Reviews

Blackthorn (Dir. Mateo Gil, 2012) is what I'd like to describe as a "real western". It is full of shootouts, lost treasures and cinematic vistas. I have always been a western fan and whenever a new western is made I make a huge effort to catch it on release. Unfortunately Blackthorn isn't on in many cinemas and so many of you will have to wait for it on DVD/Blu-ray at the beginning of June.

Blackthorn is centred on a retired Butch Cassidy, who now goes by the name James Blackthorn after he and the Sundance Kid narrowly escaped death in Bolivia. One of the only downsides about this film is the fact that Paul Newman died four years before its creation and therefore couldn't revive his role as Butch Cassidy. But Sam Shepard embraces the role of Butch Cassidy and provides a strong and driven protagonist for the film. The character Eduardo Apodaca (Eduardo Noriega) puts it best when he says "you're a damn legend". As that is what Butch Cassidy is, a legend, and it was only a matter of time before cinema decided to embrace his presence once again for another fantastic western.

Both Shepard and Noriega are implausible in their roles, complimented with a sturdy performance of a washed up pinkerton by Stephen Rea. But an actor who hasn't had nearly enough recognition within cinema is Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau, who a lot of you will recognise from the popular television series, Game of Thrones (2011). His presence in Blackthorn not only reinforces the film, as he plays a young Butch Cassidy, but he also bears great similarity to Shepard conveniently. Through the use of flashbacks we see how Butch ends up in Bolivia and how his partner Sundance is no longer with him. These flashbacks also aid in fortifying the attachment the audience has with the protagonist, James Blackthorn.

Everyone will notice when watching Blackthorn that it fantastically utilises on-location shooting. The open vistas, forested valleys and Bolivian villages create a strong sense of verisimilitude while also making it very clear how much bigger the world is than the two protagonists. Another thing this film explores is how to cope with old age. As it is clear that perhaps Butch has lived such an exciting life and longs to return to it before he eventually dies. But after experiencing this freedom will he yearn for a quieter life with his long-lost "nephew"?

This film is full of everything I look for when watching a western. The only problem I had with it was its length; it almost feels like three, thirty minute long episodes that have been pasted together to create a movie. After the first thirty minutes the narrative has progressed a great deal, there has even been an acoustic cover by Shepard of "Sam Hall". The flashback scenes in Blackthorn are imperative to the plot, as they hold the film together and without them the film would have a much less gripping story.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Because of all the hype surrounding The Hunger Games (Dir. Gary Ross, 2012) I presumed it was going to be heavily entertaining and enjoyable. But on the contrary, it was slow and frustrating. I found little empathy for any of the characters and struggled to understand what should have been a very simple plot that somehow became more and more complex as the film dragged on.

I will firstly point out that I have not read the books and so I went into the film with only the understanding that The Hunger Games focuses on a yearly event where children end up fighting other children to survive. By the end of the film I discovered that The Hunger Games was essentially a desensitised Hollywood adaptation of Battle Royale (Dir. Kinji Fukasaku, 2000) with a greater back story. Also because The Hunger Games is based on the first in a series of books I was able to tell that nothing bad would happen to the protagonist, which perhaps helps in the films slow narrative progression.

The Hunger Games rushes the beginning plot in order to reach the games, and therefore a lot of the story is lost. This rushed first hour forces a sense of mild confusion onto the spectator, as we are unsure of the significance of multiple characters and symbols that only fans can relate too. The camera-work of the opening twenty minutes before Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is swept away to the capitol is fantastic. The uncomfortable camera angles followed by quick cuts or jump cuts create a sense of fear and uneasiness. This same effect is used when the games finally get underway to emphasise the violence that is taking place, without focus on the blood and gore. However the games also drag on for another hour. Many of the scenes within this section feel overextended and a few of them unneeded. Surprisingly, in the last twenty minutes of the film it increases pace and enjoyment before rushing through the final few scenes, in order to reach the two hour mark.

For an expensive and high grossing blockbuster one would expect the CGI to be believable and realistic, which in majority they are. But in one scene in particular where Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are arriving on chariot into the capitol, they are both wearing suits that are supposedly on fire. Whether it is the audience superimposed onto the green screen behind them, or the fire that doesn't even look like fire, this scene was sickening to watch in what was otherwise a beautiful and creative film.

Acting-wise, Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks exceeded my expectations as they provided a surrogate mother and father, to an extent, for Katniss and Peeta. The characters presented in The Hunger Games are all very different as they have individual traits. Unfortunately because of these differences there is almost no attachment created between the audience and the characters, except perhaps Katniss as she is the protagonist. However due to her cold nature and bland facial expressions Katniss is also not entirely relatable to.

When a film mentions its own title almost every minute it is never a good sign and The Hunger Games was no exception. The lack initiative or common sense used by the majority of the characters throughout the games is heavily frustrating – look out for the tree scene or a scene with Rue (Amandla Stenberg). Many characters are introduced and then forgotten, which can only be preparation for a sequel, a flaw that The Lord of the Rings trilogy managed to avoid. All in all The Hunger Games was an enjoyable watch with many avoidable flaws. Perhaps its sequel will be more entertaining…

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! (Dir Peter Lord & Jeff Newitt, 2012) is the first hand-animated feature film released by Aardman Studios since the successful Wallace and Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (Dir. Steve Box & Nick Park, 2005). Much like the Wallace and Gromit franchise, The Pirates! features plenty of intertextual jokes, a plot full of twists and a generally entertaining film.

The narrative follows a simple but eventful plot so as to appeal to the younger audience. Many of the jokes throughout The Pirates! therefore utilise slapstick and basic comedy to please the target audience. However, for the adult spectator, many jokes are intertextual and may need multiple viewings to understand or even notice them. This use of gags, and simple plot, can be seen all through Aardman's filmography.

Aardman famously utilise a British cast in their films and they do not forsake this convention in The Pirates!. Hugh Grant gives, arguably, the best performance of his career as the Pirate Captain, helping drive the story forward with a strong supporting British cast. The films roster is full of other famous British faces including David Tennant, Martin Freeman, Russell Tovey and Brian Blessed. Yet even with this almost pure British cast The Pirates! seems very American. Perhaps it is the partnership with Sony and the over-excessive use of CGI, or perhaps it is the plot that bears similarities to the U.S. blockbuster, The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (Dir Gore Verbinski, 2003), but The Pirates! just seemingly lacks the charm and quaintness that the Wallace and Gromitfranchise has.

