Reviews

I lapped up Arthur Conan Doyle's works in my younger years and had recently begun re- reading them. However that is not to say that I am a Sherlock purist, far from it. I thoroughly enjoyed the BBC's recent take on Sherlock and am anxiously awaiting the beginning of the new series. Much the same can be said for Guy Ritchie's first exploit. I rated it as the best film of that year, enjoying the mix of the occult, to the back beat of Victorian London. Mark Strong portrayed a master villain who death and unease followed. There was then the balancing act that was Holmes and Watson. Jude Laws character being more than a blundering side kick and in some ways equal to Robert Downey Junior's Holmes.

Fast forward to two years later to this afternoon when I sat down in the cinema to watch A Game Of Shadows, full of hope, awaiting two hours of sterling entertainment, sadly I left somewhat disappointed to say the least.

All the negative reviews that I have read so far echo what I am about to write. If you are a small child looking for a film with multiple explosions and slow motion "bullet time" effects then you are in luck. However, if you are looking for a sequel that continues in the vein of the first film, regarding the worlds foremost detective, then you, like me, will be sadly disappointed. Gone is the ingenious Holmes analytical deduction, with a rich multi layered plot, only to be replaced with overly long fights sequences, more akin to Steven Seagal or John Claude Van Damme. The irony being that I am a keen martial artist and I was extremely impressed with the sequences in the first film. However, in the first film they were used sparingly, adding to the characters arsenal of brains and brawn, thus keeping the integrity of the film intact. Unfortunately this is not the case in this sequel. Holmes relying more upon his fighting prowess, as opposed to the art of deduction.

Characters on the periphery of the plot, such as Simza's Anarchist brother and the Anarchist leader are not seized upon and examined, leaving a thin plot, anorexic. But leads the way for a special effects 'fest' following our heroes through the forest, pursued by Moriaty's forces.

The only scene I did enjoy was the 'mano-a-mano' scene between Holmes and Moriarty towards the conclusion, however at the same time I found this frustrating as it was an insight into what A Game Of Shadows could (should.!) have been.

From the opening credits it was clear that this was going to be darker than its predecessor, especially when one the previous main characters is killed off. Although I liked the character, I was impressed by the bold move of the writers and was waiting for the emerging of a bold new character in Noomi Rapace's Simza. Unfortunately Simza is a one-dimensional character, who was easily forgotten and need not have even been there, save for the penultimate 'brother' scene in the film.

In Sherlock Holmes, Mark Strong gave a stellar performance as Lord Blackwood, the lead villain. However the seedling of Moriaty's character was always in the background, in some ways waiting to eclipse Blackwood as the "villain of all villains". Unfortunately Jared Harris's Moriaty fails to deliver on all counts. There is no presence and no conviction. A poor choice, with poor delivery. Another irony being the Mark Strong would have been one of the ideal candidates to play the character of Moriarty.

The domestic relationship between Holmes and Watson added to the charm of the first instalment and in my opinion Jude Law elevated Watson's character, however in this sequel, as some have already commented, it is bordering on homo erotic and as such the definition of the characters is lost. Doyle's original creation was fond of donning disguises to aid him in his investigations, however this is 'dialled up to eleven" in the sequel, resulting in the cringe worthy 'seat' disguise at the conclusion of the film.

All in all an extremely disappointing sequel to one of the best films I have seen in the last five years.

WARNING – CONTAINS SPOILERS

I have been a life long Indiana Jones fan, I can cast my mind back and remember seeing "Raiders" for one of my early birthdays and then seeing 'Temple of doom" and "last crusade" at the cinema. So you can imagine my trepidation when I heard that the new film was coming to fruition, after all this was going to be an addition to one of the best Trilogies of all times, as well as the resurfacing of one of the (If not the best..) cinematic heroes of all time.

To the best of my ability I had avoided all reviews, trailers etc so I could walk into the cinema with an open mind. However after sitting through "Crystal skull" I feel as though Lucas and Spielberg have stolen a piece of my childhood…

My open mind did extend to the fact that this was going to be an older Indiana who would be older and as such calmer, more reflective. However this "open mind" did not extend to the "slap stick" routines of him falling over, which although they occurred in the previous films did not transfer over, as this is supposed to be less rash and more contemplative Dr Jones.

As a standalones the cast members are either recently established or veterans of the game, Shia LaBeouf (Who I thought was incredible in Transformers) had no chemistry at all with Harrison Ford. Much the same can be said for Karren Allens character, admittedly the film is trying to suggest that both characters have mellowed in their old age, but it was such a waste if you can cast your mind back to the Marion of Raiders, who was such a match for Indy. There was no inkling of that dynamism at all, in fact the only reason she appeared to be there was for the sub plot of father and son meeting each other. Ray Winstone, what can I say, Nill by mouth, Scum, Love honour and obey… A gem of an actor, but reduced to a confused character, there was no development at all, was he good, was he bad, who cares, I didn't at the end.

Raiders centred on the Ark of the Covenant, Temple of doom, the evil Kali god, Last Crusade centres on the Holy Grail and Crystal skull centres on Aliens…Aliens.!!! Bit of a jump there Steven (Or is it George.!!), as I said I had deliberately avoided reading anything Re Crystal skull so it did come as a bit of a surprise when the plot was revealed, it did not work.!!!, previous dealings had revolved around the paranormal or religious texts, although on the previous outings they have all had supernatural endings, they were executed in a such a manner that the viewer was watching in awe, however in this particular outing I found myself watching is disbelief at such a poor close (Not taking into account the outrageous rip offs from The Mummy and from the original Tomb Raider game on the Play Station 1).

I could be mistaken, but I have a strong suspicion that George Lucas may have tampered a little too much, there were definite "director" elements of Parts 1,2 and 3 of the Star Wars saga in Crystal Skull, which did not transfer across. An instance of this being the scene were Harrison Ford climbs into the lead lined fridge, which protects him from the atomic explosion and then his subsequent landing.!!! I cringed, as did my entire row in the cinema. I am aware that Lucas was involved in the previous trilogy, however if his involvement had ended with R2-D2 being part of the carvings in another underground temple, (As in Raiders) Crystal skull may have been passable as a film as opposed to soul destroying inept…

All in all, bitterly disappointing, I would not voluntarily watch this again, never mind buy it on DVD.