The Adventures of Tintin

Rated: PG
 

First off, I have not ever read any of the Tintin comics, so I'm not writing this review from the perspective of someone who is comparing the film to the books. Therefore, if there were any inconsistencies in the movie, I didn't catch them - fans, feel free to inform me of any. I'm more than willing to learn.

Unless the movie was way off from the books, I imagine that even if I had been versed in Tintin's adventures prior to going, I would have enjoyed it as much as I did. I would have loved this movie when I was little. It would have even beaten out Indiana Jones (which was my ultimate favorite adventure series when I was little) by quite a lot, if only because Tintin is a far more likable character than Indy, and Harrison Ford didn't play him.

The computer animation in this was just astounding. I am not one who is very impressed with CG and the like - yes, it is nice when CGI looks real, but I really don't give much thought either way (unless it is just horrible). However, this is one time where I would actually say the movie was worth seeing just for the animation. The people are eerily realistic looking, and there were several times where I had to do a double-take when the camera panned over the "extras," to make sure they weren't real. It was amazing, and added to the overall appeal of the movie.

While a kids' movie, I think most ages would enjoy it. The storyline isn't very surprising - the mystery and clues easy to put together, but it's entertaining nonetheless, and there are many instances where the dialogue is actually very funny. Here was a time where the comic-relief character (Captain Haddock) truly managed to be amusing and not just irritating. It being geared more towards kids, there are, of course, a few chaotic scenes that got a little wearing, but they don't last super long, and they are very few. 

All in all, I thought The Adventures of Tintin was a very fun, quite amusing, and very well-done film (the acting, even though you could not see the actors themselves, was brilliant), and they planned for a sequel intelligently, ending it to where if, for some reason, they decide not to make a second, it doesn't ruin the ending of the first. For the truth is no adventure can just end where everything is wrapped up in the end. There has to be something more, even if the Reader (or, in this case, Viewer) doesn't get to see it for themselves. Seeing this movie made me feel like a kid again, and I can safely say that even now, at my age, it's my favorite adventure movie. Indiana Jones just lost its honorary place among my adventure collection.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Rated: PG-13

First off, let me say that the trailer has, once again, fibbed, for the movie was not nearly as bad as it made it out to be, and you don’t know how glad I am to be able to say that. I was so worried that they were going to mess it up by trying to out-do the first one. Thank goodness, they didn’t.

That said, I will admit that A Game of Shadows was not as good as the first one. Nor was I anticipating it to be. Don’t get me wrong – it was very good, and I have every intention of buying it, and may go and see it in theaters at least one more time (making a total of three viewings). But it simply was not as good as the first. There were a few scenes where I think the makers were trying to out-do the first one, but then realized that perhaps that wasn’t such a good idea, and stopped. The action level was not upped by much, but due to the manner in which they filmed the action sequences, it felt like there was. The biggest action scene I had an issue with was a part towards the end, when Holmes and Co. are running through the woods while being shot at with guns and heavy artillery. The makers put the majority of this scene in super, super slow motion; they were trying so hard to convince the Viewer that this was an intense scene, and all they ended up doing was producing a dragged-out, kind of weird action sequence that didn’t fit in to a Holmes movie. It’s almost as if they were making up for the fact that the movie is not in 3D (which I am profoundly glad it isn’t).

The train scene was almost as bad. Again, I don’t think it was necessarily a very long sequence, but it felt like one, due to the deviation from good dialogue and overzealous use of heavy guns. Now, I love big guns – the artillery and whatnot was way awesome, and completely fine. It was the way they used it – ripping through train cars and exploding trees in slow motion. It just felt a little excessive. And as for Sherlock dressing “in drag” during this train sequence, as a whole, I didn’t mind it at all – Holmes often disguised himself as a woman in the stories. But once the shirt came off, it became evident to me that the makers did it to give Downey Jr.’s abs some showtime, and that I do have an issue with, because then it is a deliberate deviation from the character’s behavior.

The other issue I had was Irene Adler, and I am so pleased that she left the story when she did, because her dialogue had become far less than pleasing. Irene’s character was more than threatening to become “The Flirt.” A female character whose sole purpose is to say sassy things to the hero, while being flirtatious and essentially eye-candy with an Attitude. Oh dear; when Irene started talking, I sighed heavily in my chair and prayed that she would not be in it long. The makers walked a fine line with her character in the first one the way it is, and they crossed that line for the few moments that she was in A Game of Shadows. I am also not entirely certain how I feel about the scene where Watson is drunk, for it seems to me that it was inserted merely for laughs, and my Sherlockian radar whirred a bit in protest. However, these two complaints are fairly small, since the scenes concerned are short.

