Movie Review: The Gentlemen

The Gentlemen *** / *****

Directed by: Guy Ritchie.

Written by: Guy Ritchie and Ivan Atkinson & Marn Davies.

Starring: Matthew McConaughey (Mickey Pearson), Charlie Hunnam (Raymond), Michelle Dockery (Rosalind), Jeremy Strong (Cannabis Kingpin Mathew), Colin Farrell (Coach), Henry Golding (Dry Eye), Hugh Grant (Fletcher), Jason Wong (Phuc), Christopher Evangelou (Primetime), Eliot Sumner (Laura Pressfield).

 

Guy Ritchie’s two best films remain his first two – Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch – which were (rightly) considered at the time as among the better of the main Quentin Tarantino clones that came out in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Neither film was great – but they captured they had energy, were entertaining, and had some great performances in them. In the many years since, Ritchie has often maintained that kind of hyper-stylization, but he has applied them studio tent poles like Sherlock Holmes or would-be tent poles like The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (a film I like more in retrospect than I did at the time) – although in films like last year’s Aladdin, he pretty much had to mute all of that to appease Disney. His latest film, The Gentlemen, is being marketed as a return to that kind of filmmaking – and so it is – yet I could help but think as I watched the film that it felt more like a clone of those earlier films, which were as mentioned, a clone of Tarantino films – so what we have here is a clone of a clone, and while the result is entertaining for the most part, I’m not quite sure I see the point of it.

 

The Gentlemen has an interesting structure – with P.I. Fletcher (Hugh Grant, clearly having almost as much as he did in Paddington 2) telling a story to Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) in the hopes that Raymond can convince his boss, Mickey (Matthew McConaughey) to pay him a lot of money to stop him from taking the story to the papers. It’s the story of how Mickey became the biggest pot dealer in England, and how he’s trying to cash out now by selling his business to Matthew (Jeremy Strong), while fending off a takeover bid by Dry Eye (Henry Goldin). Twists and turns abound – involving all sorts of unsavory characters – including Coach (a scene stealing Colin Farrell), and the young men he trains at boxing. Lots of death, lots of drug, lots of swearing follow.

 

I found it hard to care too much about anything that happens in the movie – these are all objectively awful people, and perhaps even worse, there’s no one here – aside from Farrell – who you really root for in spite of that. Any outcome then – no matters how lives, who dies, who wins, who loses, doesn’t really matter. Still, it’s all wrapped up in an entertaining package. Ritchie’s writing still plays like someone trying to imitate Tarantino from 25 years ago, with some British slang thrown in – but he’s got such a talented cast, that they’re able to deliver it all in a way that works. Farrell and Grant are the best at this – although McConaughey is having fun here as well. Hunnam is his usual stereotypical dull character – but Ritchie leans into that a little, by making Raymond so calm throughout that the fact that he’s a little boring doesn’t really hurt him. It’s clear for someone like Michelle Dockery, of Downton Abbey fame, her role here is an attempt to complicate the image people have of her – with mixed results, and for Henry Golding, it’s perhaps to play someone who isn’t so damn perfect. I’m not quite sure what the hell Jeremy Strong, so great on Succession, is doing here but I almost suspect it’s something like Benicio Del Toro in The Usual Suspects, who found the character so dull as written, that he did something to amuse himself, and it worked.

 

There’s not much more to The Gentlemen than that. It’s pretty much a Guy Ritchie reboot of those old films, so if you’re nostalgic for them, then boy is this the movie you. It’s got the same style, the same writing, the same energy as those earlier films – and if no one quite reaches the heights of Brad Pitt in Snatch, well, at least it’s not for a lack of trying. The film does have perhaps a little too much of a studio sheen to it – something Lock, Stock and Snatch didn’t really have – but I suppose you cannot spend as long as Ritchie has churning out intellectual property content without some of it rubbing off on you. The Gentlemen is a fun diversion then at best – a reminder of why Ritchie was seen as a very promising director 20 years ago when burst onto the scene, but also further proof that he hasn’t really advanced since then.

Movie Review: Aladdin

Aladdin ** ½ / *****

Directed by: Guy Ritchie.

Written by: John August and Guy Ritchie.

Starring: Will Smith (Genie), Mena Massoud (Aladdin), Naomi Scott (Jasmine), Marwan Kenzari (Jafar), Nasim Pedrad (Dalia), Navid Negahban (Sultan), Alan Tudyk (Iago), Billy Magnussen (Prince Anders), Imran Yusuf (Omar), Amir Boutrous (Jamal), Maya Saroya (Ese), Jordan A. Nash (Barro), Minhaz Zee (Razaq the City Guard), Song-Hung Chang (Ahmed).

