Change Your Image
ProfMo
The Young Sherlock Holmes
The Seven Percent Solution
Case of Evil
Murder by Decree
The Great Mouse Detective
Van Helsing
League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
Hellboy
From Hell
Sleepy Hollow
Time After Time
Interview with the Vampire
The Hudsucker Proxy
Fargo
O Brother Where Art Thou?
The Lady Killers
Duel
The Hole
The Shawshank Redemption
The Green Mile
Stand by Me
IT
Steel Magnolias
Fried Green Tomatoes
Secondhand Lions
The Witches of Eastwick
Harrison Bergeron
Treed Murray
The Princess Bride
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Monsters Inc.
The Emporer's New Groove
The Incredibles
Noises Off
Roxanne
28 Days Later
Shaun of the Dead
The Ring
The Grudge
Harry Potter (all of them)
The Lord of the Rings (all of them)
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Pirates of the Carribean
Hook
The Goonies
The 'burbs
Michael Collins
Veronica Guerrin
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The Muppet Movie
A Muppet Christmas Carol
Love Actually
Bridget Jones Diary
Howards End
Remains of the Day
Pride and Prejudice
Sense and Sensibility
Emma
Dangerous Liasons
Silence of the Lambs
Hannibal
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Snatch
Formula 51
The Italian Job
Star Trek (all of them)
Contact
Flatliners
Sleeping with the Enemy
The Pelican Brief
A Time to Kill
Pulp Fiction
Kill Bill (1&2)
Clerks
Mall Rats
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
The Longest Yard
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Brother's Grimm
Reviews
Sex Traffic (2004)
Sad, Disturbing, and Exquisitely Acted
Sex Traffic did an excellent job showing the brutality that these women are subject to, making the viewer appropriately uncomfortable. In the end, the notion that the women go into this willingly and happily was dispelled, showing how they are treated as little more than animals and those who don't escape or get killed wind up becoming sadly obedient and pliant for their unredeemable handlers, continuing the circle of violence and exploitation.
The stand out performance here has to be John Simm. He plays the role of the bumbling and soft-hearted Daniel Appleton. He's an unlikely hero who surprises the audience by standing up to much harder individuals than himself, and to great effect. His relationship with Lena is portrayed as sweet and tender, and illustrates his sense of helplessness in the face of an enemy that is so much larger than him. Simm doesn't play the beautiful and cynical hero that audiences have become accustomed to, rather a man who truly cares and does something about it, all the while fighting his fear and pride to do so.
The rest of the cast is also phenomenal - every character becomes a real person to the viewer, to be liked or hated. That the cast members are from all over the map makes their portrayals even more effective.
This is an impressive piece of drama and documentary.
Tin Man (2007)
Very enjoyable romp through an alternative Oz
I really enjoyed this mini series. They did a good job of meshing sci fi with the fantasy of Oz. If you're expecting anything like the movie Wizard of Oz (with Judy Garland), you will be disappointed - though for those who have seen it there are one or two subtle and entertaining references. The mini-series draws more from the atmosphere of the original book... if you've read "Wicked" by Gregory Maguire you'll have gleaned some of that atmosphere from there too.
All the acting was good, with only a few spots where it felt stilted. The scenery was lovely... but you did have the feeling that it was all filmed in the same forest. Any CG was done well... not stellar, but didn't feel like they tried to do something beyond budget.
This was the Wizard of Oz take off I've been waiting for for a while, and I wasn't disappointed.
The Hound of the Baskervilles (2002)
Passable... with some tweak-age could be Wonderful
I've watched this movie a couple of times, and have been able to distill what I liked, and didn't like.
So, first. I liked Ian Hart as Watson. He played a Watson with integrity, intelligence, all the while still keeping the character sympathetic with that big heartedness Holmes outwardly seems to lack.
Secondly, I also liked the strained relationship between Holmes and Watson. Two men that have so many opposing personality traits cannot help but experience some friction at some point in their friendship. As well, I recall reading a theory that Holmes and Watson, based on the canon, may have had a falling out at some point. I saw this as perhaps being an interpretation of that. Plus, if you read A Study in Scarlet, Holmes and Watson were not fast friends. In fact, it took Watson a bit of time to not look at Holmes as some sort of freak.
Now, to what I didn't like.
I did not like the scene where Holmes shot up. Yes, he was a cocaine and morphine addict. But, he used it as a means of stimulation to escape the boredom in between cases... not to provide clarity during a case. That, really, was my only beef with that scene. If it had been an early scene where he was bored and the Baskerville case had not yet crossed his threshold, then that would have been better.
As well, I wasn't keen on Richard's accent. Sorry, I had the same bug about Matt Frewer's accent too (though his progressively got better in the Whitechapel Vampire... but I digress). I'm of the belief that if you cannot pull off the accent, use your natural one. If the acting is good, no one will really notice that Holmes' sounds like he's from Australia (or in Frewer's case, Canada). Hey, Sean Connery played a Brit (James Bond), and a Russian (Red October) using his natural Scottish burr... and it worked! Otherwise, this movie, despite deviating from the original novella, was very good. Good scenery, effects, acting, and atmosphere.
