Reviews

After watching this film, which is adapted from a stage play, I can only assume it was originally an amateur dramatics production. And, based on the performances on display here, that the original cast was carried over too.

It is a truly lacklustre piece of film-making involving Patrick MacNee (miscast as Holmes and playing it somewhere between a misguided comedy turn and a brain-addled old fart who seems to think he has wandered into the wrong film but isn't quite sure) investigating a baffling (and I use the word ironically) murder which has taken place in a theatre, and which also involves Holmes' old paramour, Irene Adler (a woman Holmes looks at in an effort to project longing and deep love but which instead comes across as seeming as though he can't quite put a name to her face).

He is assisted in his investigations by a Watson who looks a lot like the character Ted from, "The Fast Show," and who seems to have an unhealthy interest in Miss Adler herself, and an Inspector Lestrade who is so dim he makes an extinguished candle look bright and is there in a woeful attempt at comedy relief.

The makers have made no effort to expand the piece from the original stage play (and, judging by the look of the film, this was down to a lack of budget as much as anything else) and this is made even more evident by the fact that 90% of the action takes place in a theatre, on the stage itself. Such circumstances are not helped by the fact that when anyone does leave (there's a lot of, "You stay here and you come with me!" business) we always remain with the characters on stage, never following those who depart (which, naturally, leads to a lot of, "Well, while I was away I...," exposition that slows the whole thing down even more).

Matters are further hindered by the performances. Obviously, they haven't been given the greatest script or direction to work from, but as a whole the performances are pretty dire and they really do come across as a bad amateur dramatic society (though they are obviously trying their best). All of which only serves to underline how poor MacNee's performance is. As I said before, he is badly miscast as Holmes (he barely makes a decent Watson on the occasions he has played him) and really does seem to just be vacantly wandering in and out of the action mentally, sometimes in the middle of a scene.

He, and the rest of the cast, are not helped by a script that is throwing out intricate references to the actual stories one minute and a terrible bit of slapstick the next. Or a creaking, "twist," that, rather than shows Holmes' skills as a detective, instead shows him up as a bit of an idiot (the, "reveal," of a certain character springs to mind, wherein he basically removes his glasses, to which Holmes dramatically declares the man's name before the character explains how he has had, "facial reconstruction," begging the questions A) Why the disguise then? and B) How did Holmes recognise him?) The tone is all over the place and the best thing you can say about it is that it's all over relatively quickly as the whole thing barely stretches out past the hour mark.

There's a reason Judge Reinhold didn't go on to a career as the next Bruce Willis, and this is a blatant example as to why. A truly dreadful, poorly made, poorly scripted, poorly acted effort all round.

However, we do learn a few things:-

1) Whispering all your lines in an attempt to sound menacing does NOT make you appear menacing if you happen to be Judge Reinhold.

2) Judge Reinhold should not strike martial arts poses in the middle of fight scenes.

3) Judge Reinhold should not do this, or anything for that matter but especially fight scenes, in his underpants.

Avoid.

A few things you should know about, "Direct Contact.":- 1) It is not very good at all. In fact, it's pretty dire. Don't believe all this stuff about it being, "action packed," as half of those sequences come from other movies anyway and are badly edited in.

2) It's badly made. The continuity in this film is all over the place, partly due to scenes from other films being shoe-horned in. I lost count of the number of times gun miraculously change from one make to another as characters walk through scenes. We get a helicopter hovering in a bright, cloudless sky that is in a snow storm any time there is a close-up, cars that rocket back and forth in condition during chases, and, best of all, a motorcycle chase that goes from sunny day, to ice covered road in the middle of nowhere, to sunny day in the middle of town in three, continuous cuts.

3) It's badly written and makes no sense whatsoever. The dialogue is like something a teenager who's seen too many bad action movies would churn out. The plot manages to be non-existent yet totally unfathomable at the same time (why hire Dolph to kidnap the girl when you have the general and his entire army guarding her in your pocket?) and it contains one of the worst excuses for a love scene ever committed to film. They literally go from not giving a stuff about each other to doing it in five seconds flat.

4) It's badly acted. It's saying something when Michael Pare puts in the best performance in the movie. Dolph lumbers around like he's only half-interested in what's going on and, at times, his movement is so laboured I was wondering if he was injured. By far and away though, the worst is, "Uncle Trent." He is so bad as to be hilarious and has the immortal (misread) line of, "What if he goes A.O.L?" A.O.L.??? 5) The director really does have something against roadside cafes. I counted no less than three that were trashed in three separate car chases. He does however love showing the same wall being hit with bullets and showing great gouts of blood erupt in slow motion from people when they are shot.

Not as bad as DTV Seagal.... but not by much!