Finally, I will briefly discuss the use of 3-D within The Pirates!, which was the first film I have seen in 3-D this year (2012). And having only previously seen Jackass 3D and Avatar in 3-D I have mixed opinions on cinema's desire to use this media. I believe that some films, like Avatar, cleverly utilised 3-D by enhancing the depth of field, whereas many films desire only to pop things out of the screen at the audience Unfortunately, The Pirates! attempts to do both of these things, causing the clarity of anything in the background to be hindered because of the foreground focus. I would urge people not to waste money seeing this movie, and countless others, in the third dimension.

Aardman had a lot to live up to when creating, and releasing, The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!, due to the success of their other films. I have to say it was a little disappointing as I had gone into the cinema expecting Wallace and Gromit on an epic ocean-battle scale, while keeping the quaint "Britishness" presented by both the Wallace and Gromit films and Chicken Run (Dir. Peter Lord & Nick Park, 2000). But in fact I found a clay-mation of The Pirates of the Caribbean with a stronger plot and exciting characters. All I can hope is that the next film to come out of Aardman studios is another Wallace and Gromit.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

I always find Mark Wahlberg a very watch-able screen presence as he often portrays relatable action driven protagonists. This is no different in Contraband (Dir. Baltasar Komakur, 2012) as his character Chris Farraday leads us on an epic heist, chase and smuggling thriller.

Contraband has a strong enough narrative that begins a little slow and only really picks up once Wahlberg gets onto the cargo ship and the "run" gets undergo. But to say this film was boring is an overstatement. There is twist after twist that keeps the audience engaged until the last minute, helping to break away Contraband from being another standard action filled blockbuster. Unfortunately this film does become more and more far-fetched as it progresses, forcing the plot to weaken as it focuses on the action.

The camera is, throughout the film, very shaky, giving a hand-cam effect. This effect creates a gritty and down to earth vibe that strengthens the film, especially during the action scenes where the camera almost mimics that of The Bourne Ultimatum (Dir. Paul Greengrass, 2007). But during conversation scenes this overuse of hand-cam becomes sickening as it becomes extremely difficult to focus on anyone on screen due to the amount of movement in the camera.

Other actors in Contraband hold a similar screen presence if not a stronger one than Wahlberg. Ben Foster plays Sebastian Abney, who is Farraday's old "run" partner and best friend. Foster is always a pleasure to watch on screen, as I mentioned in my Rampart (Dir. Oren Moverman, 2012)review, and he does not disappoint in Contraband as he provides a strong and rich character. But the actor that stole the film, and almost any other film he has been in, was Giovanni Ribsi. He performs the character of Tim Briggs, a drug dealer. We all recognise Ribsi as Phoebe's brother in Friends, and look at how far he has come. His character presents the audience with a clear antagonist as he terrorises Farraday's family while he is on the "run". Every actor in Contraband contributes in providing a strong, linear narrative with twists that nobody sees coming.

Contraband is a good teamwork heist that focuses on family and friends just as much as the action of the "run" itself. It falls short of excellence by having an uncontrollable camera, a rather predictable story, minus the twists, and a slow beginning that is unusual to a thriller movie. In summary it feels like The Italian Job (Dir. F. Gary Gray, 2003) for adults, due to its strong reference to drugs and death.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

One thing I have to say before actually reviewing the film was how terrible the screening was at the cinema. It was possibly one of the worst cinema experiences of my life. After the 20 minutes of adverts and trailers the room darkened and the screen widened, the film was going to start. Then however, the cinema decided to play the trailer for 21 Jump Street (Dir. Phil Lord & Chris Miller, 2012) just before the screening of 21 Jump Street. It completely ruined the film for me as the trailer contained many of the early gags of the film.

Since the hit that was Superbad (Dir. Greg Mottola) in 2007, the comedy genre has been redefined with dark and sick humour taking forefront within films, with slapstick having surprisingly made a comeback as well. 21 Jump Street does not falter from the new codes and conventions established by Superbad, probably because Jonah Hill had a lot of creative control in both movies.

The plot of this film is simple. Two kids that hated each other in school both join the police force and become best friends. Unfortunately they are such bad cops they get initiated into a revived program on 21 Jump Street, and a forced to go undercover as high school kids. This sounds like a very cheesy 80s plot that won't work. But it does. They updated it enough to connect to a 2012 audience, while at the same time keeping the cheesiness that defined 80s comedy.

Jonah Hill in 21 Jump Street was pretty much Hill in every other film we have seen him in. I have to say, in some of is earlier movies I found his improvisation comedy refreshing and hilarious. Now, however, his jokes really haven't changed and his comedic style is becoming a little tedious, which is a shame. The real comedy star in this film was Channing Tatum, who actually fitted into this role with ease. I am hoping that his ability will improve with experience as he is a genuinely enjoyable screen presence.

Some of the scenes are hilarious in this film. Notably a scene where they are both attempting to get drugs out of their system I found particularly funny. However, like many comedies nowadays, there are also some very unfunny scenes. I do not enjoy slapstick jokes in the slightest and I just do not enjoy films that rely on that form of comedy. I understand it exists to allow people to not think while watching the film and just to laugh, but I feel like it is a dated and child-like comedic form, and I much prefer intertextual jokes and witty dialogue.

21 Jump Street is better than I thought it would be, but is not at the same comedic level as other hits like Superbad or The Hangover (Dir. Todd Philips, 2009). This film utilizes many forms of comedy, most probably to attract as bigger audience as possible; which is has. The acting is as it should be in a comedy film, apart from a cameo near the end which was mind-blowingly fantastic. 21 Jump Street has been a success as it has stuck to what people between the ages of 15-25 enjoy, which includes me. It was not the funniest film I have ever seen, but it was certainly not the least funny either.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com

Elaborate special effects, a large budget and a week plot are often three aspects that define a blockbuster movie. Everyone also always expects them to be somewhat enjoyable and entertaining, whether you are a film critic, movie-buff or just an occasional cinema goer. So when John Carter (Dir. Andrew Stanton, 2012), the first blockbuster of the year, was released; audiences expected an entertaining linear narrative. What we weren't expecting was a slow paced, overly complicated sci- fi/fantasy film with mediocre acting and special effects that really weren't that special.

John Carter follows, you guessed it, the character John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) as he attempts to find a hidden cave of gold after fighting in the American civil war. Through a series of events he is accidentally transported to Mars where he befriends a tall, four-armed alien race and a lost princess. Eventually he ends up fighting the various factions of Mars in order to protect and marry Dejah Thoris (Lynn Colins), the said princess.

