I am a Sherlock Holmes fan. Always have been. So when I read that a new Sherlock Holmes related film (albeit about his less known and much younger sister Enola) was being released, I got excited. Big mistake.
Now, my problem isn't with the female character driven plot (I'm a huge fan of the Underworld or Hunger Games franchises, to name but two). Not even with the fact that Sherlock Holmes has very little screen time - I knew that from the start. No, my problem is with the fact that this film has no story - only a series of excuses to show women kicking men's asses. That's it, that's the whole film. My problem is with the fact that this film treats the audience like idiots, as if anyone in their right mind and a minimum knowledge of History would believe that the things they show in this sad excuse of a film were actually possible in the England of the late 1800's. Now, I'm all for the advancement of women's place in society and History, I'm all for it - but this is the wrong way to do it. Making films where all the men are either idiots or evil and only the women are capable and good is the wrong way to do it, not only because it's unrealistic but because it doesn't make for a good story.
There were - and are - real female heroes who, throughout History and today, fought and fight bravely for women's rights without throwing a single punch or making enemies out of men; Hollywood should tell their stories instead of making drivel like this or the more recent version of Charlie's Angels. It's a pity, really. With a decent story line and character development, it could have been a decent addition to the Holmes canon.
My advice to all who haven't seen it is: avoid it like the plague. Watch the Granada series from the 1980's with Jeremy Brett as the best Holmes ever instead. Or the more recent Sherlock or Elementary. Hell, even the two RDJ Sherlock Holmes films are preferable to this. You're very welcome.
Reviews
11 Reviews
The Hound of the Baskervilles
(2002 TV Movie)
The worst version of this story that I've ever seen. Stay away from it.
17 April 2020
This is, without a doubt, the worst adaptation of any Holmes story that I've ever seen. Even the 1972 version of this story with Stuart Granger is better than this travesty, and that's saying a lot. I don't blame the actors, they did the best they could do with what they were given to work with. Having said that, I will admit that Roxburgh was completely miscast as Holmes - he doesn't look the part and completely lacks the energy and charisma the character needs. Not every one can play Holmes. Which leads me to my next point: if you have a brilliant actor like Richard E. Grant at your disposal and the possibility of casting him as, very possibly, the best and most exciting Holmes since Jeremy Brett, why would you waste that opportunity by casting him as the villain and Roxburgh as Holmes? All they had to do was reverse the casting of these two characters, and the film would have been at least acceptable. Why they didn't do that, I'll never understand. Hart as Watson was passable, at the most. He learned from this experience, as he was much better in his next outing as Watson, in the 2004 original "Sherlock Holmes and The Case of the Silk Stocking". The rest of the cast was more than competent, as usual in a BBC production. Ditto for the production values. No, the real problem was the screenplay. It bares no resemblance whatsoever with the gripping and scary Gothic masterpiece that Conan Doyle wrote. Allan Cubbit completely butchered that novel to the point of rendering it unrecognizable. And what was he thinking to make Holmes use cocaine in the middle of a case?! Holmes clearly states, at the beginning of The Sign of Four, in one of his most famous monologues, that he only resorts to artificial stimulants when he's bored out of his mind due to lack of work, because work is the only stimulant he needs. He states also that, during an investigation, he never touches drugs since it would be damaging to the reasoning process. Now, if Allan Cubbit knew anything about Holmes, Watson and the whole Canon, he would never have made such a basic mistake, but the fact is he doesn't, he is totally ignorant of all things Holmesian, which accounts for the fact that he did it again two years later, in the aforementioned "Sherlock Holmes and The Case of the Silk Stoking", by having Holmes once more using drugs in the middle of a case. Either that, or he really is obsessed with drugs and drug use. Either way, what he really is is a bad writer, which explains the really bad screenplay.
In short: if you really want to watch a film version of this story, watch the one from 1988 with Jeremy Brett, or the one from 1983 with Ian Richardson, or one of the two Peter Cushing made (one in 1968 from the BBC series, and one in 1958 from Hammer Films), or the one from 1939 with Basil Rathbone. Hell, you can even try the one from 2000 with Matt Frewer or the one from 1981 with Tom Baker. As you see, there's no shortage of options when it comes to this story, and any one of them is a better choice than this travesty. Don't waste your time with this one, you will never get it back. And time is so precious, isn't it?