What about Mycroft in his birthday suit? Those of you who have already seen the movie are probably dying to ask me that very question. Well, for one thing, no one should have to see that much of Stephen Fry – ever, – but I did think it funny, and I could actually see Mycroft doing that. Frown at me if you want, you Basil Rathbone fans – I could see Mycroft wandering about his house with not a stitch upon him!

It may seem that I have a great many things to complain about, but I have many things that I liked. For one, I loved Mary Morstan’s more active role in events (they continue to do her superbly), and Simza was entirely believable. I am so glad that they did not try to give her The Attitude, made her a macho-chick, or even attempted to turn her into a new love interest for Holmes. The dialogue, for the most part, was very funny while remaining true to the characters, and Moriarty was amazing. They could not have done him better; he possessed the cold calmness Moriarty displays – never allowing his temper to show, never leaves loose ends, never hesitates to kill those who get in his way. And through all of this, you could see the madness behind the genius. One thing I never liked about The Final Problem was it didn’t make clear what, exactly, Moriarty was trying to accomplish – starting WWI was, while not necessarily original, still brilliant and kept true to Moriarty’s character.

While I will admit that the storyline, as a whole, was better than the first installment, it had a few too many flaws to make it as good as Sherlock Holmes “1”. When flashbacks were used to explain events in the first movie, they were easy to follow, while the flashbacks in A Game of Shadows were a little harder, because they sped through them so quickly. They tried a little too hard to impress with a few action sequences in A Game of Shadows, and even the music wasn’t as good as the first one. It fit the movie, true, but I just didn’t prefer it as much, and the ambiance of the second was more like an adventure, and less like a mystery. Which is still in keeping with the Holmes stories – not all of his cases feel like mysteries. The Final Problem felt more like an adventure than a mystery, so both movies did feel like a Sherlock Holmes story. This one just had a few more flaws. As I told many people: A Game of Shadows got progressively better, whereas Sherlock Holmes was brilliant from beginning to end.
 

However. The last 10-15 minutes – in short, the end – make whatever flaws A Game of Shadows has well worth sitting through. The final showdown between Holmes and Moriarty was sheer genius, and the solution to Moriarty’s final act that would send countries into WWI a total surprise – and a good one, at that. The scene where Moriarty interrogates Holmes, while gritty and grim to watch, was excellent – it showcased Moriarty’s insanity quite well. But the end was perfect. It makes up for everything else; completely saved the movie. If I have put you off from seeing the movie because of my complaints against the action, go see it just so you can watch the end, because I can only say one thing about it: phenomenal. Maybe you have to be a Sherlockian like me to appreciate it like I did, but I was truly impressed.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is worth seeing; just don’t expect it be as good as – and especially not better than – the first one. And remember what I said about the ending. I pray that the makers keep in mind whatever it is they were thinking when they filmed the end, when they make the third movie.

Jane Eyre

Rated: PG-13

An orphan, Jane Eyre is sent by her hateful aunt to a boarding-school, where she lives out a relatively miserable life and being trained as a governess. Several years later, at the age of 19, Jane is hired to be the governess to Mr. Edward Rochester's French ward, Adele, at the gloomy Thornfield Hall. When Jane meets her employer for the first time, she sees little to like in his brusque and often cruel manner, but as time passes, Jane discovers that Mr. Rochester has much to like in his manner - and even more to love. But there is a secret at Thornfield Hall - one that threatens her growing affection for her solemn employer - and, of course, Miss Blanche Ingram, a young woman of little fortune who is a "particular favorite" of Mr. Rochester's. Jane will have to undergo far more heartache than she has ever had to experience thus far, but only a strong-willed girl like herself could come out of it all with a level head.

I have not seen all of the movie versions of this popular tale, but I have seen several, and I have disliked all of them. I never was a fan of the romance between Rochester and Jane because the age difference is just creepy, plus there is very little to like about Rochester himself. He is mean-spirited, selfish, and kind of creepy (if I ever met him, I would be looking for the nearest police officer). But I don't read Jane Eyre for the love story; I read it for Jane's character, the mystery, and the writing style. I watch the movies for the same reason.