The budget should be addressed first after watching John Carter. It is estimated to have a budget of $250,000,000 which seems an extortionate amount considering even Avatar (Dir. James Cameron, 2009) had a lower budget of $237,000,000, and John Carter's special effects do not compare to that of Avatar's. Yes, John Carter does look nice, and it does have some fantastic motion-capture animation, but it is definitely not $250,000,000 worth of effects.

The ability of all the actors in John Carter varies from excellent to unfortunately terrible. Willem Dafoe is one of the excellent few, along with Mark Strong, as he provides an emotionally attaching and believable tribal alien leader, Tars Tarkas. The films protagonist, John Carter, and his love interest, Dejah Thoris, are both reasonably performed by Kitsch and Colins. Unfortunately Dominic West, who plays the faction leader trying to conquer Mars, was terrible. He was handed a bland, one- dimensional character by the script writers and therefore was unable to develop the character to any success.

After bad mouthing the film for almost the whole of the review it is about time I say something good about it. There is one scene in particular worth mentioning. John Carter engages, about half way through the film, in combat with hundreds of a rival alien race. During this fight scene it cuts between Carter battling on Mars, and his wife and child back on Earth. This scene is the most heartfelt in the whole film, and it almost seems worthwhile watching the film just for this one scene.

John Carter is a standard blockbuster movie with action, explosions and special effects. However it won't appeal to the masses due to its obscure sci-fi/fantasy genre mix with swords and solar powered planes on Mars battling Avatar-esc aliens. This film has flopped on its opening weekend, and I can not see it making its money back. I also cannot see there being a sequel filling the Pirates of the Caribbean void; as much as the director, actors and Disney would have hoped.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Set in 1999 Los Angeles, Rampart (Dir. Oren Moverman, 2012) follows a veteran police officer David Brown (Woody Harrelson) as he struggles to hold an unconventional family together after being caught on camera nearly beating a "criminal" to death. This stubborn cop is stuck in the old ways of the police force, as many officers constantly remind him, and he is unable to adjust to the new expectancies of society.

The camera work and editing style is one of the most noticeable things about Rampart. There are close-ups with unusual jump cuts dividing each shot, while Brown is in disciplinary discussions, and a voyeuristic feeling throughout the rest of the film, with the camera watching through windows and over shoulders.

After you see Brown's family for the first time in the film I am sure everyone will be as confused as I was. It seems that he has two daughters from different mothers, but both mothers live in the same house. These mothers seemingly both still are in relationships with him as he asks them for sex one at a time while they are at the dinner table. It is the daughters we are forced to pity in Rampart though. As they clearly both become terrified of their father and what he is capable of, especially after all the media reports. This is clearly a very unconventional family and I for one didn't quite understand how they were all able to live under the same roof.

Harrelson provides the most heartbreaking, antagonistic protagonist performance I have seen in a long while. The scenes where he is "bent" cop are horrifying to watch and the scenes where he is attempting to hold his family together are heartbreaking, especially as the film progresses. We are left unsure whether to hate him or pity him by the end of the film, and I probably left feeling a bit of both.

All the other supporting actors in this film are fantastic, children and adults alike. But the other actor that is worth mentioning is Ben Foster who plays The General, a presumed war veteran who now evidently lives on the streets. His performance, as always, was fantastic. I have not once seen a character that Foster doesn't put all his heart into.

Through a rightfully heartbreaking narrative Rampart succeeds in providing both scenes convincing us that Brown is human, as well as scenes justifying the disciplinary meetings and family break-ups that occur throughout the film. Harrelson's phenomenal performance holds this otherwise slow movie together, with the help of the entire supporting cast.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Martha Marcy May Marlene (Dir. Sean Durkin, 2012) is a spectacularly haunting film, as well as being one of the most complicated film titles to attempt to pronounce. The movie follows the character of Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) after she has escaped from a ranch owned by a cult. Throughout the film it is unclear whether the cult is after her, whether they have just given up on finding her or whether the cult even existed in the first place.

The film begins with three or four ten second shots with members of the cult building their ranch. These shots are by far the best in the entire film. The stillness and normality of the opening scene creates an early feeling of dread and fear, through a completely still camera and the lack of non-diegetic sound. Martha Marcy May Marlene is classed as a psychological thriller/drama, but I would also be inclined to add horror to the list of sub-genres, as the film holds back so much information from the audience you are left thinking about it for the rest of the night. An attribute often associated with the horror genre, as well as long suspense building shots.

When watching Martha Marcy May Marlene trees, and lakes, feature heavily in almost every shot. This could mean one of two things. Either it is implying that there is always someone lurking in the forests watching Martha, or it attempts to symbolise freedom. I personally believe it means a little of both. Martha slowly loses her sanity as the film progresses due to the constant paranoia of the cult watching her. But at the same time trees are visible in the early scenes from the movie within the cult's ranch, and then after she escapes they are also visible. However the majority of the later scenes in Martha Marcy May Marlene are shot indoors. Martha is feeling trapped by the cult, in her flashbacks during her last months within the cult, and during the present with them possibly watching her. Trees represent the idea of freedom, which is slowly taken away from her both in the cult and with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson).

Two characters are really worth mentioning when reviewing Martha Marcy May Marlene. One is Martha, the protagonist; the other is the leader of the cult, Patrick (John Hawkes). Patrick, along with every other character, has no last-name. This lack of surname shows us just how little character development occurs in this movie. We are left knowing nothing about anyone. Even Martha and her sisters history is vague, with only a few childhood photos and brief unclear conversations about the past to assert our understandings of these two characters.

Martha Marcy May Marlene is an American indie film that grips the audience from the chilling beginning to the sudden end. The haunting performance by John Hawkes, the silent and eerie shots and an insight into strange Manson-esc cult are three of many reasons that people should see this film.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Having not seen any episodes of The Muppet Show (Writ. Jim Henson, 1976- 1981), The Muppets (Dir. James Bobin, 2012) is the third Muppet production I have seen; with The Muppet Christmas Carol (Dir. Brian Henson, 1992) and Muppet Treasure Island (Dir. Brian Henson, 1996) preceding it. For this reason I cannot personally say I have the same respect and admiration for the Muppet franchise, having not shared my childhood with their TV show.

From the very start of the film we are expected to believe that Gary's (Jason Segel) brother Walter, who is a puppet, is actually his brother and no-one has ever questioned that they look completely different. I am, of course, willing to accept this reality as I am watching The Muppets. This film knows it is a film, and therefore gets away with bending reality. The story follows the characters of Gary, Walter and Mary (Amy Adams) as they travel to Los Angeles to reunite the Muppets before their studio is sold to an "evil" oil tycoon. This story, although very basic, is heart-warming and a satisfying return for the Muppets.