Aquaman
(2018)
The Best DCEU Movie Ever!
14 December 2018
This film is simply amazing. I absolutely loved it! The story is great, even if it's nothing new. The characters are very well writen, they all go through complex story archs and are not the same by the time the movie ends. The actors are all great - even Amber Heard, who is not the best actor in the world (far from it) comes off as a believable and likable character (and she looks stunning in that outfit!) -, specially Jason Momoa who absolutely rocks as Aquaman. I mean, the man was born to play this role, it's that simple. The visuals are amazing, the CGI is virtualy flawless, the action scenes are relentless and perfectly staged, the humor is perfectly timed to release the stress from the action scenes without feeling forced. What more can I say? It's the best film in the DCEU, pure and simple, followed very, very closely by Wonder Woman, and it rivals anything Marvel has ever made. Let's hope WB/DC have learned their lesson and hire James Wan to reboot Superman - now that would be awsome!
Masters of the Universe
(1987)
A classic from the 80's
11 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film for the first time 30 years ago, when it premired in my country (Portugal) in July 1988. I was 15 then, and for a teenager in the 80's this film was a treat. It had everything: a great hero, a great villain, a lot of fantasy, great fight scenes, hot chicks (Chelsea Field looked realy hot in that tight outfit of hers), awsome special effects. It's no wonder I loved it, no wonder it became one of my favourite fantasy films.
Of course, when we're young we tend to overlook the flaws of our favourite films, either because we're so invested in the story and with the fate of the characters, or simply because we're young and not that experienced as moviegoers. The fact is that this film has flaws.
The screenplay is very unbalanced, there is no character introduction, the writers simply assume the audience knows these characters and their world, and that's a mistake. I and most kids my age knew the comics this film is based on, but a lot of people in the audience didn't and some kind of introduction would have been nice. The pace is also very uneven, first you have about 10-15 minutes of very fast fight scenes in Eternia and then the action is transfered to Earth and the pace becomes rather slow, taking the time to introduce all the earth characters and their motivation. It's only when Skeletor decides to come to Earth himself with his army that the pace picks up again.
The acting isn't remarkable, but it isn't bad either. The best of them all, unsurprisingly, is the great Frank Langela as Skeletor - he manages to make a rather bi-dimensional and un-interesting character into a tri-dimensional person, a real evil-doer that you would hate to meet in person. Lundgren looks the part, but is acting is a little wooden. Still, he looks great swinging a sword and is awsome at kicking @ss, so we forgive him for not being that great an actor. The rest of the cast are adequate in their parts, which they play competently. There are a lot of cheesy lines in this movie, as was typical in this kind of flick in the 80's, but that only contributes to it's charm, even 30 years later. The special effects, though acceptable for 1987, are clearly dated, the film hasn't aged well in that department. Skeletor's makeup, though, is pretty good, even by today's standards.
The direction is adequate, Gary Goddard did the best he could with what he was given to work with. Given a larger budget and a better screenplay he probably would have made a much better movie.
Still, it's a very entertaining movie and it brings back good memories from my youth. If you ignore the somewhat dated special effects and the overall cheesyness of the film, you're in for a lot of fun. I give it 6 stars out of 10.
RoboCop
(2014)
Meh is what you get when you make a RoboCop rated PG13
8 March 2018
The original RoboCop was first rated X and then re-rated R. And that's how it should be. This story is not for kids, it's for grown ups. But the powers that be in Hollywood decided to milk the tikets cow as much they could, so they made a PG13 RoboCop. And the end result is meh. The original had Kurtwood Smith, one of the most awsome villains in movie history. This one has three mini-badies you or RoboCop care nothing about. The original had a corrosive and pervasive critic to corporate America, to the greed and the total lack of morals of the 80's yuppies. This one, well, it's more worried about how Murphy copes with is situation as an amputee and the effect it has on his family - and that's a problem in a RoboCop movie where what you want is to see the hero go head to head with the guy who turned him into a machine by shooting him to a pulp, not hear him whine about not having a body to love his wife properly. The film tries not to upset anyone too much, and that's the problem.