So, that's 2 for and 2 against... but since I've seen it multiple times and still enjoy it, I give it 7/10.
Sherlock (2002)
Making all the same mistakes...
This film is another one of those efforts to show Holmes before he became the solitary and introverted individual he is in the canon, and it makes all the same mistakes.
First off, there is no set up in terms of context. What were the architects of this piece aiming to accomplish? Are they trying to show how Holmes might have been before the canon? Are they trying to explain how he became like he is in the canon? Or are they just trying to sex him up according to their own personal fantasies? I'm inclined to say all of the above with the latter being on the forefront of their minds... but since there is no prologue to say so, we'll be forever left wondering why.
Second, all they are doing here is messing with canon. Sure sure, not every Holmes movie needs to stay with the established stories and characters, but this was just gratuitous. In this movie Holmes is a womanizing alcoholic media attention seeking whiner, Mycroft is a damaged ex-drug addict cripple, and Moriarty seems to be the golden boy. This photo-negative representation of Conan Doyle's creation might have been effective if it wasn't so ham-fistedly delivered. We don't need to see Holmes have a threesome to get that he's living a young wild life.
Third, the underlying story wasn't all that interesting.
But, there were some redeeming qualities. The characterization of Watson as an inventor was very well done, and was acted well. Also, the manner in which Holmes and Watson developed their friendship based on professional interest (and even Holmes giving Watson credit for his deductions) was well done and thought out.
The acting was super. D'Onofrio and D'Arcy, despite the movie's foibles, were excellent. They could have only done better if there were a better script.
Lastly, I have to admit to enjoying the allusions to "the future". Phrases like "Serial Killer" vs. "Multiple Murderer", Watson being certain the pipe smoking will be mainstream and cigarettes will become illegal, and finally Moriarty giving his drug a name... "Something heroic..." was fairly clever.
So, there you are, 3 for and 3 against. That's 5/10 from me.
Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)
Full of clichés, but not without redeemable qualities
The spoilers in this review are fairly minor. No major plot giveaways here... but better safe than sorry.
This episode really needed some sort of prologue to explain exactly what the architects of this piece were aiming for. I was confused by such a young Holmes in the presence of a phone, by Watson's marriage to such a liberal woman, and by their rather cold relationship.
I think this story is supposed to take place later on in Holmes and Watson's friendship... I think that was supposed to be Watson's second marriage (because his first marriage was to Mary Morstan from the Sign of Four). I also think that's the place in the canon where their friendship is at it's rockiest (there's a story somewhere in one of the last two anthologies that is inexplicably narrated by Holmes himself... sort of like he had indeed lost his Boswell for a bit there). Anywho, that would have been very early 1900s, so it was possible that there was a telephone. I don't know how wide spread the phone was at that time, but I think I recall an adventure where Holmes shows himself to be quite intrigued with gadgets (and even having a phone)... but don't take my word for it because I don't remember where I was reading it.
It seems that Holmes and Watson do get back into the swing of things later on in the episode... sort of like they are reconciling... though it seems that Watson is in a fairly consistent state of annoyance and dismay when it comes to his eccentric friend. The end of the episode seems to back this up where Watson asks that Holmes stay in touch and involve him in more cases... as though a previous rift had resulted in an absence of communication.
The scene where Holmes is left alone with the future Mrs. Watson was done very well... his discomfort only truly revealed when Watson asks how he'd like his coffee ("Strong and black."). Unfortunately it seems that Waston's fiancé is only a plot device to show both Holmes' indifference to women in general, but not to strong intelligent women in particular. I wouldn't have drawn out her part in the movie anymore than it was though as there was simply nowhere else to go with her character without a complete rewrite.
I can't say I'm Rupert Everett's biggest fan on this one... but I also have to accept that no one will ever top Jeremy Brett... ever. I think Ian Hart is great though... he's a little more of a 3 dimensional Watson than I've seen... not quite so much of a sock puppet for Holmes. It's nice to see a Watson that can really stand up for himself, stay a little bit angry at Holmes, but still stay friends with him at the same time.
I didn't like how they tried to cram every darn cliché into the movie either. "I can't make bricks without clay", "For me there is always the needle", "Watson, you are the one fixed point..." and, all together now, "Elementary my dear Watson" *shudder*. I did like the way they threw in the "pawky humour against which I am going to have to learn to guard myself" line... it was a fitting response to Watson's "What are you doing? It looks like you are getting ready to dance the fandango."
Anyway, overall I enjoy just about everything Holmes, and am pretty forgiving of foibles. This one, however, is woefully overlook-able. See it if you want, but by no means rush to do so.
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (2001)
A movie so bad it couldn't help being good!
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is a very accurate spoof/homage to the really bad sub-B sci-fi films of the 1950s. If you enjoyed any of those films, watched serials like Doctor Who and Mystery Science Theatre, or just love sci-fi in all it's giddy campy glory, you'll love this movie. If you are looking for a special effects extravaganza, life-altering emotional performances, and a plot that can be summed up in more than 3 sentences, steer clear, you will not get the point of the movie and you will regret the time spent watching it. That is the only downfall of The Lost Skeleton... that it is done so well that its target audience is narrowed down to only the people who already love this genre.