, he believes and his manager believes that his best days are still ahead of him. That plan and hope for the future though is ripped apart when tragedy strikes his family, putting Billy into a tailspin that causes him to lose everything, including his daughter. He sinks to rock bottom and has nowhere to go but up. Where will he hopefully find his redemption? Back in the ring, going back to the basics of the sport he love(d) so much.
What is it about boxing stories that work so well in film? My thought is the underdog status that hovers above the sport. Boxing is a sport that can chew up its competitors and spit them out in an instant. One loss, and that's potentially it. Your career could be over, your chance at a title belt gone because of one punch, one fist landed. So what do folks love so much about that premise? The redemption factor, a second chance, an opportunity to prove what you're capable of, fighting back against the sport that seemingly wants you to fail. When those second chances turn into success stories...yeah, it makes for a good movie.
From director Antoine Fuqua, 'Southpaw' is a really solid, familiar and well-acted boxing story that certainly shows the impact of Rocky some 40 years since the original's release. It's not that 'Southpaw' isn't good. It is. It's really good, but no matter what I did I couldn't help but feel I'd seen the movie already. First off, the trailer (I'll include the link below as always) gives away a HUGE FREAKING TWIST so don't watch it. Fighter is at the top of his game, he tumbles, must climb back up. Whole scenes felt duplicated from Rocky, from Million Dollar Baby, from Warrior and plenty of others I'm probably forgetting. Now the beauty of that quasi-duplication is that what it's mimicking (or following in footsteps) are damn good to classic movies. So yeah, that's my biggest complaint. It isn't original. If you've watched sports movies, you've seen Southpaw...but it's good, really good.
Man, Jake Gyllenhaal is the absolute best. I don't know if there's a more talented actor currently working in film. He follows up his best performance yet -- last year's Nightcrawler -- with another excellent performance, bringing to life the rags-to-riches-to-rags Billy Hope, a fighter who's made something out of himself with the unwavering support of his wife, Maureen (an excellent part for McAdams). For starters, Gyllenhaal got into extreme physical shape and certainly looks the part of a champion boxer. He looks natural and believable in the ring, a vital part of any sports flick, a believable athlete in the lead. More than that though, it's an acting performance dripping with intensity, rage and tension, a man not too far from going over the edge and constantly pulling himself back to try and make things right. There are some huge, gutting, absolutely draining moments that Gyllenhaal shows (again) what a great actor he is. Can't wait to see what he's up to next!
What does a good underdog need? A coach who isn't gonna take his crap, who instead is gonna push him to his limits and then keep going. In the Mick role, Forrest Whitaker is a scene-stealer, a great match to Gyllenhaal as Tick Wills, a gym owner who works with kids in the city and a former boxer himself who saw his fighting career cut tragically short. He's worn down, beat up by the world but keeps on going. The movie's most effective moments are these two beat-up fighters just talking, shooting the breeze, feeling each other out. Their chemistry is pretty flawless developing a relationship with some extreme highs and lows. Along with McAdams and Laurence (a very talented young actress), look for 50 Cent in slimeball mode as Billy's boxing manager, Naomie Harris as a social worker, Beau Knapp as a friend of Billy's who on his training team, and Skylan Brooks as Hoppy, a teenage fighter Billy works with at Tick's gym.
As emotionally effective and heartfelt as the more emotional scenes are, 'Southpaw' is at its most comfortable in the gym and in the ring. The fights are well-choreographed and brutal as a high-level fight should be. You grimace as the punches land, as the blood starts to flow and the fighters try to punch their way through a fight. Billy's principal rival -- in more ways than one -- is a tough, fast-talking Colombian fighter, Miguel 'Magic' Escobar (Miguel Gomez), outfitted with a brutal punch but the fundamentals and footwork to match it, an all-around specimen. The finale packs the biggest wallop, both in terms of the adrenaline-pumping fight but also the emotion wrapped up in it. Like the best sports movies, you find yourself rooting for our guy, for Billy to come through, to put his demons aside and do what he couldn't. Excellent ending full of excitement as one round turns to two and on and on. Oh, and the training montage is superb. You need a superb training montage.
Nothing flashy, but an excellent cast -- especially Gyllenhaal and Whitaker -- with a familiar but extremely well-told underdog boxing story. Highly recommended. Now bring on the newest flick in the Rocky franchise, Creed!