All in all, it would have been better to make a good sequel to the original, maybe bringing back Peter Weller for one last take at the character, Now, I'd buy that for a dollar!
Black Panther
(2018)
Big disappointment - I expected a lot more with all the hype.
26 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Warning: It contains very minor spoilers.
I so wanted this film to be as good as the reviews said it was, I really did. Black Panther is one of my favorite characters from the comics and I couldn't wait to see it's solo film after the great debut of the character in Captain America: Civil War. Boy, was I in for a disappointment!
Where do I start? Well, the storyline was old, totally predictable (I've seen it done before and better), and parts of it didn't make sense, at all. Even though the movie is more than two hours long, the story feels too short. Maybe it's because the writers made it so political, it felt the film was trying too hard to pass a political message the whole time, instead of just trying to tell a good story about a great character. The truth is, when I watch a superhero movie, I don't want to be preached at, I want to see a good story and the hero kick ass. If I want to watch a socially relevant movie, I'll watch Amistad or Selma, not Black Panther.
The visuals of the film were gorgeous - the photography was beautifully done, the sets were awsome and the costumes looked great. But without a good story and strong characters, all that means nothing. Which brings me to the characters: the main character comes out very weak, I didn't care much for him and that's a big problem when we're talking about the hero of the film! I don't think it was Chadwick Boseman's fault, since I liked him in Captain America: Civil War, I think the problem was the screenplay and the way they wrote the character. He did the best he could with what he had, but it just wasn't enough. Danai Gurira and Lupita Nyong'o are just about the best thing in this film, they play two gorgeous and very strong women - two great actresses with a bright future ahead of them (I think I'm a little in love with Lupita Nyong'o, she's simply one of the most beautifull women I've ever seen and with such an amazing talent!). Letitia Wright played the hero's younger sister Shuri, and she's a good actress, but the way they wrote her character made her annoying at times instead of the comic relief she was suposed to be. As for the villain, well it's simply one of the dullest and most uninteresting villain in movie history. And it didn't help that Michael B. Jordan played him that way too. Totally forgetable. The one good thing in this film villain wise was Andy Serkis - he had a blast playing Klaue and you could see it. Too bad he was criminally underused. Forest Whitaker and Angela Bassett were their usual very good selfs, and Martin Freeman played with a perfect american accent a CIA agent that turned out to be an otherwise completely useless character.
The action sequences were good, although Marvel as given us better before. The CGI is overall good, although some scenes are a bit blured. The direction is sloppy at times, but overall competent.
All in all, it's your average Marvel film: it looks good, it entertains, but it lacks depth and suffers from a major shortage of good story and good characters, so you forget it as soon as you leave the theater. My sugestion? Save your money for Avengers: Infinity War (fingers crossed that it'll be epic!) and wait for this one to come to Netflix.
I so wanted this film to be as good as the reviews said it was, I really did. Black Panther is one of my favorite characters from the comics and I couldn't wait to see it's solo film after the great debut of the character in Captain America: Civil War. Boy, was I in for a disappointment!
Where do I start? Well, the storyline was old, totally predictable (I've seen it done before and better), and parts of it didn't make sense, at all. Even though the movie is more than two hours long, the story feels too short. Maybe it's because the writers made it so political, it felt the film was trying too hard to pass a political message the whole time, instead of just trying to tell a good story about a great character. The truth is, when I watch a superhero movie, I don't want to be preached at, I want to see a good story and the hero kick ass. If I want to watch a socially relevant movie, I'll watch Amistad or Selma, not Black Panther.
