DAILY FILM DOSE: A Daily Film Appreciation and Review Blog: Guy Ritchie
[go: up one dir, main page]

Showing posts with label Guy Ritchie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guy Ritchie. Show all posts

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes (2009) dir. Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong

***

By Alan Bacchus

For some reason I’ve always liked Guy Ritchie, even though I hated all of his movies since ‘Snatch’ I wanted him to succeed. And so I was happy with the success of Sherlock Holmes. As a hired gun on a tentpole/franchise operation Ritchie succeeds admirably, and finally puts him on the right career track.

In terms of scale and budget, it’s a giant leap from his niche idiosyncratic crime pictures he’s famous for. But even with studio and Joel Silver's breath on the back of his neck Ritchie’s manages to retain his trademark style and yet satisfy the broad multiplex audience.

Of course, American Robert Downey Jr. plays the legendary British hero and the role fits him like a glove. The Downey Jr. mannerisms, confidence and swagger of his previous roles show up here in Holmes, so it’s not much of a stretch for him dramatically. In this first outing, it all fun and games for Holmes and Watson. Their case du jour is the search for Lord Blackwell, a nefarious occultist and serial murderer who, after being hanged for his crimes, starts turning up around the city, back from the dead. Holmes’ intelligence and attentive skills at deduction unravels Blackwood’s apparent supernatural abilities and eventually reveals a bigger plot to leverage political advantage of the British Parliament to attack the United States.

Ritchie’s direction of the action is inspired. Each of his set pieces are executed with perfect clarity and choreography without going over the top into Stephen Somers-type ludicrous fantasy. Nineteenth century London looks superb under the glossy visual design. The Oscar nominated art direction, ample special effects fill out the real London locations to make it all look as authentic as could be. If anything it all looks too glossy for foggy London, but it’s also a blockbuster movie and so this artistic license is allowed.

We are sufficiently teased for a sequel involving the famed archnemeis Professor Moriarty, whom we only see in shadow. So it had me speculating just who would play this character in the next instalment – Ralph Fiennes? Alan Rickman? Or maybe someone younger and against type: Christian Bale? Johnny Depp?

If anything, missing from the Holmes character are some of the gritty flaws which fleshed out other literary and screen versions of the man. I really hope the franchise is gutsy enough to add in the Holmes drug addiction traits like in, say, 'The Seven-Percent Solution'. With Downey bringing his own history with substances into the character it could be a miraculous combination.

I would never have believed that this stodgy old English hero could be made into a viable tentpole franchise – and for it to be a fun and thrilling as it is. What’s next then? Charlie Chan as directed Paul Greengrass, or a Miss Marple franchise helmed Bryan Singer?

“Sherlock Holmes” is available on Blu-Ray and DVD from Warner Home Video

Saturday, 22 March 2008

REVOLVER


Revolver (2005) dir. Guy Ritchie
Starring: Jason Statham, Ray Liotta, Vincent Pastore, Andre Benjamin

*1/2

What was he thinking? It isn’t news to most people that “Revolver” is a complete mess. After the disastrous “Swept Away”, Guy Ritchie returned to the genre that gave him such success. But Ritchie reaches way too far in his attempt at a philosophical Freudian gangster film and delivers a dog breakfast that just gets sloppier and sloppier as it goes along.

The film has a promising beginning, the first 30mins sets up the character of Jake (Jason Statham) – a gangster/thug just released from seven-year stint in prison with revenge is on his mind. The man who did him wrong is a Casino mob boss Macha (Ray Liotta). Fearing retribution Macha tries to take him down, but he’s saved by a pair mythical con-men Avi and Zach (Andre Benjamin and Vincent Pastore). Avi and Zach propose a partnership – in exchange for all his money ($500,000), Jake will be protected from Macha and be given the chance to exact revenge against him. Jake fears a con, but his conscience tells him to go along with it.

This is where it gets tricky, Zach, Avi and Jake embark on a series of elaborate heists that trick Macha into thinking he’s at war with a rival Asian drug lord. Reference is made to a Kaiser Soze-type omniscient mob boss Mr. Gold whom everyone fears. This fear drives Macha to dig himself out of his the hole that Jake and the boys have caused. In the last third, Jake’s inner conscience starts to separate itself from Jake’s real conscience and so the battle becomes Jake vs. Jake.