Some of the jokes are childish, but none of them are humourless. The Muppets relies upon its alternative and amusing characters to drive the film forward for an hour and forty-five minutes. This time is filled up with fantastic anecdotes from Statler and Waldorf, the two balcony hecklers; a Muppets TV Telethon full of comical gags and of course an enormous amount of songs and musical montages. These songs are fantastic! The Oscar winning "Man or Muppet", composed by Flight of the Concords' Bret McKenzie, was a joy to watch with its incredible editing, celebrity cameos and emotional lyrics. The other songs throughout The Muppets were just as entertaining, apart from the few short songs that felt unneeded.

The characters of Kermit and Walter have the most facial expression variation out of all the Muppets, and perhaps all the actors within the film. The human characters show less emotion to enable the audience to relate more to the Muppets than to Segal or Adams, or at least I hope this is the reason they present very underdeveloped and flat characters.

One real problem I had with the film was the over excessive, and sometimes very visible, use of CGI, Computer-Generated Imagery. As they are using puppets, rather than animated characters, I had only expected a small amount of computer imagery and was shocked and disappointed at the amount of noticeable special effects there were. It seemed almost like the Muppets suffered the same budgetary restrictions as they do in The Muppets.

I am predicting that after the success of this film, The Muppet Show is likely to return to our screens in the near future. Whether or not Kermit will be the protagonist is questionable as Walter has a similar body shape and facial expressions to Kermit. Could the Muppets be considering replacing the little green frog?

Having only seen two Muppet movies prior to this I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. It does suffer some terrible use of CGI and it is 20 minutes too long. These faults aside, this movie was fantastic. A basic narrative driven by Kermit, Miss Piggy and the newly introduced character of Walter help push the Muppets back into the hearts and minds of audiences throughout the world. My prediction still stands, keep your eyes open for another Muppet movie or the return of The Muppet Show.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

I already knew after seeing the trailer for Jack and Jill (Dir. Dennis Dugan, 2012) that this film would not be a successful comedy, or even remotely funny. If you were one of these people, that presumed the same as me, then you were correct.

Early on in the film Jack Sadelstein (Adam Sandler) says that Al Pacino would never stoop as low as to star in a doughnut advert to promote a Dunkaccino. This for me was the funniest moment of the film as it was ironic that Pacino wouldn't stoop as low as a cheesy TV ad, but would actually stoop lower and star as himself in another dated and terrible Adam Sandler film. The plot in this film is very basic and follows the classic cause and effect narrative structure, like most comedies do.

Not only does Pacino sell himself out by appearing in this film, but he also sells out every other film he has ever made by rapping some of his most famous quotes from films like The Godfather Part II (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1974) and Scarface (Dir. Brian De Palma, 1983) for the Dunkaccino TV advert.

Many of the gags in Jack and Jill are slapstick orientated, which is rarely funny in the best of films; especially when it is overused, which it was. Jack's twin sister Jill (Adam Sandler) would fall over so many times, expecting the audience to laugh because a man dressed as a woman tripped up or lifted up weights that even body builders couldn't. However slapstick gags were not the only form of comedy within Jack and Jill. I was also able to experience the "joy" of hundreds of fart jokes, which might appeal to the 10 year old target audience, but not to adults. Finally I was disgusted at the amount of Jewish jokes Sandler had incorporated into the film. I don't think anyone laughs at those jokes unless they are actually Jewish, and even then I couldn't be certain. The comedy aspects of the script felt like they were written ten to fifteen years ago and Sandler just thought we have the same expectations for comedy in 2012 as we did then. We don't.

Al Pacino is not the only star that appears as himself in Jack and Jill. Johnny Depp was also there with Pacino at a basketball game, and unusually Johnny Depp was probably the funniest part of the film. I will say that this film is seemingly aimed at American audiences rather than a British audience as Jack and Jill does have a lot of US celebrities that are unknown to me, and so the jokes they are involved in were just not funny.

I did smile a few times during Jack and Jill but I never laughed out loud, which I would expect to do when watching a comedy film. Unfortunately half the gags I may have laughed at are in the trailer and therefore are no longer funny when seeing them for a second or third time. For a film in the comedy genre, it failed. For a film in general, it failed. Do not watch this unless you love every movie Adam Sandler makes. If you do then this film is probably right up your street with its unintelligent comedy, pathetic attempts for a laugh and tedious narrative. I will leave this review with the simple question of: How does Adam Sandler always get such attractive wives in his movies, when he just isn't that funny?

If you enjoyed this review check out others on my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

It isn't often that someone describes a film as psychologically complex. Yet that is exactly the phrase I would use to describe A Dangerous Method (Dir. David Cronenberg, 2012). Throughout the film I was being fed theories developed by Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen), Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley). Many of said theories would go straight over my head, but I still left the film with a greater insight into the relationship between Freud and Jung, and of psychoanalysis' creation.

People could be under the illusion that this film bares similarities to both The King's Speech and The Iron Lady. Thankfully, it doesn't. As I said in The Iron Lady review, there is nothing I hate more than a film swimming in the wake of another films popularity and success. In The Iron Lady's case that is the success of The King's Speech. A Dangerous Method's film makers have attempted to choose actors with a resemblance to their characters, but the film does not aim to force one to sympathise with the protagonist or supporting cast. This film simply, or not so simply in terms of the psychology theories, follows Jung as he strengthens and develops his own presumptions that contradict Freud's.

Michael Fassbender is, in my opinion, a superb actor and a joy to watch on screen. In A Dangerous Method he was no different. He provided a strong protagonist for Keira Knightley to work alongside, as she portrayed the character of Sabina Spielrein, who begins the film as a patient to Jung and eventually becomes a psychologist herself. She, like Fassbender, has really been improving her acting range over the past few years after an unimpressive start to stardom with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. As Knightley's character is Russian, it is essential she put on an accent, which too me sounded plausible enough. She was also required to act psychologically scarred and does some very unnatural body movements throughout the film in reaction to pain and humiliation, these actions only strengthen the character of Spielrein.The final actor, that really deserved some sort of critical commendation for his role as Sigmund Freud, is Viggo Mortensen, who is recognisable to most as Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings trilogy. When Mortensen is on screen no-one can help but fall silent and slip into the illusion that Freud himself is explaining his psychoanalytical theories to us; which is fortified by his resemblance to Freud, courtesy of the make-up and costume departments. His performance was breathtaking, and for this reason alone people should really watch this film.