The visuals of the film were gorgeous - the photography was beautifully done, the sets were awsome and the costumes looked great. But without a good story and strong characters, all that means nothing. Which brings me to the characters: the main character comes out very weak, I didn't care much for him and that's a big problem when we're talking about the hero of the film! I don't think it was Chadwick Boseman's fault, since I liked him in Captain America: Civil War, I think the problem was the screenplay and the way they wrote the character. He did the best he could with what he had, but it just wasn't enough. Danai Gurira and Lupita Nyong'o are just about the best thing in this film, they play two gorgeous and very strong women - two great actresses with a bright future ahead of them (I think I'm a little in love with Lupita Nyong'o, she's simply one of the most beautifull women I've ever seen and with such an amazing talent!). Letitia Wright played the hero's younger sister Shuri, and she's a good actress, but the way they wrote her character made her annoying at times instead of the comic relief she was suposed to be. As for the villain, well it's simply one of the dullest and most uninteresting villain in movie history. And it didn't help that Michael B. Jordan played him that way too. Totally forgetable. The one good thing in this film villain wise was Andy Serkis - he had a blast playing Klaue and you could see it. Too bad he was criminally underused. Forest Whitaker and Angela Bassett were their usual very good selfs, and Martin Freeman played with a perfect american accent a CIA agent that turned out to be an otherwise completely useless character.
The action sequences were good, although Marvel as given us better before. The CGI is overall good, although some scenes are a bit blured. The direction is sloppy at times, but overall competent.
All in all, it's your average Marvel film: it looks good, it entertains, but it lacks depth and suffers from a major shortage of good story and good characters, so you forget it as soon as you leave the theater. My sugestion? Save your money for Avengers: Infinity War (fingers crossed that it'll be epic!) and wait for this one to come to Netflix.
Battlestar Galactica
(1978–1979)
They don't make them like this one anymore!
20 June 2016
I used to watch this show when I was a kid - they started to run it when I was 8 or 9, back in 1981 or 1982 - and I loved it! Along with "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", it was my favorite show. The special effects were amazing (for that time), the stories were engaging and the characters were the stuff of legends - I wanted to be like Starbuck when I grew up! I used to dream of flying a viper and even built a makeshift one myself. Unlike other science fiction TV shows, this one aged very well and is still very watchable. I bought the DVD set four years ago and had quite a good time re-watching this true classic. Recommended for all lovers of good science fiction. They don't make them like this one anymore.
P.S.: I also watched the 2004 remake of this series, and even though it was an amazing show, it had very little to do with the original. It was darker and violent, certainly not something a kid of 8 or 9 could watch - like I watched the original when I was that age. If I had to chose between the two, I would chose the original.
P.S.: I also watched the 2004 remake of this series, and even though it was an amazing show, it had very little to do with the original. It was darker and violent, certainly not something a kid of 8 or 9 could watch - like I watched the original when I was that age. If I had to chose between the two, I would chose the original.
X-Men: Apocalypse
(2016)
Everything you expected is there, but...
19 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
...it doesn't add anything new to the franchise or the genre.
The more substantial change introduced to the franchise since it started back in 2000 was the refreshing of the cast in 2011, operated by Matthew Vaughn in a prequel filled with plot twists, multi-layered characters and style that set the origin of the current narrative web. The return of Bryan Singer after X-Men: First Class seemed to promise a continuation of this refreshing of an old franchise, as Days of Future Past gave us more innovation, plot twists and multi-layered characters, as well as one of the best scenes in the genre with Quicksilver and his speed. However, Apocalypse seems to have taken away the freshness the two previous films brought to the franchise. Where First Class and Days of Future Past innovated, Apocalypse merely recycled plot lines and scenes from previous installments (realy, how many more times do we have to see Magneto loose his family, go on a rampage to avenge them, only to have his mind changed at the very last minute by having either Professor Xavier or Mystique tell him he has good in him, that he's more than just his pain and rage? Hasn't he heard that enough times already? Haven't we? I mean, if he didn't get it the first two times he heard it, he never will). Where First Class and Days of Future Past had a multi-layered villain, Apocalypse has a one-dimensional, almost clownish bad guy - his motivation is basically "let's destroy this world and build a new one because I was assleep for 3000 years and woke up in a bad mood". Oh, and what was that with him destroying all the nuclear weapons of Earth? I was hopelessly reminded of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and the very similar plot line of Superman also destroying all the nuclear weapons of Earth, and that's not a good thing since that film was total rubbish. And didn't Apocalypse have the intention of destroying the world anyway? So why bother to destroy the nuclear weapons first? The fact is that this villain should be called Disaster, for that is what he is and no amount of amazing special effects can change that. Which is a shame, when you have someone like Oscar Isaac playing him.