 

One of the previews I saw when I took the family to see Disney’s live action Aladdin remake this weekend was for Maleficent: Mistress of Evil, the second film in the series starring Angelina Jolie as Disney’s Sleeping Beauty villain. I said to my wife then that at least with those films, as flawed as the first one was, that Disney was at least trying to do something different – trying to have a new take on a classic. The biggest problem that films like Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast a few years ago, is that there doesn’t seem to be much of a reason for them to exist. They are essentially just completing remaking animated classics – that kids are still watching, still loving, in an effort to make more money from existing Intellectual Property. The songs are the same, the action beats are the same, the costumes, the characters, everything is the same. They do add to the stories – Beauty and the Beast was 45 minutes longer – this one is just about 40 minutes longer. They added a few new songs here – the biggest one being for Jasmine, which was part of a larger effort to give Jasmine more agency, and more to do, than the films from 1990s did. That’s a good thing. And yet, for the most part, I sat watching this film – which wasn’t particularly bad, but wasn’t particularly good – and wondered if we all wouldn’t have had a better time sitting at home and watching the Blu-Ray of the animated version for the 10^th time. The answer is no – and not just because I don’t like leaving the house.

 

Relative newcomer Mena Massoud has the title role, and he’s is rather bland and forgettable. He isn’t bad by any means; he just doesn’t stand out. He’s an okay singer, an okay actor, but has a minimal screen presence – you don’t really ever feel much for him. Naomi Scott is a legitimately wonderful Jasmine – that she is drop dead gorgeous is undeniable, but she has real charisma and presence, and she can really sing. She makes what is basically a fairly forgettable new song and turns into something quite good. You really want her to be the focus of the movie – as she is the best part. As for Will Smith as the Genie, well, he does what he was asked to do. He was clearly told to go big, bigger if possible than Robin Williams, which was already probably too big for the movie to contain it. He goes really big from his first scene, and that keeps getting bigger. His musical numbers are okay, I guess – he isn’t the world’s best singer, but he does it okay. Marwan Kenzari as Jafar just isn’t quite as menacing as his animated counterpart.

 

The film was directed by Guy Ritchie, but apart from a couple of moments where he goes full slow motion with it (for reasons that aren’t clear) – he seems to have muted his style. This is both good and bad – good because Ritchie has at times in his career he goes overboard with style, completely overwhelming the material, bad because it makes Aladdin seem like even more of a faceless corporate product than it otherwise would be. Watching it, you see the competence of the filmmaking on every level, but you don’t really feel like anyone involved feels anything personal connection with the material. It’s all just a job – something churned out cynically for money. While it’s true that all movies – particularly all movies made for this much money, by companies like Disney – are made for money, the best of them still feel like something someone is making because they believe in it. Here, it all just feels like a job.

 

The film is big and bloated – it goes on for 129 minutes, which as mentioned is much longer than the 90 minutes of the original, but other than a few nice moments with Jasmine and her handmaid (played by SNL’s Nasim Pedrad), there isn’t much of a reason for that added runtime. It’s a movie cynically made to separate those who grew up with Aladdin from their money – hopefully taking their children, so another generation will fall in love with the movie. It may work at that – in that kids will watch the animated film, and love it. As for this film, yeah, it will pass the time for kids – and they may well like it. I cannot imagine too many of them feeling the same way about this film as their parents feel about the original though.

Movie Review: The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
Directed by: Guy Ritchie.   
Written by: Guy Ritchie & Lionel Wigram and Jeff Kleeman & David C. Wilson based on the television series by Sam Rolfe.
Starring: Henry Cavill (Solo), Armie Hammer (Illya), Alicia Vikander (Gaby), Elizabeth Debicki (Victoria), Luca Calvani (Alexander), Sylvester Groth (Uncle Rudi), Hugh Grant (Waverly), Jared Harris (Sanders), Christian Berkel (Udo), Misha Kuznetsov (Oleg), Guy Williams (Captain Smith).