I honestly don't know what stuns me more, the cliché-riddled ineptness of this show or the fact that it took three people to create it (or four if you count Joss Whedon.... and you should. If I was him I'd be seriously be considering legal action....). I mean, how many people does it take to watch, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," then attempt to recreate it for a British audience? The creators will no doubt argue about the, "uniqueness," of their show and how it provides something, "different," for todays television audience. I would say it shows ITV's desperation to grab any part of the, "Doctor Who," type audience from the BBC that they'll commission dreadful knock-offs like this rather than something genuinely original and exciting.

So, instead of a young, wholesome, stereo-typical (at first glance) American girl living in the U.S. who turns out to be the last Slayer and must battle vampires, demons, werewolves and various other, "evil entities," with the help of some friends and a British mentor with an encyclopedic knowledge of all things demonic, using cool martial arts skills and assorted strange and ancient weapons/spells, etc we get a young, wholesome, stereo-typical British BOY living in the U.K. who turns out to be the last Van Helsing and must battle vampires, demons, werewolves and various other, "evil entities," with the help of some friends and an American mentor with an encyclopedic knowledge of all things demonic, using cool martial arts skills and assorted strange and ancient weapons and spells. Totally different.

Whereas, "Buffy," had Joss Whedon's wry, clever, original, funny ideas behind it this has Philip Glennister doing an American accent and a blind girl whose medium-type abilities seem to give her a real leg up when it comes to negotiating stairs at high speed.

Watching it, it seems as though any kind of original idea had the same effect on the writers as a crucifix does on Dracula. Rather than come up with a single original thought they seem to have sat there, watched every action movie and TV show from 1997 and gone, "Ohhhhh! That's cool! Let's do that!" unfortunately meaning they've rather missed the point that it is now twelve years later all this stuff has been done to death already (and far better too). So we're treated to endless, martial arts fights where the action goes from regular speed to sudden slo-mo as our hero/villain/demon does a back flip mid-battle and are so poorly edited with crash zooms and camera jerks you can't actually tell what is going on.

Obviously, as with any show like this, acting talent is not the main reason these people have been cast. It's the, "Prettiness Factor," that's got them in and I have no problem with that. This is designed to be eye-candy, fun, entertaining television, not a Pinter adaptation. But the level of writing and the ideas behind the show are so poor it's hard to tell if the actors are bad or if it's just the scripts and direction.

Ironically enough, it is the person who is probably the most respected actor in the cast, Philip Glennister, who fares the worst. His Rupert Galvin has to win the award for most clichéd depiction of an American by an English person on a British show ever. It's not really his fault, he makes a fair crack at the accent and what have you, but it's the dialogue he's given that lets him down and makes it just interminable. He comes across like a twelve year olds idea of what a tough guy American must talk like based only on watching bad American movies and who has never actually met an American in their life. Practically every line out of his mouth is some leaden cliché, like references to, "The whole enchilada," and the godawful, "Showtime!" (which terrifyingly seems to be what the writers are trying to make his catchphrase despite the fact that even Arnie stopped thinking saying that just before a fight was cool twenty years ago) that flops around on the ground like a fish gasping for breath before expiring. I actually consider the use of the phrase, "Showtime!" as an indication of how awful a movie or TV show is. If a writer thinks it's a cool, original thing for a character to say then it's generally a pretty fair indication that whatever I'm watching is crap and, "Demons," is no exception to the rule. It ranks right up there with, "Why don't you put down your gun and face me like a man?" And, judging by this show, the North of England must be empty as they all seem to be living in London.

All in all, I can see why this show seems to be losing viewers by the millions already. Although it will probably get a second season due to the amount of money they've put into it, regardless of ratings, as happens with U.K. shows more and more these days. Maybe ITV could put the money to better use and come up with an original idea for a change? Maybe a show about a group of elite soldiers, framed for a crime they didn't commit, who escape from prison and enter the criminal underworld and use their skills as mercenaries to help innocent victims? Oh.... Hang on.....

This spin-off from the new, "Get Smart," movie more closely resembles one of those episodes of shows like, "CSI," where they focus on the secondary, or even lesser,characters, with the producers harping on about how these are, "wonderful actors," with, "great characters," that need to be given the chance to, "shine," when in fact we all know it's because the real stars wanted a week off. There's a reason those actors and characters aren't the leads, and the same goes for this movie.

Although, I think you'd be hard pressed calling it a, "movie," considering the run time is listed as 72 minutes when, in fact, the actual movie itself barely lasts an hour (another way it's like a TV episode) with the end credits being stretched out ever.... so.... slowly and various average outtakes and scenes not actually in the movie, but obviously intended to be, spliced into them. If the scenes are, "funny," enough to go in the end credits why the heck are't they IN the movie? Having said that, it's mildly amusing without ever being hilarious but hardly worthy of it's own release onto DVD. Unless you're a movie studio looking to suck every last dollar out of your new Summer Blockbuster. Stand up Warner Bros! The best thing in it is Larry Miller, who has the best lines in the film (which might be damning him with faint praise but at least they made me laugh). And I'm including the end credits in that. That way I can sell this review as, "Feature Length."