Synopsis:
The world’s greatest detective, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.), is asked to aide in the investigation of several grisly murders throughout London. With a little help from his trusty sidekick, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), the ruthless Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is brought to justice, tried, and hung. But what was supposed to be their last case together, turns in to the mystery of a lifetime when Blackwood rises from the dead and sets out to reshape the modern world. Can Holmes solve this great caper on his own or are there sinister powers that even he can’t overcome?

Review:
I must say that I was thrilled when I first saw the trailer for this movie. It looked like the type of facelift that Sherlock Holmes needed. I’ve seen several old films with the great detective in them. Each of them was full of detail and the slow methodical resolution of the mystery at the heart of the story. That’s not to say that there was anything wrong with these old films. Most were great from what I remember. The problem is that they’re from a different time. They wouldn’t stand a chance in today’s box office, and they would never succeed in bring such a great character to the modern audience. Here’s my take on the film that will hopefully breath a little life in to a classic character.

Plot: My greatest complaint about the film was the plot. It wasn’t the story that bothered me so much as the pacing. The writers came up with a great story that fits right in with the type of mysteries I would expect from Sir Aurther Conan Doyle. The movie clocked in at roughly 2:15 which is on the long side by most standards. Its not that I felt bored. I simple wish that they went farther with that time rather than being more explicit. In other words, I wish that they had tightened up the exposition to show us a longer story rather than a more detailed story. Now, Holmes stories by nature are detailed, but that’s when it comes to print. Film is a different media and so what we expect is totally different. This might sound like I’m nitpicking, but this was an aspect that I found surprisingly disappointing.

Acting: The acting was solid in this film. RDJ and Jude Law played their characters well and the witty banter between the two is enjoyable. I’m afraid some of the better interchanges are in the trailer, but there is still a lot of quips and jabs to enjoy. RDJ is definitely having a good run, because this is another one in the bank. I have to admit that Rachel McAdams was good too. She plays Irene Addler, a former flame of Holmes and a criminal. Its not that I think she’s bad (I liked her in Red Eye and others), she just rarely stands out. To be honest, she still sits in the shadow of RDJ and Jude Law for this film.

Overall: As a whole, this was a good movie and I highly recommend you catch it at the theaters if you can. Its definitely worth the price of entry. Though I had trouble with the pacing/length of the plot, I didn’t really feel the 2:15 so I was pretty entertained. Since he’s been making some great ones, RDJ as Holmes is also a great reason to watch this film. Finally, it won’t be hard to catch the subplot that will surely lead to sequels, so I would catch this one in some form, even if it becomes a rental. All-in-all, this one is fuzz-worthy.

The Da Vinci Code @ IMDB

Synopsis:
A mysterious murder in the Louvre drags mild mannered symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) in to a dangerous hunt for the Holy Grail. When the French Police Chief, Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), thinks that Langdon commited murder, things get tense. Langdon must flee the French police with the aide of a young cryptologist, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou). Langdon’s only hope of clearing his name is finding the Grail and drawing out the true murderer. But what is the Grail and how far will everyone go to find it?

Review:
Where to being for one of the most anticipated adaptations of the year? How about the simple truth. It was a dissappointment. Not at all what it could or should be. Unfortunately, it was some the minor facts that brought this movie down for me. Of course the unrealistically high expectations I had from the big names like Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, Ian McKellen, & Audrey Tautou didn’t help one bit. And of course I compared the cinematic experience with the literary experience and came up short.

In to the nitty gritty: The first big let down was Tom Hanks. I think he’s a great actor and has done great movies, but this performance was mediocre at best. In the novel, Robert Langdon is a pivitol character that is crucial to the evolution of the plot and is the key protaganist. In the film, Hank’s version of Langdon seems to simply be along for the ride, a spectator in events beyond him. Though the character is supposed to feel a little out of his league, he shouldn’t sit on the sideline the whole film. Audrey Tautou’s performance on the other hand was excellent. Her Sophie is the character we see in the novel.

The next thing that killed this film for me was the score. For some reason the soundtrack never seemed to suit the scenes that the audience sees. For example (and I’m going on memory for this so forgive any inaccuracies), the very brief car chase near the beginning of the film is accompanied by a very sweet and lazy piano melody that would suit a lullaby. This plot is one of urgency. The audience should feel the need and haste to solve the next clue in an ever evolving riddle. Instead of fast-paced orchestra pieces, we hear simple melodies. I just don’t think that really gives you the right feel when you’re anxiously waiting the next twist.