I was unsure how truthful the narrative was to reality, as is always the case with movies "inspired by true events", which is one problem I had with this film. As at one point Freud remarks that he and Jung have been talking for 13 hours, but Jung had not been aware. I am unsure as to the validity of that conversation, and therefore other relationships and theories within A Dangerous Method are also questionable.

The film also features two or three comical moments that provide a relaxing and refreshing break from the otherwise intense and complex drama.

This film has breathtaking performances by Fassbender, Knightley and Mortensen; as well as pleasant visuals and an intricate narrative. The film did, however, have questionable areas and a story which became difficult to follow in the scenes of deep psychological debates. However I recommend this film simply on the basis of the incredible actors and superb soundtrack.

If you enjoyed this review check out my others at: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

The Descendants (Dir. Alexander Payne, 2012) has received a lot of Oscar nominations, much like The Artist (Dir. Michel Hazanavicius, 2011). The most notable of these nominations is George Clooney for Best Actor, which is an undoubtedly a tough category this year. After watching The Descendants I have to say I am surprised at the success it has received, in awards and box office earnings.

The acting in this film is fantastic and deserves recognition. The eldest daughter, Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), was one of the best actors in this film, providing a strong and capable female lead, unlike Amara Miller, who plays the younger daughter, Scottie. Both Scottie and Alexandra's best friend Sid (Nick Krause) are obnoxious characters who are seemingly only there for comical effect, and therefore they are not developed to the extent of Alexandra or Matt King (George Clooney) and unneeded in the plot. It has to be said that I have seen Clooney provide better performances than in The Descendants, like in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Dir. Joel & Ethan Cohen, 2000).

The story, from the very beginning, feels like a classic Clooney film, which by the end is sure to have had equilibrium restored. The underlying dilemma throughout The Descendants is how Matt King and his children will deal with his wives death. The majority of the plot, however, strongly focuses on the sale of a large portion of land on a remote island in Hawaii, which perhaps is meant to symbolise the family's troubles with losing their mother/child/wife. Hawaii is also a good setting due to its multiple islands, which might signify the separated King family at the beginning of the film.

The soundtrack is also worth a quick mention, as it again feels like Clooney's soundtrack. The slow playing ukulele, I presume, which then picks up during any "action" scenes. This soundtrack feels very similar to that of Fantastic Mr. Fox (Dir. Wes Anderson, 2009), which featured the vocal talents of George Clooney. An upbeat, and Caribbean score like this does help draw you into the world of the Kings.

I cannot personally say this film is worthy of any Oscars, due to its very wishy-washy narrative. In-depth analysis does perhaps make the choice of location, characters and plot a more complex and intelligent decision, but that alone cannot make a film great. I have heard that this film is made better with multiple viewings, but whether I will buy it on DVD, when released, is unclear.

If you enjoyed this review check out the others on my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

The thing that is in everyone's mind when Daniel Radcliffe first appears on screen is Harry Potter! I personally think that Radcliffe has one of the hardest challenges an actor can ever face, which is trying to get out of being typecast, or perhaps never being cast at all because of his huge involvement in the Potter franchise. But I am pleased to say that he excelled in The Woman in Black (Dir. James Watkins, 2012), providing a believable performance as Arthur Kipps. Only at the beginning did his act falter; as Radcliffe seemed nervous around the boy who was supposed to be his son.

I'll briefly mention that this film flows particularly well, and gives off a high degree of verisimilitude, thanks to the talented supporting cast. Ciarán Hinds and Shaun Dooley are two actors that are worth mentioning as they play Mr Daily, a character who becomes the only friend for Kipps, and Mr Fisher, the innkeeper who attempts to drive Kipps out of town so as to protect the children. Both their performances are strong and they create a fantastic side-kick and a great minor antagonist.

Apart from what I had gathered from the trailers, I was unaware of the story of The Woman in Black when going into the cinema, having not seen the theatrical production or original TV film. The Woman in Black has a strong and interesting narrative, something that isn't common for many horror films within the last ten years, and provides plenty of scares, jumps and horrific moments. The most intense and captivating scenes within the film occur at the manor in the marsh. Fear excels to a new level when Kipps decides to stay in that house over night.

Creepy toys and terrifying dolls are continuously visible throughout The Woman in Black establishing a strong concept of fear within the secrete village. As well as perhaps symbolising that the woman is always watching Kipps, no matter where he is. There is a shot where Kipps walks past a toy with a candle, the candle is reflected in the toy's eyes making it seem like they are moving and following Kipps.

The only really disappointing aspect of the film was the conclusion. All I can really say without spoiling the plot is that there should have been a cliff hanger instead of the plot being resolved.

This was by far the best horror film I have seen in a long while, mainly due to the decision not to make it a hand-held documentary. The director uses diegetic and non-diegetic sounds to create suspense, which again takes the film away from the silent "jump" scenes over-used in modern horrors. I hope that more producers watch this film and realise horror films don't all have to be exactly like Paranormal Activity (Dir. Oren Peli, 2007) to terrify audiences.

If you enjoyed this review, check out my others on my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

War Horse (Dir. Steven Spielberg, 2012) has a very uneventful introduction lead by Jeremy Irvine, who plays the protagonist Albert Narracott. His acting ability is questionable from the first instance he appears on screen and it is a fair assessment to say that the horse provides a more engaging and emotive character than Albert.

But, weak protagonist and slow start aside, War Horse does contain elements of alternate Spielberg movies that we know and love. This film provides a strong emotional attachment to the horse and, to some degree, strangely enough Albert. The sole reason being that these are the only two characters on screen for more than twenty minutes, forcing the audience to sympathise with them. By the end of the film, it is fair to say, that a lump was forming at the back of my throat, although no tears were shed due to the plots predictability. War Horse, however, did achieve an emotional response from me.

While discussing emotional scenes within the film I should briefly mention an execution of two German deserters. Being a 12A, War Horse cannot show murder directly on camera. Spielberg expertly edits this execution scene, to meet the films desired rating, by utilising a windmill's rotating blades to briefly block the audience's view of the two German soldiers as they are killed. This shot was hauntingly spectacular.

Another memorable scene within War Horse occurs three quarters of the way through, after the horse has become tangled in a large amount of barbed wire in no-mans land. This scene creates a great comical breather in an otherwise ominous film. A German soldier and a British solider attempt to free the horse from its cage, and both get into a reasonable and down-to-earth conversation, along with humorous contribution from their fellow soldiers in the trenches.

Finally I cannot finish this review without mentioning the fantastic talents of Tom Hiddleston and Benedict Cumberbatch as a British Captain and Major. Their characters are two of the most important, in my opinion, as it is them that release the horse into war. Both actors play their parts fantastically, creating a captivating beginning to the World War I aspect of War Horse. A much needed entertainment after the first thirty minutes of slugging predictability.