Ritchie has attempted something profound. The movie starts out with a series of philosophical quotes like “The greatest enemy will hide in the last place you would ever look.” There’s a metaphor of a chess game with the con game going on, but none of it ever fits together. It’s a grab-bag of intellectualisms. In fact, Ritchie thinks so highly of his message that the final credits feature interviews from real life psychologists (like Deepak Chopra) discussing the ego, and the ID and other intellectual mumbo jumbo.

Ritchie never really sets up his world either. It feels like reality in the beginning but the world morphs into a “Sin City-type” environment, one without cops and traditional rules of time, location, logic and physics. There’s nothing wrong with a world like this, but by the time Ritchie fully commits to it, I was out of the film.

Ritchie’s style is front and centre of course. No dialogue scene is cut straight. They’re either intercut with some sort of flashforward, flashback, alternate reality, or even dialogue from other characters. There only mildly interesting sequence is a great gunbattle in the Jake’s brother’s apartment. Thrown in to ensure sufficient overkill is an animated sequence and scene forwards and in reverse.

Ritchie’s downfall is his self-conscious seriousness. There isn’t an ounce of humour, which is the reason why Ritchie’s first two films were so successful. Maybe the problem was having Luc Besson in his ear all the time saying “C’est bon”.



Monday, 30 July 2007

LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS


Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1999) dir. Guy Ritchie
Starring: Jason Statham, Jason Flemyng, Nick Moran, Vinnie Jones

***1/2

“Lock, Stocking and Two Smoking Barrels” is one of the fastest, funnier, and more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half of your time. It’s essentially a classic comedy of errors, with lots of guns, swearing and bloodshed. It has a loopy, Byzantine plot, constructed like a rat race for the dozen characters or so running through a complex maze all looking for the cheese at the end.

The cheese at the end of this race is either one three things – a half a million pounds - cash, several dozen bags of premium grow-op weed, or two antique long-barreled rifles. The chief protagonists, Eddie, Bacon, Tom and Soap are a group of petty criminals who get fucked over in a card game which was supposed to net them thousands of dollars of money. Instead the leader, Eddie (Nick Moran), loses £500,000, which he has only one week to pay back. Like traditional comedies of errors, the solution comes to them by accident – next door, a pathetic group of potheads have grown and harvested more than enough weed to play back Eddie’s loan. When they overhear another group of thugs planning to steal their stash, they decide ambush the thieves and make off with the weed themselves.

Of course things don’t go as planned as they try to sell the weed to the same gangsters who operated the grow-op. Things just get more and more twisted as each group of gangsters cross and intersect each other in hopes of claiming the big score. Lots of bodies and bullets pile up in the process.

The star of the film is the plot, and it really is a work of art. It’s virtually airtight and holds up remarkably well without obvious exposition. But the plot wouldn’t be worth anything if it weren’t for the colourful actors who inhabit their colourful characters. Vinnie Jones and Jason Statham shine the brightest and both of them have gone on to successful careers as low-rent action heavies. In fact, I think Statham has created a subgenre unto himself – the “Jason Statham” action film (“The Transporter”, “Crank” and the upcoming “War”).

Though the plot is complex Ritchie keeps the storytelling simple by relying strictly on plot instead of character development. “Lock, Stock” is old school in the Melville or Dassin school of crime filmmaking. Our protagonists’ journey is motivated by money. There’s no token emotional character arcs or love interests. In fact there’s only one female character in the film, though ironically, she is given perhaps the most bad-ass of scenes to play – mowing down a set of thieves with a massive machine gun.

Guy Ritchie amps up the style with a variety of shooting speeds, odd camera angles, funky music, flashbacks and interconnecting storylines. Though many of his frames are inspired by the Tarantino/Woo school of 90’s filmmaking, the film rarely feels tired or derivative. Perhaps it’s the English hooliganness of it.

As a comedy of errors in the crime genre the film owes a lot to Martin Brest’s “Midnight Run”, and ZAZ’s “Ruthless People”. In both these films the actions of our heroes are driven by happy accidents, sloppy mistakes and mistaken identities. “Lock Stock is no exception”, and Ritchie does at least one thing right in his screenplay, he puts more than enough obstacles in front of his heroes.

Watching “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” with some hot coffee and a bagel was the perfect Sunday morning today. It exercised my eyes, ears and brain enough to kickstart me for the day, but not too much to give me a headache or a hangover. Enjoy.

Buy it here: Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (Widescreen Edition)