Rate / Review the Last Film you've seen v.3

[Wab]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY - 10/10

Wow. Wow. Wow. and Wow.

This film finally moved from limited release in 17 U.S. theaters to a larger release in 809 theaters. And my theater was packed.

I already had high expectations for this film based on reviews and the television trailer, but I didn't know how I'd hold up viewing a complex British spy thriller. Thankfully, my fears were unfounded. The taut script uses flashbacks to take the viewer on trips into compelling smaller stories that help to fill in blanks for the larger story. Because the script was so well conceived, I had no real trouble following the notoriously difficult TINKER TAILOR plot. Yet the script trusted viewers' intelligence - allowing us to make inferences based on what we saw on screen.

The movie also gets the period perfect - to the point that the movie itself feels like a serious spy movie produced in the very period that it is recounting. But it does so seamlessly, without drawing attention to the effort. Quite a feat, I'd say.

Gary Oldman's performance as George Smiley is impeccable. And the Supporting Cast is just as brilliant as I expected it would be when I first saw the cast list.

Despite its being a very quiet movie, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY is intense. It kept me on the edge of my seat throughout the entire two hours. I had high expectations going in, but this movie exceeded those expectations.

Highly recommended.

Possible Oscar nominations:    

---

Having brilliant source material also helped.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by Wab

Having brilliant source material also helped.

Well, yes. But brilliant scripting turned the brilliant source material into an eminently watchable version of a notoriously complex plot. This could have been a fiasco. But it wasn't.

[Midnightsfire]

Just as an aside, the Lord of the Rings series is considered brilliant by many, but how many movie versions was made before Jackson's version? Which many have finally given a thumbs up on, likely out of exhaustion, but the approval is still there....

[yorkiedoodle]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Well, yes. But brilliant brilliant scripting turned the brilliant source material into an eminently watchable version of a notoriously complex plot. This could have been a fiasco. But it wasn't.

I agree - the BBc version was hours long - the film version was eminently watchable and the plot was followable. I heard both Colin Firth or Gary Oldman interviewed and one of them said that an extra line of dialogue had proved necessary - and someone from the team had rung up le Carre who had produced one immediately!

[HedwigOwl]

Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows - 9/10

Thought this was very well done, never a dull moment; great character interaction...kudos to Robert Downey Jr. & Jude Law. The movie audience actually applauded heartily at the end of the film.

[yorkiedoodle]

i agree - and hats off to Robert Downey Jnr for a very good British accent!

[ccollinsmith]

May I ask a question with regard to the Sherlock Holmes movie?

I've been avoiding it because I heard that it was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing - i.e., that it was a violation of canonical Sherlock by turning the detective into primarily an action hero rather than showing him primarily as a master of the "science of deduction."

Would those of you who enjoyed it care to elaborate on why it would be worth seeing for fans of the canonical Holmes? Note: I am a fan of BBC Sherlock and of The Seven Percent Solution, so I can certainly be persuaded to watch a film that takes some liberties. I just need a little more detail on what makes this a worthwhile portrayal of Holmes.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by Midnightsfire

Just as an aside, the Lord of the Rings series is considered brilliant by many, but how many movie versions was made before Jackson's version? Which many have finally given a thumbs up on, likely out of exhaustion, but the approval is still there....

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here...

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here...

Just a comment that brilliant source material doesn't always help until having a good director, writer, actors, etc...comes into play.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

I've been avoiding it because I heard that it was a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing - i.e., that it was a violation of canonical Sherlock by turning the detective into primarily an action hero rather than showing him primarily as a master of the "science of deduction."

Well if I recall correctly "canonical Sherlock" actually is quite physical. Like it's written in Doyle's stories he was a boxer and whatnot...

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherloc...d_martial_arts

Yeah

[Midnightsfire]

I admit that I'm more a fan of the Basil Rathbone Holmes.

[ccollinsmith]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Well if I recall correctly "canonical Sherlock" actually is quite physical. Like it's written in Doyle's stories he was a boxer and whatnot...

EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherloc...d_martial_arts

Yeah

Yeah, I know that canonical Holmes has those physical capabilities. But what I was asking about was whether this film is skewed in that direction.

Canonical Holmes is capable of getting physical, but he's not primarily an action hero. I've heard that Downey's Holmes is action hero first, investigator second (or third, or fourth, or lower). The reviews I've read make it sound as if Downey's Holmes exercises his physical muscles quite a bit while exercising his mental muscles hardly at all.