Southpaw (2015): ***/****
Labels:
2010s,
50 Cent,
Antoine Fuqua,
Forest Whitaker,
Jake Gyllenhaal,
Naomie Harris,
Rachel McAdams,
Sports
Friday, September 28, 2012
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Even re-reading my review for 2009's Sherlock Holmes, I still can't quite put my finger on it. I liked the movie, but there were parts of it that just didn't work for me. It's a little schizophrenic, a lot nutty, and was missing that special element that turns a good movie into a very good one. So what's the difference then with its recent sequel, 2011's Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? Heck if I know, but I liked it a lot.
It's 1891, and a series of bombings across France and Germany have Europe on edge with countries teetering on the brink of war. Everyone has their theories about the reasoning for the bombings. Terrorists? Anarchists? Assassins? Quirky and eccentric London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) has been feverishly investigating the bombings and has come up with his own theory. A brilliant professor, Moriarty (Jared Harris), is Holmes' main suspect, but Holmes has no proof other than his own wild theories. With the help of his soon to be married loyal sidekick, Watson (Jude Law), Holmes goes about getting that evidence in a case that will have them traveling all over Europe and in all sorts of hijinks.
What's throwing me off here is a criminally simplistic issue. There is little difference overall between the 2009 film and this 2011 sequel. Director Guy Ritchie did a very capable job with the original as he does here. The two movies are almost identical lengths (129 to 128 minutes) and have the same look, feel and tone. All I can come up with is a somewhat more pointed feel to the proceedings. The action isn't so ridiculous. It isn't trying to be hysterically funny, just funny. The scope isn't IMMENSE. Even when a war among European countries looms, the point of view is on a personal level (i.e. Sherlock and Watson) and for me at least, more effective.
It is Guy Ritchie though, and it's got a certain charm and style unto itself. The look of the movie is great, 1890s Europe with its own unique look. It has a cluttered, busy look, but it works with the semi-schizo nature here. One of the best things going is Hans Zimmer's score. As needed, it's big and booming like a historical epic/period piece should be. The most memorable sample though is the main theme, or as I always think of it...Sherlock's theme which you can listen to HERE. It is the perfect quirky, eccentric theme for a quirky, eccentric hero. Yes, overall the script and story is too smart/clever for its own good at times with countless reveals of things we didn't know need to be revealed. Much more than the first movie though, I just had more fun watching this one.
That is no doubt easily chalked up to the continued success in casting. Robert Downey Jr. is one of my favorite actors, and he does a great job bringing Holmes to life. Again, this isn't the prim and proper Englishman. Downey's Holmes is quirky, eccentric, offbeat, brilliant, obsessively observant, and always one step ahead of his rivals. Law's Watson is the perfect sidekick; intelligent, smart and wise but in a way completely different from Holmes. The duo is basically the original Odd Couple. Holmes is upset that Watson is getting married (to Kelly Reilly from the original) and doesn't hide his feelings. Their friendship is basically a perfect match, the two longtime friends arguing like an old married couple. Noomi Rapace is wasted as Sim, a gypsy along for the ride with the duo. Harris is okay as the villain with Paul Anderson as his sharpshooting henchman. Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan briefly reprise their roles from the original with Stephen Fry playing Holmes' classier brother.
With a story that's all over the place and never really slows down, some set pieces stand out from the rest. The running gag of Holmes seeing and analyzing what's about to happen...and then doing exactly what he saw is used just the right amount. Not too little, not too much. A running chase/fight in a London casino with a Cossack assassin is impressive as is a chase and gunfight through a Moriarty-owned factory in France with some explosive results. The finale doesn't disappoint either as Holmes and Moriarty finally confront each other. End result? 'Shadows' knows when to tap the brakes where the original was more aggressively in your face. It makes all the difference.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows <---trailer (2011): ***/****
It's 1891, and a series of bombings across France and Germany have Europe on edge with countries teetering on the brink of war. Everyone has their theories about the reasoning for the bombings. Terrorists? Anarchists? Assassins? Quirky and eccentric London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) has been feverishly investigating the bombings and has come up with his own theory. A brilliant professor, Moriarty (Jared Harris), is Holmes' main suspect, but Holmes has no proof other than his own wild theories. With the help of his soon to be married loyal sidekick, Watson (Jude Law), Holmes goes about getting that evidence in a case that will have them traveling all over Europe and in all sorts of hijinks.
What's throwing me off here is a criminally simplistic issue. There is little difference overall between the 2009 film and this 2011 sequel. Director Guy Ritchie did a very capable job with the original as he does here. The two movies are almost identical lengths (129 to 128 minutes) and have the same look, feel and tone. All I can come up with is a somewhat more pointed feel to the proceedings. The action isn't so ridiculous. It isn't trying to be hysterically funny, just funny. The scope isn't IMMENSE. Even when a war among European countries looms, the point of view is on a personal level (i.e. Sherlock and Watson) and for me at least, more effective.