War Horse has a slow and tedious beginning but dramatically improves after the horse's involvement in World War I. Jeremy Irvine's acting ability lets the film down, even with the fantastic performances of Hiddleston, Cumberbatch, Arestrup and Mullan. But all in all, the film was entertaining and emotionally attaching, even with the mentioned faults. Another successful block-buster for Spielberg to add to his collection, even if it doesn't measure the likes of Jurassic Park (Dir. Steven Spielberg, 1993), E.T: The Extra-Terrestrial (Dir. Steven Spielberg, 1982) and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark (Dir. Steven Spielberg, 1981).

If you enjoyed this review check out my others at my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Having barely any knowledge of Thatcher's years in office, apart from what I've been able to gather from Billy Elliot (Dir. Stephen Daldry, 2000). The Iron Lady (Dir. Phyllida Lloyd, 2012) made me sympathise with the character of Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep). This film clearly offers an opposite perspective of Thatcher to that of the majority of Britain's population.

Streep impersonates Thatcher, from what I have seen in videos of Thatcher, exceptionally well, especially in the years where schizophrenia and Alzheimer's begin taking their effect. In these later years we are forced to pity Thatcher due to the said illnesses, but throughout The Iron Lady I wasn't anywhere near as sympathetic to Thatcher's political career as her personal life. There is a scene where she embarrasses and ridicules Geoffrey Howe (Anthony Head) for not having supplied a proof-read copy of a meetings agenda and openly marks it in front of members of parliament like a school teacher. This scene, plus many of the Falkland scenes, helps create a hatred for Thatcher. As far as I can tell this film offers perspectives from both sides of the political spectrum, creating a film with a higher verisimilitude.

It is a pleasant surprise to find so many British faces in this film. Anthony Head, as mentioned, plays Geoffrey Howe, Thatcher's deputy prime minister in 1990. His scenes in The Iron Lady help to create a negative understanding of Thatcher as a person, which the film couldn't live without. As well as Head, the film features the superb acting abilities of Harry Lloyd, Richard E. Grant, Iain Glen, Olivia Colman, and of course Jim Broadbent.

Jim Broadbent plays her husband, Denis Thatcher. Having already mentioned how Head's character enlightens our opinion of Thatcher within office, Broadbent offers the opposite perspective of Thatcher. His conversations with her humanise her character, making her more relatable, in old age. Without Denis Thatcher as a character the film would not have been anywhere near as enjoyable, and the characters no where near as relatable as they were.

The film does drag on a little too long, and the audience's interest of Thatcher as a character is questionable from the word go. But the main problem I have with The Iron Lady is how it is clearly attempting to leach off of the success of The King's Speech (Dir. David Seidler, 2010). Throughout the film I was continuously finding comparisons between the two films, mainly elocution lessons. Copying aspects of The King's Speech was not a correct choice for the producers to make, as The Iron Lady does not compare to that of The King's Speech.

If you enjoyed this review then check out my others on my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Prisoners' Wives Episode 1 (Dir. Damon Thomas, Writ. Julie Gearey, 31.1.2012) follows three women, whose husbands are all in prison, and how they handle their spouses' absence.

The episode begins with various extreme long-shots setting the location, followed by swooping boom and steady-cam shots. These swaying camera angles make the world seem idyllic and dream-like; which, could be argued that it is. As after the first 2 or 3 minutes the police come and Steve (Jonas Armstrong) is arrested. Reality then settles in, after the realisation that everything isn't perfect between him Gemma (Emma Rigby).

All actors in this first episode appeared talented, which wasn't expected as its star, Emma Rigby is known for her position in Hollyoaks, and Jonas Armstrong hasn't been seen on television since his role as Robin Hood in the BBC adaptation in 2006. But after watching the first episode of Prisoners' Wives I have to say that all actors were pleasant and enjoyable to watch, especially the brief appearance of Iain Glen, who is popularly known for his roles in Game of Thrones and Downton Abbey.

But the real appeal Prisoners' Wives is the storyline. It is fascinating to see how the characters have completely different experiences when visiting jail. In this episode we are shown four different responses to wives visiting their husbands in jail. Gemma visits Steve after he wasn't granted bail, and we see the trauma and difficulty she has when she first speaks to him in visiting hour. Another wife is seeing her husband who has been in prison for years. Their connection seems relaxed and playful, as it has become the norm for their marriage. The third character is a mother bringing her son along for the first time to visit his father in jail. Her dilemma is having to lie to her son so as to convince him his dad, who has seemingly been in prison for a few months, isn't in fact in jail. The final woman doesn't even gather the bravery to enter the visitors centre.

Experiencing how families cope with their loved ones being in jail is only part of the spectacle; we also get to see how friends, colleagues and strangers act around those who have family in prison. This insight is, again, interesting to observe, even though it is fiction. This series covers all areas of the spectrum and allows us to experience first hand how peoples lives are bettered or destroyed by having husbands in prison.

I am looking forward to see how this heartfelt and gripping narrative plays out over the six episodes planned. Will the other characters stories become evaluated at a greater depth, and did Steve actually commit the crime he has been imprisoned for?

If you enjoyed this review, check out others on my blog: http://dalelawsontvreviews.tumblr.com/

Elaborate fight scenes, a retired MMA fighter and a hell of a lot of shootings can only describe one film, Haywire (Dir. Steven Soderbergh, 2012). With actors like Antonio Banderas, Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor and Michael Fassbender a movie like this receives a lot of hype. However, Steven Soderbergh always tries to use new talent, as much as old, and Haywire sees Gina Carano in her first major acting role since retiring from MMA.

One aspect of the film that will stand out to everyone who goes to see it are the fight sequences. They are thrilling, painful and exciting to watch as the characters find themselves thrown through a window or simply punched in the face. The fact that it is almost always men fighting a woman, Mallory (Gina Carano), probably makes the fight scenes a little uncomfortable to watch, even if she is frequently the victor. A fight sequence to watch out for occurs halfway through the film between Mallory and Paul (Michael Fassbender), as it is expertly choreographed and breathtaking to watch.

The cinematography of Haywire, courtesy of Soderbergh, heavily competes with that of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dir. David Fincher, 2011). Its scenes are fantastically shot, notably one containing McGregor, Tatum and Paxton in Mallory's father's home. Without trying to give away any plot I will simply say look out for that scene. Also the editing during fight scenes is expertly pieced together with swooping tracking pans and quick cutting.