The truth is that Apocalypse seems to confirm that superhero movies are increasingly becoming an "assembly line" at risk of a creative emptiness, one that not even an amazing cast like this one can save from mediocrity.
In short: even though it was put together with the best of Hollywood's technical expertise, and Quicksilver has another amazing scene in it that is worth a watch (although it does beg the question: why repeat something that had already been done in the previous film? Were the filmmakers that devoid of inspiration? You already now the answer...), this film is essentially more of the same, treading a path already (and more expertly) tread, without bringing any special grit or inspiration to the franchise. To be watched at home; save your money for something more worthy.
The more substantial change introduced to the franchise since it started back in 2000 was the refreshing of the cast in 2011, operated by Matthew Vaughn in a prequel filled with plot twists, multi-layered characters and style that set the origin of the current narrative web. The return of Bryan Singer after X-Men: First Class seemed to promise a continuation of this refreshing of an old franchise, as Days of Future Past gave us more innovation, plot twists and multi-layered characters, as well as one of the best scenes in the genre with Quicksilver and his speed. However, Apocalypse seems to have taken away the freshness the two previous films brought to the franchise. Where First Class and Days of Future Past innovated, Apocalypse merely recycled plot lines and scenes from previous installments (realy, how many more times do we have to see Magneto loose his family, go on a rampage to avenge them, only to have his mind changed at the very last minute by having either Professor Xavier or Mystique tell him he has good in him, that he's more than just his pain and rage? Hasn't he heard that enough times already? Haven't we? I mean, if he didn't get it the first two times he heard it, he never will). Where First Class and Days of Future Past had a multi-layered villain, Apocalypse has a one-dimensional, almost clownish bad guy - his motivation is basically "let's destroy this world and build a new one because I was assleep for 3000 years and woke up in a bad mood". Oh, and what was that with him destroying all the nuclear weapons of Earth? I was hopelessly reminded of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and the very similar plot line of Superman also destroying all the nuclear weapons of Earth, and that's not a good thing since that film was total rubbish. And didn't Apocalypse have the intention of destroying the world anyway? So why bother to destroy the nuclear weapons first? The fact is that this villain should be called Disaster, for that is what he is and no amount of amazing special effects can change that. Which is a shame, when you have someone like Oscar Isaac playing him.
The truth is that Apocalypse seems to confirm that superhero movies are increasingly becoming an "assembly line" at risk of a creative emptiness, one that not even an amazing cast like this one can save from mediocrity.
In short: even though it was put together with the best of Hollywood's technical expertise, and Quicksilver has another amazing scene in it that is worth a watch (although it does beg the question: why repeat something that had already been done in the previous film? Were the filmmakers that devoid of inspiration? You already now the answer...), this film is essentially more of the same, treading a path already (and more expertly) tread, without bringing any special grit or inspiration to the franchise. To be watched at home; save your money for something more worthy.
Not great, but good enough. Welcome back, M. Maigret!
4 April 2016
Well, I have seen the film. And I liked it. It's not a masterpiece and certainly not the best adaptation of Simenon I've seen, but it's good enough to entertain and satisfy those who missed watching Maigret. It succeeds in recreating the claustrophobic atmosphere of Simenon's novels, and even if the screenplay is a bit uneven at times, the overall result is very good. The production design is great, and Budapest looks perfect as Paris.
The performances by the cast are all above average, but it's Rowan Atkinson who steals the screen every time he's on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: his casting came as an absolute surprise to me, as I would never have thought of him as a possible Maigret. But the truth is he made the part his own. So much so that at a certain point I forgot the actor and saw only the character. Very, very good performance by Atkinson, proving he's much more than just a great comedian, he's a great actor.