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is the type of action movie you expect to be released in August – the dog days of summer, when studios are releasing movies they don’t have enough faith in to release earlier in the summer. It’s based on a TV show from 50 years ago, which is probably vaguely familiar with most audiences now (my mother remembers it well), and has two fairly generic male leads – who are famous, but not really movie stars. It has been directed by Guy Ritchie with his usual energy and breakneck pacing, which can either be effective or headache inducing depending on the movie. The end result certainly isn’t bad – it’s kind of fun – but it’s a parking lot movie – as in you have completely forgotten about it by the time you reach the parking lot after leaving the theater. In a summer that has given us an excellent spy movie – and 1960s TV adaptation – in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation there really is no real reason to see The Man from U.N.C.L.E.

The story takes place just after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the mid-1960s. The opening sequence has CIA Agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) and KGB Agent Illya Kurykin (Armie Hamer) competing against each other to see who can get Gaby (Alicia Virkander) out of East Berlin, in the hopes that she can help them track down her former-Nazi rocket scientist, who has gone missing, and everyone worries is working for an international terrorist organization developing more advanced nuclear weapons. It turns out, it doesn’t really matter which agent wins – their organizations have already decided that this is such a huge problem that they are going to team up to take down the organization – with Gaby’s help. So, it’s off to Rome, where the trio go under cover – and try and figure out if they can trust each other.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a fun little movie in some ways. Henry Cavill is amusing and charming in the role of Solo – which is surprising considering how bland a Superman he made (admittedly, Superman is kind of bland) – and shows that perhaps he could be good in these types of roles, if only they give him a little more to work with than this movie does. Likewise, Armie Hamer is amusing as Illya, but he’s given even less to do. The highlight of the trio is the immensely talented Virkander, who looks great in the exaggerated 1960s fashion the movie drapes her in, and is effortlessly enjoyable to watch. Elizabeth Debicki is also a joy to watch, as an over the top, aristocratic bad girl. And Hugh Grant gives the movie an dose of humor when it needs it most.

The movie is directed by Ritchie with constant energy, which gets tiring after a while, especially since he doesn’t really seem to know how to direct action sequences very well. The best one in the movie happens in the background while Solo stops to eat a sandwich. The nadir of the action sequences is a late movie which is chaotic and confusing. The movie is at its best when its at its most relaxed – sequences between Illya and Gaby in their hotel room for example - and since Ritchie is not a director who likes to relax, those moments don’t come often enough. Then there is a bizarre sequence late in the film that uses the horrors of WWII in a way that made me quite uncomfortable.

For the most part though, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is just an amusing, low stakes films – the type of late summer movie you see because its too damn hot to do anything else, and its starting soon. It’s not bad for a time waster – but its not something you really need to see.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows ***

Directed by: Guy Ritchie.

Written by: Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney based on the characters by Arthur Conan Doyle.

Starring: Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes), Jude Law (Dr. John Watson), Noomi Rapace (Madam Simza Heron), Rachel McAdams (Irene Adler), Jared Harris (Professor James Moriarty), Stephen Fry (Mycroft Holmes), Paul Anderson (Colonel Sebastian Moran), Kelly Reilly (Mary Watson), Geraldine James (Mrs. Hudson), Eddie Marsan (Inspector Lestrade).

The Sherlock Holmes I have in my head from when I read the novels and short stories as a child will never been the version that Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr. put on screen. I prefer the cerebral Holmes of the story, instead of the action movie star presented in the movies, and I think my opinion of the first movie was probably adversely effected by this – it wasn’t MY Sherlock Holmes onscreen, so while I enjoyed the film, I never quite loved it. With my illusions of who I think Holmes should be shattered, I walked into the sequel with lower expectations, and found I enjoyed the film more than the original. It still isn’t a great film – and it still isn’t my Holmes – but it does what it does with skill and confidence, and wraps it all in an entertaining package.

Watson (Jude Law) is about to get married, which means he will be permanently abandoning Holmes, leaving the eccentric genius to be more fully himself – which is, of course, an obnoxious ass. Holmes needs Watson to rein him in a little bit – and even Holmes knows this. But such is life. Holmes is currently working on a case that everyone else thinks is insanity – a series of bombings across Europe, which appears to be the work of terrorist groups trying to start a world war, but Holmes believes it all traces back to Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), a brilliant math professor. No one believes him, but he is starting to get more evidence, and when, after the wedding, Moriarty tells Holmes to leave him along or else he’ll kill Watson and his new wife, Holmes feels he must stop it – and of course, Watson comes along for the ride. They are joined by Madam Simza (Noomi Rapace), a gypsy, whose brother has gone missing – and they fear will be used by Moriarty to carry out his next bomb blast.