I was asking if that's a correct assessment.

[HedwigOwl]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Yeah, I know that canonical Holmes has those physical capabilities. But what I was asking about was whether this film is skewed in that direction.

Canonical Holmes is capable of getting physical, but he's not primarily an action hero. I've heard that Downey's Holmes is action hero first, investigator second (or third, or fourth, or lower). The reviews I've read make it sound as if Downey's Holmes exercises his physical muscles quite a bit while exercising his mental muscles hardly at all.

I was asking if that's a correct assessment.

I think they do a good job of portraying both. Granted, this is a different interpretation than the more so-called traditional interpretations (which I've also watched over the years). For me, as long as they do a good job with the characters' relationship and the mystery solving itself, I have a good tolerance for a wide range of Sherlock interpretations. In my opinion, the Robert Downey Jr./Jude Law pairing is excellent, and there's good balance between brains & brawn. More action in this one than the first, but flows well within the story.

I was concerned about the new BBC Sherlock TV series, for example, thinking that the modern-day setting would ruin it -- but it works brilliantly in my opinion on all counts (though I'm not sure yet about the modern Moriarity). The relationship between Holmes & Watson is very well done here as well, as are the mysteries. Well worth watching.

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

I was asking if that's a correct assessment.

I'd say no...there was a lot of clever mental strategy presented, particularly in the sequel. As Hedwig said, there's a good balance.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

I'd say no...there was a lot of clever mental strategy presented, particularly in the sequel. As Hedwig said, there's a good balance.

I don't doubt what you're saying, but I still wonder, after having seen the first film (which reminded me of Sherlock Holmes about as much as Star Wars does). The key question I have is whether the film builds tension with the unsolved mystery or with the threat of people getting shot and blown up.

[ccollinsmith]

Thanks for the responses, HedwigOwl and lcbaseball. I'll put the film on my list.

(And yes, I do love the BBC Sherlock series)

[lcbaseball22]

Originally Posted by ccollinsmith

Thanks for the responses, HedwigOwl and lcbaseball. I'll put the film on my list.

Ok, and you may have already been planning this but I suggest to watch the first one then decide if you like it enough to see the sequel. Personally I enjoyed both quite a lot, but the storyline of the first was more coherant.

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I don't doubt what you're saying, but I still wonder, after having seen the first film (which reminded me of Sherlock Holmes about as much as Star Wars does).

Well I can't agree. Sure, it's not the typical image people think of when they hear the words Sherlock Holmes (ie no hat) but I recall a lot of intellect being used and even if there was a lot of action, well read this interview...

He wanted to make his film more "authentic" to Doyle,[8] explaining, "There's quite a lot of intense action sequences in the stories, [and] sometimes that hasn't been reflected in the movies."[30] Holmes' "brilliance will percolate into the action", and the film will show that his "intellect was as much of a curse as it was a blessing".[9] Ritchie sought to make Sherlock Holmes a "very contemporary film as far as the tone and texture", because it has been "a relatively long time since there's been a film version that people embraced"

Here's a terrific example of the combo of brains and brawn-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkn6s...feature=relmfu

[Yoana]

Mean Girls - 9/10

Fantastic film! It was both funny and masterful in tackling the tired old cliche of high-school girl rivalry and hate with actual thoughtfulness. And I loved Tina Fey in it.

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by lcbaseball22

Well I can't agree. Sure, it's not the typical image people think of when they hear the words Sherlock Holmes (ie no hat) but I recall a lot of intellect being used and even if there was a lot of action, well read this interview...

I mean, I don't know that there's anything to agree or disagree about. It's been a while since I saw the first film, but whether it reminded me of Doyle's works (or other adaptations) or not isn't a matter for debate--it just didn't. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.

My question was not about the character, but about the way the story is put together.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

I mean, I don't know that there's anything to agree or disagree about. It's been a while since I saw the first film, but whether it reminded me of Doyle's works (or other adaptations) or not isn't a matter for debate--it just didn't. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.

My question was not about the character, but about the way the story is put together.

I agree.

The first movie was entertaining enough for me.

But for it to be a story based upon Doyle's character, that story needs a certain noir quality, a dark forboding tone that seems to me everpresent even during the denoument. The actors and how they are portrayed are well enough. I especially enjoy Jude Law's take on Watson. But how it was all put together just doesn't feel like Doyle's creation, but more like some American's interpretation. (Ironic that, considering it's Guy Ritchie)