It is Guy Ritchie though, and it's got a certain charm and style unto itself. The look of the movie is great, 1890s Europe with its own unique look. It has a cluttered, busy look, but it works with the semi-schizo nature here. One of the best things going is Hans Zimmer's score. As needed, it's big and booming like a historical epic/period piece should be. The most memorable sample though is the main theme, or as I always think of it...Sherlock's theme which you can listen to HERE. It is the perfect quirky, eccentric theme for a quirky, eccentric hero. Yes, overall the script and story is too smart/clever for its own good at times with countless reveals of things we didn't know need to be revealed. Much more than the first movie though, I just had more fun watching this one.
That is no doubt easily chalked up to the continued success in casting. Robert Downey Jr. is one of my favorite actors, and he does a great job bringing Holmes to life. Again, this isn't the prim and proper Englishman. Downey's Holmes is quirky, eccentric, offbeat, brilliant, obsessively observant, and always one step ahead of his rivals. Law's Watson is the perfect sidekick; intelligent, smart and wise but in a way completely different from Holmes. The duo is basically the original Odd Couple. Holmes is upset that Watson is getting married (to Kelly Reilly from the original) and doesn't hide his feelings. Their friendship is basically a perfect match, the two longtime friends arguing like an old married couple. Noomi Rapace is wasted as Sim, a gypsy along for the ride with the duo. Harris is okay as the villain with Paul Anderson as his sharpshooting henchman. Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan briefly reprise their roles from the original with Stephen Fry playing Holmes' classier brother.
With a story that's all over the place and never really slows down, some set pieces stand out from the rest. The running gag of Holmes seeing and analyzing what's about to happen...and then doing exactly what he saw is used just the right amount. Not too little, not too much. A running chase/fight in a London casino with a Cossack assassin is impressive as is a chase and gunfight through a Moriarty-owned factory in France with some explosive results. The finale doesn't disappoint either as Holmes and Moriarty finally confront each other. End result? 'Shadows' knows when to tap the brakes where the original was more aggressively in your face. It makes all the difference.
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows <---trailer (2011): ***/****
Labels:
2010s,
Guy Ritchie,
Jude Law,
Noomi Rapace,
Rachel McAdams,
Robert Downey Jr
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
Never one to pull punches with his movies, it was not surprising to hear that director Guy Ritchie's take on famed and loved literary character Sherlock Holmes was going to veer slightly from the classic image of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. The somewhat accepted version of Holmes is a rather stately gentleman who is an expert in using little clues to solve much bigger mysteries. He is well-dressed, well-spoken and highly intelligent. Enter Richie who takes Holmes and does a complete 180 with him, most of the time for the better in the recently released Sherlock Holmes.
The casting choice for Holmes could be seen as an odd one -- American actor Robert Downey Jr. -- but that's the least of the movie's troubles. I shouldn't say that, it sounds too negative, but the movie does have it's flaws. Downey Jr. takes Ritchie's idea and runs with it, transforming the renowned detective into a scruffy brawler who is nonetheless a highly observant, highly intelligent individual who is as likely to throw a punch and down some booze as he is to solve a case. To say the least, Downey Jr. makes him an eccentric and to the movie's benefit.
Working with his sidekick and roomate (more on that later) Dr. Watson (Jude Law), London detective Sherlock Holmes prevents a serial killer, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), from killing his sixth female victim in an exciting opening sequence. Blackwood is imprisoned and hung some three months later with Watson pronouncing him dead at the scene. It's not long though before the police come in search of Holmes' help. Blackwood has apparently risen from the dead and looks to keep a promise he made to Holmes; he'll continue to terrorize London and then later England, the U.S. and the entire world. Not a believer in black magic in the least, Holmes goes about solving the mystery which gets murkier when a woman from his past, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), gets involved.
Sherlock Holmes received somewhat mixed reviews but is still raking in the cash in theaters. I love going to the movies and was excited to see this one, but still came away like I had missed something. It was a movie I wanted to love but only ended up liking it. Thinking back on it, I can't even figure out why which confuses me even more. Maybe it was the audience I saw it with, but the humourous elements fell short. There were some chuckles here and there but never any laugh out loud moments. Making Holmes a brawler works in two early scenes as he explains in voiceover how he'll win the battle through slow-motion and then does it in the matter of a second or two. But with the exception of the finale, the action seems oddly out of place and even slows the movie down.