This particular film rendition is my favorite. It is cast exceptionally well, and though I at first had my doubts about Mia Wasikowska at Jane Eyre, I thought she did a tremendous job. I was particularly impressed with Jamie Bell's portrayal of St. John Rivers. He is a very hard character to do properly, but he managed it very well. Michael Fassbender actually managed to make Rochester a little likable, much to my astonishment, but at the same time stayed true to his character. And Jane Eyre's aunt, Mrs. Reed, is remarkably easy to hate in the short time she is in the movie. I loved the lighting they used for the film, their costumes were wonderful, and most - if not all - of the dialogue is taken directly from the book.

However, I have three complains:

1) They did not give you a chance to really hate Blanche Ingram. This is where many of the other movies succeeded. Blanche is such a wonderful character to hate in the book, with her snobbery and condescension. I was no great fan Adele, but I hated the way Blanche treated her! Blanche isn't in the movie for long, and they don't showcase her cruel comments towards Jane Eyre very much, if at all. It was a disappointing discovery that they spent so little time with her character.

2) They did not cover enough of Jane's time at the boarding-school. I have yet to see a film version where they cover a satisfactory amount of time at the boarding-school. For me, that is my favorite part in the book, and I am always disappointed when filmmakers only give it the cursory glance, then move on.

3) The mystery was not touched upon enough. It is like the makers wanted to focus more on the love story than the secret that is lurking at Thornfield Hall. In fact, it almost comes as quite a sudden occurrence when the secret is revealed in this particular version. If the makers had left the deleted scenes in, then there would have been a good lead-up to what was really going on. As it was, I don't think they paid enough attention to it.

Despite these shortcomings, though, I thought that they did an overall good job. I loved the cast, costumes, dialogue, and lighting - and of course the music. Jane Eyre with Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender is well worth seeing, and I applaud the success! One more thing to note is the rating; there is nothing in it and I am not entirely certain why it was not rated PG. So for those who are concerned about content - no worries!

The Eagle

Rated: PG-13

The year is 140 A.D. It's been 20 years since the Ninth Legion went missing in the mountains of Scotland, and it's up to Marcus Aquila (Channing Tatum) to find out what happened. His own father was the commander of the Ninth, and by discovering what fate befell the fearless leader, Aquila could restore his failing reputation. Crossing Hadrian's Wall and navigating the treacherous highlands of Caledonia won't be easy though, especially since Aquila's only traveling companion is his British slave, Esca (Jamie Bell). Along the way, Aquila will attempt to make peace with his father's memory as he and Esca confront the savage tribes of the land and attempt to recover the lost legion's golden emblem -- the treasured Eagle of the Ninth.

The Eagle was about what I was expecting - better, in fact, because I erred on the side of caution and anticipated for it to be stupid. But it was good. Very close to the book, the few changes they made excellent, and the main characters well cast. Jamie Bell was a perfect Esca. The Romans weren't so convincing, though. Marcus was good - I like who played him, - but the other Romans just didn't feel accurate with their American accents. I know that Romans didn't have British accents, either, but somehow Brits pull it off better. But everything else felt quite authentic, and the Romans themselves are not in it much. I think the makers of The Eagle did their best in accurately replicating dress, weapons, customs, and buildings fit for that time period, continent, and people, and they did a good job.

The story starts out a bit slow and it feels a little disjointed, while they transition between when Marcus settles into his command and then when he goes on the hunt for the Eagle. I wasn't surprised, though - I knew that this part of the story would be a little difficult to translate onto the screen. In books, we Authors have the privilege of summing up day-to-day things in a few words, connecting everything quite fluidly. Doesn't work so well onscreen. But it is a relatively short part of the movie, they did a better job that I was expecting, and once Esca is introduced into the movie, things start to pick up, and when he and Marcus start on their hunt for the Eagle, it's definitely good - all the way to the very end.

If you can't ignore the American Romans and the few spots where the dialogue isn't as spectacular (I could tell when the script shifted from what's actually in the book to where the writers made something up themselves, but this doesn't happen too often), the scenery definitely makes it worth watching. It was, naturally, filmed in Scotland, and they have some absolutely spectacular shots of the highlands. And lots of pretty horses. The music is pretty good, too.

Content-wise, there isn't anything to complain about. They say the s-word only once, and it is pretty easy to miss. There is no sexual content, and while there is certainly plenty of fighting, there is no blood. The hardest part to watch is when Marcus has his leg operated on for a second time (it gets smashed by a chariot in his first skirmish). The surgeon has to reopen the wound in order to remove some shrapnel that is still embedded in it. They show the wound very briefly - not a biggie - and they don't show the operation. Marcus has a flashback of when his father left with the Ninth legion during the surgery, and then it shifts to another scene. Quite different from the book - Rosemary Sutcliff spares some time to describe the operation, and it is painful to read.