If you are looking for the best adaptation of this story, I suggest you get your hands on a copy of the 1958 french version "Maigret tend un piège", directed by Jean Delannoy and with the great Jean Gabin as Maigret (to me the best of them all, but that's me). But if all you want is to spend 90 minutes with Maigret and watch a well told and even better played story, then you could do worse than watch this one.
I will certainly be looking forward for the next film in the series, "Maigret's Dead Man". Welcome back, M. Maigret!
The performances by the cast are all above average, but it's Rowan Atkinson who steals the screen every time he's on it. I've said it before and I'll say it again: his casting came as an absolute surprise to me, as I would never have thought of him as a possible Maigret. But the truth is he made the part his own. So much so that at a certain point I forgot the actor and saw only the character. Very, very good performance by Atkinson, proving he's much more than just a great comedian, he's a great actor.
If you are looking for the best adaptation of this story, I suggest you get your hands on a copy of the 1958 french version "Maigret tend un piège", directed by Jean Delannoy and with the great Jean Gabin as Maigret (to me the best of them all, but that's me). But if all you want is to spend 90 minutes with Maigret and watch a well told and even better played story, then you could do worse than watch this one.
I will certainly be looking forward for the next film in the series, "Maigret's Dead Man". Welcome back, M. Maigret!
This film is the real crime!!!!
29 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
By the Pricking of My Thumbs is one of my favorite AC novels,in the same way that Tommy and Tuppence are also two of my favorite fiction characters.So when I read that a version of this story was being made for television I was thrilled.That is,until I learned that Miss Marple was to be the leading detective in the story...Still,I'm not one to rush into conclusions,so I decided to wait and see the final result. Now that I have watched the film,I have only one word to describe it:it's criminal!It's a crime what they've done with this fine book! First they put Miss Marple in a story that is not hers;there are stories witch are written to specific characters,and this is a typical Tommy and Tuppence thriller,not a Marple mystery.Second, the main characters in this story are so altered,that they are beyond recognition:Tuppence,instead of the bright,intelligent,resourceful and mature woman of the novel was turned into a drunken,boring and brainless middle aged housewife;Tommy became a pompous,patronizing idiot,who does nothing but wave an MI6 ID card in the face of every character he comes across. And what about the story itself?Also changed beyond recognition...to the worse!The Reverend turned into an drunk, married to a character who is single in the book;newfound relatives for Tommy,American GI's where there were none...Subplots essential to the story and the psychological build up were left out,while characters and subplots which are inexistent in the novel and useless to the story were added.The result:in the novel everything makes sense; here everything is senseless,including the ending. In conclusion:the real crime here is the film!Do yourself a favor:stay away from this filth and read the novel instead, you'll find your time is put to a better use that way.
Absolute filth!!!!!
29 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not one of those persons who believe novels should be adapted to the screen faithfully, word for word.Changes have to be made,we're talking of two different mediums of telling a story.But changes apart, the storyline must remain the same;the characters remain the same,the solution to the crime must be the one devised by the novel's author. That just doesn't happens here. Stephen Churchett decided to be original and destroyed one of the best novels AC ever wrote!!!!To turn the three sisters of the novel into nuns?!!!!!!!!!!!!What the hell was he thinking of?!!!!To make Jason Rafiel a German emigrant and his son a German soldier?!!!!Will somebody please tell me what these changes add to the original story?Please?And I'm just touching the surface;there was much,much more to be said about this piece of trash TV,but I won't even bother.AC must be turning in her grave,seeing what they're doing to her work,I promise you!If you can get your hands on the Joan Hickson's version of Nemesis,do yourself a favor and watch that instead. This one is a total waste of time! Just one more thing:Joan Hickson is THE definite Miss Marple.She was absolutely perfect in the part,in the same way that David Suchet is absolutely perfect as Poirot.I already thought Geraldine McEwan was totally wrong as Miss Marple; this film confirmed it. Richard E. Grant and Amanda Burton are the only reason I'm rating this disaster area with 1 star instead of the 0 it would otherwise deserve.
Tell Your Friends