Soderbergh often makes his films global, setting them in multiple locations throughout the world. In Haywire, its universality creates an even greater sense of conspiracy, as agents from Mexico, USA and Britain attempt to stop Mallory. As well as using subtitles to state the location of the scene; colour filters, lighting effects and extreme long shots are used to make each location clear to the audience.

Michael Fassbender, Channing Tatum and Bill Paxton are the actors to watch out for in this film, as they all present interesting and believable characters. Ewan McGregor, although not on par with these three due to his American accent slipping English/Scottish from time to time, was still an asset to Haywire's narrative. Gina Carano in her first lead role was an unusual choice for Soderbergh, but evidently the right one. Her build and knowledge of fighting made her believable as the rogue agent. All I can say is, next Lara Croft?

One thing that lets Haywire down is its narrative. It feels a lot like a Bourne movie when watching it, but with a less complex story. The film also makes the flaw of starting half-way through and then relying on flashbacks to explain what happened prior to the beginning. Now I have no problem with a films narrative being told in non-chronological order, being a huge fan of Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994), but instead of using a simple flashback Mallory explains her endeavours to a young man whose car she has hijacked. The story was so weak that it does make the film seem like a lot of fights edited together with the occasional unneeded car discussion.

But to say the plot itself is weak isn't saying that the film is weak. Haywire has expert editing, fantastic cinematography, amazing actors, and awe-inspiring fight scenes. Unfortunately without a strong narrative the film can become difficult to watch in places, even if other aspects of the film are of a high standard.

For more reviews check out my blog: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

The Artist (Dir. Michel Hazanavicius, 2011) focuses on the career of a silent film star and his transition into the classical Hollywood era where "talkies" dominate. His career is contended by the incredible performances of a new star, Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo). The film progresses, following her rise and his demise.

The Artist is colourless and silent which can be off-putting for the generic film going audience who would prefer to watch another Transformer film. The story is an interesting one and pays great homage to the films of the silent era. Through the lack of sound I became more engaged with the plot and characters of The Artist as there were no conversations or sound effects to distract ones eye or ear from the films narrative. When watching it, comparisons between The Artist and Singin' in the Rain (Dir. Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly, 1952) cannot be overlooked. They both contain very similar narratives, where one actor is forced out by "talkies" while another succeeds.

Unlike silent movies from the early 20th century, this film does incorporate scenes of sound within in the film. Counting it up after watching the film I believe there are in-fact only two scenes in the whole hour and a half that use diegetic sound. One scene occurs early in the film where George Valentin (Jean Dujardin), the film's protagonist, suffers a nightmare on how he won't cope with the transition to sound. This scene is superbly produced. All the objects Valentin contacts with, in the dream, make sounds as he interacts with them, but he himself cannot speak. This scene is hauntingly spectacular as the footage that precedes and follows this scene is silent and accompanied but a music hall soundtrack. This nightmare scene, however, has no soundtrack and only the diegetic sound of the objects Valentin touches.

The camera work and editing techniques are similar to that of film- making in the 1920s. Modern techniques are, however, used within The Artist as well. At multiple points newspaper headlines are layered onto the film so as to provide more of a narrative. These techniques were used in early cinema, but not to the extent or effect that they are in The Artist. As I mentioned before, this film pays a great homage to the classics created by the first film-makers.

Another noteworthy aspect of this film is the acting. For a French film there is a large number of popular American faces. This will be due to the film being set in the United States. Actors John Goodman and James Cromwell play producer Al Zimmer and Valentin's butler. These actors are fantastic, along with the previous mentioned Dujardin and Bejo, and create an unforgettable film. Another actor that needs recognition is Valentin's dog. It is one of the most important characters in the film and also provides great comic relief; the inter-titles near the end of the film states that Valentin "owes his life to that dog", referring to a house fire. But subtly I think the inter-titles are implying that the dog helped make Valentin's career.

The idea of silent films is often off-putting for a generic film audience, as mentioned. But this film should seriously be considered for anyone who enjoys a good film. I also heavily recommend viewing it at the pictures as cinema is the medium films like this are intended for.

If you enjoyed this review then check out my other reviews on: http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/

Sherlock: The Reichenbach Fall (Dir. Toby Haynes, Writ. Mark Gatiss & Steven Moffat, 15.1.2012) is the final episode of Sherlock season 2, focusing on another of Arthur Conan Doyle's most celebrated stories. Holmes and Moriarty famously fight each other at the top of a waterfall until they inevitably fall off to their supposed deaths. I presumed that this episode would follow a similar premise to the original story by Doyle. But, like the other adaptations written by Gatiss and Moffat, it has been modernised and given an alternate plot. They did however hint toward the Reichenbach Waterfalls at the beginning of the episode when Holmes recovers a painting of it for a case. Early in this episode, two very exciting events happen. Firstly we see Sherlock wearing a deerstalker hat again, which has been a running theme throughout this season. And for any Sherlock Holmes fan it is always an exciting moment to see him don the deerstalker hat, like in Doyle's old stories. The second event that made this episode entertaining from the word go, was the return of Anderson. He appears in the first episode of season 1, Sherlock: A Study in Pink (Dir. Paul McGuigan, Writ. Mark Gatiss & Steven Moffat, 25.7.2010), as a comical nemesis for Holmes when on a crime scene. In The Reichenbach Fall he appears again having been missing for the past four episodes. His character, alongside Sergeant Sally Donovan, helps this episode escalate into the adrenaline fuelled finale it becomes, and I for one am glad to see his return. Moriarty is fantastically clever in this episode, and the question everyone is left asking at the end is whether he is in fact smarter than Holmes. Moriarty begins the episode making what seems to be an unsuccessful decision which we are left to speculate as to whether it was foolish or dastardly clever. I for one enjoy watching these two intelligent characters pit their brains against each other in the hope to overthrow the other one. The ending is discussed in forums all over the internet as it was predictable for a few people, unexpected to some and confusing for others. The only disappointment I had with it was the lack of a cliff- hanger, which Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Dir. Guy Ritchie, 2011) didn't include either in their adaptation of The Reichenbach Falls story. But even without the cliff-hanger Gatiss and Moffat did manage to leave questions unanswered, making a third season hugely anticipated.

The Swedish original of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dir. David Fincher, 2011), Män som hatar kvinnor (Dir. Niels Arden Oplev, 2009), methodically followed the plot created by Stieg Larsson to almost the exact word. This Hollywood remake did choose to leave out a few scenes that had been included within the original, but with the film already stretching at 2 hours 45 minutes I can forgive Fincher, as a fan of the novel, for cutting out some of the final scenes from the film.