I really hope that they will continue to make more Rosemary Sutcliff books into movies. The Eagle of the Ninth isn't her very best book - it's good, but not the best, and I would love to see Outcast or The Lantern Bearers. If they stay true to the book like they did with The Eagle, they will be excellent movies. Can't wait until it's out on DVD!

Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Rated: PG

I will skip a synopsis for this and "cut to the chase," as it were. After all, I am pretty certain that most everyone has a pretty good idea what it is about - and anyway, a synopsis would not be able to help you much.

I will start off by saying that I did enjoy the third installment of The Chronicles of Narnia. It was not as good as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe or Prince Caspian, true. I wasn't expecting it to be. There was a new director, new composer, and a new company to replace Disney. Such new things usually make a sequel not as good as its predecessors. So since I did not go in with such high expectations as most seem to have, I was able to like it for what it was.

Part of what made this one not as good as the other two is the fact that there isn't much of a storyline. This is no fault of the producers - the book doesn't have much of a storyline, either, and the makers tried to fix this as much as they could. They probably could have done a better job than they did, but then Narnia purists would be complaining even louder than they already are. Given these factors, the director did his best.

But, honestly, could they not have done better with the ship itself? While very pretty visually, anyone who knows anything about ships will notice many things amiss. Things like untarred lines, flimsy blocks and clips that, were they on a real ship, would snap in a trice should any real strain be put on them. Yes, most people will not notice this - but I really cannot pardon the lack of tar on lines. Even an untrained eye would catch this; it is a fundamental aspect of a working vessel. The sea and the weather that accompanies it is hard on rope, wood, paint, etc. Tar protects.

This aspect was more painful for my sister than I, her being a scholar of ships and sailing in general. What amused me most were some points concerning . . . Caspian. Correct me if I am wrong, dear Readers, but did Caspian not have a decidedly Spanish accent in the second movie? I know, it was not his real accent; that he is British. That is obvious if you watch Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I don't know if the director decided that with the very long hair (longer than mine!) and sad little beginnings of a beard, Caspian would just seem too gay with a Spanish accent and chose to bag it altogether, or what. But Caspian is now British - and decidedly from London. I am sorry - absolutely everyone will notice that. And I could not stop cackling over it.

And so I must close my review. It is an enjoyable movie and was a great source of amusement for my sister and I. It is a good thing there were only two other people in the theater; we might have been thrown out if there were more to overhear our snickers and hilarious comments concerning Caspian's brilliant locks (and no, these were not comments in favor of). I will probably buy it when it comes out on DVD, but it is not necessarily one you have to see in theaters. Unless you simply must see it in 3D - which I didn't; 3D gives me a headache. And as enjoyable as this one was, I do hope The Silver Chair is better. I have hopes for that one, for it has more of a storyline than Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Alice in Wonderland

Rated: PG
 

Nineteen-year-old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is attending a party at a lavish country estate when she sees a white rabbit with a pocket watch dart into the bushes. Curious, she follows the rabbit to an enormous tree, and tumbles down a hole that takes her to Underland, a strange world inhabited by anthropomorphic creatures in search of someone to save them from the dreaded Red Queen (Helena Bonham-Carter), who has assumed control of the kingdom by decapitating anyone who dares disagree with her. According to a scroll detailing a historical timeline of Underland -- including events that have not yet taken place -- it is Alice who will set the kingdom free by defeating the Jabberwocky, a powerful dragon-like creature under the control of the Red Queen. But is this Alice the same Alice who appears in the scroll? While some of the creatures of Underland have their doubts, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and his friends are certain she's the same girl who previously visited them years ago. When the Red Queen kidnaps the Mad Hatter, Alice attempts to free her friend and locate the one weapon with the power to slay the Jabberwocky, thereby restoring the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) to the throne, and bringing peace back to Underland.

I really liked this Alice in Wonderland. I confess that I have yet to read the books, but I know enough about them that I was able to appreciate everything the movie played off of. Some people apparently didn't like the fact that Tim Burton wrote a sort of sequel rather than the same old Lewis Carroll story, but I'm glad he didn't. Practically everyone knows the story of Alice in Wonderland; to turn it into a movie would have been dull, because - let us face it, - while it is an entertaining read, it really has no storyline. It's a journey story, with no clear goal in the end. While I like these sorts of stories, it can make a movie drag and feel pointless. Tim Burton did a good job with "rewriting" it. He didn't really toy with the original story, but rather just extended it. And yet this movie did not feel like a sequel.