Robert Downey Jr, is, like he was in the first film, the reason to see this. No, he may not be my idea of Holmes, but his version is hugely entertaining. Quick witted and funny, Downey grabs hold of the screen every time he’s on it, and you cannot wait to see what he’ll do next. Jude Law is the perfect straight man, keeping the film somewhat grounded, and playing off Downey wonderfully. I do wish they had given Noomi Rapace, so good in the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, a little more to do. And I certainly wish that Jared Harris had been given more room to manoeuvre as Moriarty – who was always Holmes greatest adversary. Yes, he’s smart here, but still, he cannot match wits with Holmes as much as he should.

The direction by Guy Ritchie is hyper-stylized, and for the most part it works – although I do wish he’d stop trying to compete with Zack Snyder over who can use the most needless slow motion shots in any given movie. Ritchie will probably never develop into the great filmmaker his first two films (Lock, Stop and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch) suggested he may turn into, but at least he’s not being as pretentious as some of his later films have been. He may never turn into England’s Quentin Tarantino, but settling for being England’s Robert Rodriguez isn’t all bad.

In short, while Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is far from a great film, it is superior entertainment. I do wish someone would more faithful version of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories again, but for now, these versions will do.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes ***
Directed By: Guy Ritchie.
Written By: Michael Robert Johnson & Anthony Peckham & Simon Kinberg based on the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes), Jude Law (Dr. John Watson), Rachel McAdams (Irene Adler), Mark Strong (Lord Blackwood), Eddie Marsan (Inspector Lestrade), Robert Maillet (Dredger), Geraldine James (Mrs. Hudson), Kelly Reilly (Mary Morstan), William Houston (Constable Clark), Hans Matheson (Lord Coward), James Fox (Sir Thomas).

I’ve known for a while now that the TV show House was inspired greatly by Sherlock Holmes. I bring this up because watching Guy Ritchie’s version of Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed detective, the interaction between Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) reminded me more than anything of the interaction between House and Wilson on that TV show. It has been a while since I read any of Doyle’s books (I read almost all of them as a child) I cannot tell if House just does a great job of adapting Doyle’s books, or if this version of Sherlock Holmes does an excellent job of adapting House for the big screen, or neither.

The interaction between Holmes and Watson is the heart of the movie, and the reason to see it. Downey has made a career of late playing egomaniacal assholes who are geniuses, but rub everyone around him the wrong way. Holmes is another of those characters, the biggest difference this time being that he has a British accent as he acts like an asshole. But Downey plays these roles better than anyone. And, as always, in Sherlock Holmes, he is great. Jude Law is excellent as Watson. He loves Holmes in his own way, but is tired of being at his beck and call at all hours. He is moving out of their shared flat, and moving his office away from Holmes, He wants to get engaged, and move on with his life. But Holmes has a hold on him, and won’t let go. Much like House and Wilson, Holmes cannot let Watson go, because if he does his one connection with humanity will be gone, and Holmes may not be able to find his way back.

The case at the center of the movie didn’t really interest me very much. The thing I always liked about the Holmes stories was how there was a central mystery, and we were never sure until the final scenes who was behind all the wickedness in the story. In the movie, we know from the first scene that the bad guy is Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), even though he is supposedly hung early in the story. We also know that Holmes’ former love Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is not completely on the up and up. All of Holmes deductive powers are not really used in the movie, unless its to figure out how best to beat someone up.

That’s right, there’s a lot of action in this movie. Lots of chase sequences and fights between Holmes and various bad guys. Yes, director Guy Ritchie will tell you that in the books Holmes liked to box and he studied martial arts. All this is true, but it was never really as much of a part of the story as it is here. But, what did you expect really? Times have changed, and films need non stop action these days to draw in and audience, and has Guy Ritchie has proven in the past, that if a movie doesn’t contain action, then he doesn’t know how to direct it. And Ritchie does a fine job with the direction in the film (even if he is overly fond of slow motion), but it is easily Ritchie’s best film since Snatch almost a decade ago. Perhaps Ritchie is finally back making the type of movies he should be making.

Sherlock Holmes plays like the first movie in a series. In it, the filmmakers seem more interesting in setting up the characters than telling a real story. True, they jam one in, and because Mark Strong is such a strong actor, he turns the obvious storyline into something more intense with his villainous turn. But I am looking forward to seeing what comes next. By the end of this film, they have introduced at least the idea of Holmes arch nemesis Professor Moriaty. Now that’s the Sherlock Holmes movie I want to see.