I have one more major complaint against this film, but I will add it to the end of this review because it contains a spoiler. If you chose to read it, you will ruin the story (assuming you haven’t read the novel). Overall, this wasn’t a bad movie. It just wasn’t as great as I hoped. If you haven’t seen it already, I wouldn’t spend the primetime money on it. I would go so far as to say its just worth the rental.

The final complaint with the film is that they changed the plot. I would have expected that they would make the film less anti-Catholic than the novel. Interestingly, the change actually makes the film more anti-Catholic. In the novel Bishop Manuel Aringarosa (Alfred Molina), has no idea that Silas’ (Paul Bettany) mission requires him to commit murder. In fact, Aringarosa believes that no harm will come to anyone and that he will simply be able to purchase the keystone. In the film however, Aringarosa is a willing participant of a complicated plot to commit murder and even mislead the police. This change actually makes the film more controversial than the novel. Not a good change in my opinion. In fact, it only adds another thing for me to criticize.

Synopsis:
When Yves Gluant (Jason Statham) is murdered during a national soccer game and the coveted Pink Panther diamond is stolen, Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Kevin Kline) calls in the bumbling Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Steve Martin). With the help of his trusty sidekick, Gendarme Gilbert Ponton (Jean Reno), Clouseau must track down the killer and save the jewel. But the beautiful Xania (Beyonce Knowles) proves to be dangerous distraction. Can Clouseau crack the case and prove himself worthy of the rank of Inspector or will he shame is country with failure?

Review:
I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. It was not nearly as bad as I anticipated. I was most looking forward to Jean Reno’s performance and I was concerned that Steve Martin’s may be a little over the top. Reno wasn’t as good as I thought he would be and Martin wasn’t as bad as I thought he would be. Others indicated this movie would be horrible, I didn’t think that was the case at all. It wasn’t mind-blowing, but then I don’t think it was trying to be.

This was a comedy-mystery, but as is usually the case with this combination, it was very light on the mystery. The culprit’s identity seems to be almost randomly selected from the cast of characters with a motive to commit murder. That’s not a huge flaw, like I said comedy-mysteries tend to be light on the mystery. It was alright with the comedy. There were some highly amusing sequences and some that just didn’t elicit the laugh they were looking for. As I mentioned before, Jean Reno wasn’t that amusing. The truth is that Ponton doesn’t have much of a role in the film. He helps things move along but he doesn’t do much. This is something I didn’t appreciate. Reno is talented and could do much more. On top of that, Ponton was a true source of comedy in the cartoons.

I gues that brings me to the final point, Peter Sellars, the original Clouseau did an excellent job. He made the original series classics. There is something lacking in this new incarnation that doesn’t quite compare to the originals. Then again, remakes rarely do compare. Overall, this movie is a relatively entertaining family comedy. I don’t think it is quite worth a matinee showing, but wouldn’t be a bad rental. Definitely worth a watch, but not necessarily for $7.50.

Synopsis:
Unexplained solar phenomena allow a son to speak to his father, who died thirty years before, by means of an old CB radio. But when Detective John Sullivan (Jim Caviesel) helps Frank (Dennis Quaid) survive the fire that should have killed him, the repercussions ripple through time changing the present. Now can John and Frank fix the past and save all the innocent victims of a serial killer, including his mother? The race is on as the clock ticks on the longest radio signal of all time.

Review:
I have to say that I enjoyed this one. I think mainly because I like the concept. The idea is time travel but not really. This father and son can communicate, but they don’t physically travel back in time or anything. Influence without interaction. Its a little different from your typical time warp sci-fi movie. They do get a little creative when Frank sends John evidence.

Ok, enough about the novelty. The plot was pretty well written. You have a decent mystery here. Its not too complex and the culprit is easily revealed, but proving his guilt is the challenge. I think its the mix of mystery and sci-fi that I like. the plot also keeps moving. I never felt bored during this movie. The acting is pretty good too. I’m not a huge fan of Quaid, but I think he played the role well. Caviezel was a little more convincing though. You see John’s life in shambles at the beginning of the movie and you quickly realize that its the loss of his father that begins his downward spiral.

One thing is that the movie tends to lose continuity near the end. One of the principles of the movie is that as things are changed in the past, things change in the future. Unfortunately, when the true culprit’s guilt is proven we see no impact in the future. Not a major problem, but if you really consider the ending of the movie, it doesn’t quite make sense. That’s ok. I still enjoyed this one. Its definitely worth the rental. I considered it a good purchase as I own a copy. Check it out.