The cast was brilliant. When I found out that they were making Alice in Wonderland, I bet my friend $10 that Johnny Depp would play the Mad Hatter. And he was a brilliant Mad Hatter, though I do have to complain that sometimes he spoke so quietly and quickly that it was difficult to understand what he was saying. Even when I read sections of the book Alice in Wonderland, I always did find the Mad Hatter a pitiable character - not entirely certain why, - and I'm glad Tim Burton played upon that. Still, the Cheshire Cat was my favorite - always has been, always will. He reminds me of Mr. Bunbury, my cat, except he's more polite and helpful. They could not have done the Cheshire Cat any better in this. Helena Bonham-Carter was a very good Red Queen - I thought she was hilarious, - and Anne Hathaway made a good White Queen.

I know one of my friends didn't like that the CG wasn't so pristine that everything looked real. You could tell that things were CGd. But I really liked that! It gave the movie a more dreamlike quality, more nightmarish; something that would clearly be in a person's mind. If the CG had been so good that everything looked real, it would not have worked.

Alice in Wonderland was a very enjoyable, entertaining movie, with just the right quality of darkness that it needed. No one else but Tim Burton probably could have done it. I had very strange dreams after watching it, but I was impressed. It was good.

Sherlock Holmes

Here we are, people. We have waited patiently and with much anxiety for months for the release of Sherlock Holmes, and it is finally here!!! I had 2 hours of classes before I could zip by Walmart and pick up my own copy. Pure torture. My stomach was twisted up in knots in anticipation! After what seemed like ages, my last class of the day let out and I drove over to Walmart. No, I did not speed, though I was sorely tempted to talk my mom into it.

There, sitting on the shelf, was the movie. Very few copies were left, in fact. I didn't even glance at the other movies (though my mom forced me to go through the others before we left, grr). I swept up the DVD case and would not let it go until I could shelve it among my other movies. It looks quite lovely on the shelf. A perfect addition to my rather extensive movie library.

I was going to be a good and patient person, and wait until Friday night to watch the movie. But my friend Megan was down and she had not seen it as often as I. So we watched it. However, it was very loud with all of the dogs, and my dad hasn't yet gained from the pleasure of viewing said movie, so we'll probably watch it on Friday again anyway. In any case, I will need something to watch at the beginning of the weekend to wind me down. The first week of school always drives me to very nearly have a panic attack.

And I was wrong - there are not 3 direct quotes from the books. There are, in fact, 4. I will have to post them sometime.

My opinion of Sherlock Holmes has not diminished since my 6th viewing of it. Now that I have re-read the books for a 3rd time, I am even more adamant in my statement that this is the closest film version to the stories. Closer than Jeremy Brett and definitely closer than Basil Rathbone. I hope their sequel will be just as good as the first installment (and hopefully if they do end up casting Bad Pitt *shudder* as Moriarty, it will turn out to be a good choice). The makers walked a fine line with casting Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, but they managed to pull it off, as with many other elements. Now they should just rework their trailers . . . They probably could have found someone else to play Holmes just as effectively as Robert Downey Jr. did, but Downey displayed Holmes's energy level perfect, as well as his petulance, and he looked utterly pathetic and pouty when his feelings were hurt. Downey did well. And, of course, they could not have found a better person to play Watson or Mary. The level of action is not too absurd for a Holmes story, the dialogue is hilarious, and it is very much in keeping with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories.

The only "major" change they made was that Watson did not meet Mary Morstan through one of Holmes's cases, when, in fact, he did - The Sign of the Four. But in my Sherlockian opinion, it was an acceptable change for the movie. They did it well and it added to the hilarity.

The one scene my Sherlockian senses object to is the whole scene with Irene Adler at the Grand Hotel. While I laughed at Holmes being handcuffed to the bed with naught but a pillow to preserve his dignity, the likelihood of something like this appearing in one of the stories is unlikely. It was obvious that they put it in for cheap laughs, and it drew away a little from the Holmesian atmosphere the movie had. But not enough to ruin it.

And on another note - some people seem to think (Downey included) that Watson and Holmes's friendship is rather . . . gay. I have already debunked this stupid and absurd myth, but it's brought up something I've been meaning to post. In describing this, people tend to use the horrendous word "bromance." This word - unless used in jest, as in poking fun at the absurdity of the theory - is banned from my blog. I dislike censoring comments so, but I simply cannot stand that word.

Well, I must turn my attention to my Humanities paper now. Happy day, fellow Sherlockians! Enjoy your movie! I, in fact, declare this day Sherlock Holmes Day!! ;)