The casting is not surprisingly the best part of the movie. Downey Jr. has another successful franchise on his hands if he wants it (yeah, yeah, the ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel) and breathes life into a character that might have been rather stuffy with another actor. Playing loyal Watson, Jude Law matches Downey step for step and scene for scene. His Watson is the straight man to Holmes' antics, but he's also an ally -- sometimes unwillingly so -- in Holmes' adventures. As for the roommate thing, I'm still trying to decide if Ritchie tried to make the two characters come off as gay. There's obviously a bromance going on here with Holmes and Watson bickering like an old married couple, especially now that Watson is engaged. Their relationship is played for laughs and works nicely, providing some of the movie's best moments and many of those already mentioned chuckles.
Rounding out the lead trio, Rachel McAdams handles herself well as Irene Adler, a female version of Holmes, an ass-kicking con woman who's duped Sherlock at least twice. It's not the best-written part and she disappears for extended segments in the 1st hour, but McAdams makes the most of it. One other fault that comes to mind is the lack of a strong villain. Strong's Blackwood just isn't given enough development, and the explanations in the end for his other-worldly abilities take his character down another notch. As an intellectual, he's a perfect foe for Holmes but the part feels underwritten. Eddie Marsan has a good part as a London inspector, Robert Maillet plays an enormous thug who keeps crossing paths with Holmes and Watson, and Kelly Reilly is Mary, Watson's fiance who must fight with Holmes for his affection.
I'm definitely going to have to think some more about this one because it has all the elements of what could have been a really exciting, very professional movie. Composer Hans Zimmer assembled an atypical score that works nicely, including a catchy theme for Holmes. The cast is very reliable and the story is interesting enough, but something just didn't click for me. I'd still recommend seeing it, but it's not a very strong recommendation. I liked this movie, but I wanted to love it.
Sherlock Holmes <----trailer (2009): ** 1/2 /****
The casting choice for Holmes could be seen as an odd one -- American actor Robert Downey Jr. -- but that's the least of the movie's troubles. I shouldn't say that, it sounds too negative, but the movie does have it's flaws. Downey Jr. takes Ritchie's idea and runs with it, transforming the renowned detective into a scruffy brawler who is nonetheless a highly observant, highly intelligent individual who is as likely to throw a punch and down some booze as he is to solve a case. To say the least, Downey Jr. makes him an eccentric and to the movie's benefit.
Working with his sidekick and roomate (more on that later) Dr. Watson (Jude Law), London detective Sherlock Holmes prevents a serial killer, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), from killing his sixth female victim in an exciting opening sequence. Blackwood is imprisoned and hung some three months later with Watson pronouncing him dead at the scene. It's not long though before the police come in search of Holmes' help. Blackwood has apparently risen from the dead and looks to keep a promise he made to Holmes; he'll continue to terrorize London and then later England, the U.S. and the entire world. Not a believer in black magic in the least, Holmes goes about solving the mystery which gets murkier when a woman from his past, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), gets involved.
Sherlock Holmes received somewhat mixed reviews but is still raking in the cash in theaters. I love going to the movies and was excited to see this one, but still came away like I had missed something. It was a movie I wanted to love but only ended up liking it. Thinking back on it, I can't even figure out why which confuses me even more. Maybe it was the audience I saw it with, but the humourous elements fell short. There were some chuckles here and there but never any laugh out loud moments. Making Holmes a brawler works in two early scenes as he explains in voiceover how he'll win the battle through slow-motion and then does it in the matter of a second or two. But with the exception of the finale, the action seems oddly out of place and even slows the movie down.
The casting is not surprisingly the best part of the movie. Downey Jr. has another successful franchise on his hands if he wants it (yeah, yeah, the ending leaves the door wide open for a sequel) and breathes life into a character that might have been rather stuffy with another actor. Playing loyal Watson, Jude Law matches Downey step for step and scene for scene. His Watson is the straight man to Holmes' antics, but he's also an ally -- sometimes unwillingly so -- in Holmes' adventures. As for the roommate thing, I'm still trying to decide if Ritchie tried to make the two characters come off as gay. There's obviously a bromance going on here with Holmes and Watson bickering like an old married couple, especially now that Watson is engaged. Their relationship is played for laughs and works nicely, providing some of the movie's best moments and many of those already mentioned chuckles.