The most unusual and off-putting part about the whole film were the opening titles. They used a very James Bond-esc animation style where both Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) and Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) are born from oil. Thankfully, the heavy metal soundtrack accompanying the animation appeared to be the sort of music the character of Lisbeth would enjoy. My opinion of the film was redeemed, as for a brief second I had feared that Hollywood producers had taken control of the film and created an action filled mystery; this was not the case.

Every single actor within The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo created individuals so similar to my imagination of the characters within Larsson's book that the film almost became a visual playback of my mind when reading the novel. Daniel Craig played an excellent Mikael Blomkvist but was unfortunately the only person who wasn't seemingly putting on a Swedish accent. The lack of accent wasn't that noticeable but it did make me raise questions as to Mikael Blomkvist's origin. Rooney Mara, in her protagonist debut, portrayed the girl with the dragon tattoo with such charisma that any problems I'd had with Daniel Craig's character were forgotten while she was on screen. David Fincher doesn't always produce films of a high standard, but this one is one of his greats. This movie has unusual protagonists, detestable villains and a mystery that keeps people who haven't read the book gripped till the end.

The only warning I have for anyone watching this film who knows nothing about it is that it does include multiple uncomfortable scenes where at least one of the protagonists finds themselves in a situation which is difficult to watch. These said scenes are extremely well edited in Fincher's version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. They are abridged in such a way to make any of the grotesque scenes within the film more foreboding and uncomfortable. As an example, the first one of these scenes cuts between Lisbeth and her guardian in his bedroom, and a slow backwards zoom away from the door and down the corridor, making the scene more ominous than it already was.

Finally, the film does extend to 2 hours and 45 minutes. For someone who enjoyed the novel it wasn't quite long enough as the final scenes within Australia have been cut to reduce time. But, I have been told, that for someone fresh to the franchise the film does last too long, as after the main plot has ended the film stretches on for 20 minutes into a detailed conclusion, similar to the book.

In conclusion, this film was definitely better than the Swedish original as it had more personality, fantastic editing and a strong cast. Many will question whether there was a need for a Hollywood remake at all; and while the answer is no, I still believe that when watching this film it provides a more Swedish vibe than the Swedish one itself. The intoxicating acting of Rooney Mara keeps one engaged throughout the whole film, and despite the accent, this film has widened my eyes to the acting ability of Daniel Craig.

Sherlock Holmes (Dir. Guy Ritchie, 2009) was one of the movies that I most enjoyed in 2009 and I had been eagerly awaiting its sequel. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Dir. Guy Ritchie, 2011) was however not the sequel I had anticipated.

A Hollywood film needs action scenes but Sherlock Holmes cleverly integrated narration and slow motion before a very fast paced fight scene so as to show Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) thinking before a fight, like Arthur Conan Doyle had written. However, the first action scene had no commentary. I was then filled with a sense of dread that there may be no narrated fight scenes at all; thankfully this was not the case. One of the best scenes in the film was the shared slow motion fight, between Holmes and Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris). This scene is narrated by both characters as they think out their fight before it actually happens, this scene is one of the only reasons people should see this film.

Yet another annoyance I had with the film was when Holmes and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) were on screen. Their relationship in the first film was enjoyable and quirky to watch as they would often back chat and argue with one another in a comical way. In this film however they "comically argue" too many times to count. It soon became tedious to watch with the knowledge that when they next met each other there would be another round of quick fire remarks between the pair of them.

Unfortunately for Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows it is forced to contend with Sherlock (BBC,Writ. Mark Gatiss & Steven Moffat). The characters of Holmes and Watson, played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman in the TV series, are far superior to Downey Jr. and Law's creations. This could be part of the reason I didn't enjoy the film as much as I might have, as I now have Sherlock to compare Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows to.

One of the biggest surprises I had when watching Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows was the appearance of British icon and celebrity Stephen Fry as Holmes' brother, Mycroft. Although he doesn't resemble Downey Jr. in the slightest, Fry was still a pleasant surprise and provided a lot of comical relief and enjoyment in an otherwise dull first half.

The film did pick up in the second half, however, as Holmes and Watson left England for France, Germany and Switzerland. Noomi Rapace's character also featured a lot more in this half of the film. Rapace, who is most known for her performance in Män som hatar kvinnor (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Dir. Niels Arden Oplev, 2009), was disappointingly mediocre in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Her screen presence was so weak; her character might as well have not even been in the film. It seemed that she was solely there to appease complaints from female critics over the lack of female "heroes" within the film.

But even with the feeble character of, Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace), the second half still propels the film forward with new locations and epic challenges for Holmes and Watson.

If you enjoyed the first film then this one is worth a watch, if only to see Sherlock and Moriarty compete. If, however, you haven't seen either I recommend checking out the first film before Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

As much as I enjoyed the episode I did however gather a few criticisms. At the end of Season 1 Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Watson (Martin Freeman) were trapped at gun point by the mastermind Moriarty. The most disappointing part of A Scandal in Belgravia was that what had been a climactic finale for Season 1 was a quick and rushed beginning for Season 2. All I could think when watching the first 3 minutes was whether Moffat and Gatiss had expected to even make a Season 2.

Thankfully this rushed start is soon forgotten with a montage of various cases rejected and accepted by Sherlock and Watson providing us with an unclear passing of time. This montage finishes with the two protagonists leaving the theatre after a case, and they are forced to conceal their faces from the press by wearing hats. These hats happen to be the classic flat-cap worn by Watson, and the famous deerstalker hat worn by Sherlock Holmes. This scene puts a massive grin upon any Holmes fans face.

This episode is very "story based" as I like to say, which means that rather than following a random case that has no relevance to the big picture of Sherlock, Holmes' relationships among other characters are at the forefront of the plot. This strengthens our attachments with the characters created by Cumberbatch and Freeman.

Through the entertaining relationship between Sherlock and Watson we also automatically forget that this adaptation of Arthur Conan Doyle's work is set in modern day, and in-fact its temporal setting aids in drawing us into the plot even further.

After waiting what felt like years for Sherlock Season 2 I was not disappointed with this episode as a whole. Yes, the conclusion to Season 1s climax was rushed and sub-standard, but Sherlock's relationship with Irene Adler (Lara Pulver) completely makes one forget about what happened in the first five minutes of the show. I am now been left waiting intensely for Sherlock Episode 2 The Hounds of Baskerville.

I fully recommend watching this, no matter what genre of television you enjoy. This show is fantastic and everyone should at least try it.

http://dalelawsonreviews.tumblr.com/