Rounding out the lead trio, Rachel McAdams handles herself well as Irene Adler, a female version of Holmes, an ass-kicking con woman who's duped Sherlock at least twice. It's not the best-written part and she disappears for extended segments in the 1st hour, but McAdams makes the most of it. One other fault that comes to mind is the lack of a strong villain. Strong's Blackwood just isn't given enough development, and the explanations in the end for his other-worldly abilities take his character down another notch. As an intellectual, he's a perfect foe for Holmes but the part feels underwritten. Eddie Marsan has a good part as a London inspector, Robert Maillet plays an enormous thug who keeps crossing paths with Holmes and Watson, and Kelly Reilly is Mary, Watson's fiance who must fight with Holmes for his affection.
I'm definitely going to have to think some more about this one because it has all the elements of what could have been a really exciting, very professional movie. Composer Hans Zimmer assembled an atypical score that works nicely, including a catchy theme for Holmes. The cast is very reliable and the story is interesting enough, but something just didn't click for me. I'd still recommend seeing it, but it's not a very strong recommendation. I liked this movie, but I wanted to love it.
Sherlock Holmes <----trailer (2009): ** 1/2 /****
Labels:
2000s,
Guy Ritchie,
Jude Law,
Mark Strong,
Rachel McAdams,
Robert Downey Jr
Monday, September 14, 2009
State of Play
In a time when newspapers nationwide are going down the drain, it's interesting (and nice to see) that a movie with an impressive ensemble cast deals with the inner workings and conflicts of what goes on in a newspaper's newsroom. State of Play struggled at the box office, but hopefully it does better in rentals because director Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland) has put together a strong thriller that balances the every day work of journalists with the intrigue of behind the scenes Washington D.C.When dealing with the current state of newspapers in a movie, there's certain things that can't be avoided; the online vs. print rivalry, a good story vs. tabloid stories that might sell more papers, the morality of publishing a story, conflict of interests, and of course, big business. Will anyone let us print this story? State of Play clearly did its research in handling these subjects whether it be the look of the fictional Washington Globe's cluttered, chaotic newsroom to the rivalry between a print writer and a young blogger. It's the little things that make the movie more believable, and much easier to get into the world of what's going on.
Old-school newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is very good at what he does, but with the changing times of newspapers, he refuses to change with the technology. So when two dead bodies turn up, Cal goes to the scene for his story. Across town, a woman is killed in a subway station, or was she? It turns out the woman was an aide to Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and as more information becomes available, she was also having an affair with Collins. His editors start to put the squeeze on Cal because during his college years he was roomate with who else? Collins.
The two cases/stories start to evolve and working with a young online writer, Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins to accumulate a lot of evidence that the two cases are seemingly related. Collins and his aide were working on a case against PointCorp, a private corporation full of ex-military personnel who serve in the Middle East and around the world providing security. Could PointCorp have really ordered a hit on Collins' aide? Would they really go that far? So starts a twisting, turning story that kept me guessing right until the end.
Working as a team, Crowe and McAdams work well together, a journalistic Odd Couple. Crowe's Cal is wary of working with the young blogger but comes to see her as a colleague, a fellow reporter. It can be tricky making journalists' work compelling to watch because much of it is tracking down phone numbers and calling people, knocking on doors trying to get information, but with a handy montage the job is that much easier. The journalistic detective work provides much of the bulk of the story, but it never drags as a possible conspiracy unfolds.
As the Making of Documentary discusses, it would be hard not to compare this to All The President's Men, the true story of how Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein took down the Nixon administration that was turned into a movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. State of Play pays homage to its predecessor while putting its own spin on the story. One scene in particular jumps out as Cal hides in a parking garage from a man believed to be a PointCorp assasin. Shot among the shadows, it's a great scene that sent a chill down my back at the surprise intro of the killer. And overall, the movie has a good balance between the newspaper side and the thriller aspect without overdoing or overstaying its welcome on both.
Crowe and McAdams together leading the movie is a good example of what strong casting can do, but the supporting cast here is just as important. Helen Mirren is pitch perfect as Cameron, the Washington Globe editor who must balance selling newspapers with getting that perfect story out there. Robin Wright makes the most of a smaller part as Anne Collins, Stephen's wife who has a past with Cal also. Affleck may be a little young for the part, but he pulls it off well as the suave, sophisticated Congressman seemingly on the rise. Jason Bateman as a seedy PR guy and Jeff Daniels as a fellow representative looking to help Collins also leave a good taste in your mouth.
As a reporter for a paper here in Chicago, I couldn't help but smile when I saw this movie's trailer. Journalists as heroes saving society from the government?! Count me in! The story is an exciting one that easily brings the viewer in and keeps them involved trying to unravel those deep, dark, scary Washington DC conspiracies and mysteries. Great ensemble cast and a story based off a BBC miniseries makes this one well worth a watch.
State of Play <----trailer (2009): ***/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
_poster.jpg)

