Grand Budapest Hotel (5 Stars)

This is a remarkable film. It received nine nominations for the Academy Awards, of which it won four. It failed to win the Best Film award because of "Birdman", a film I greatly liked at the time, but when I look back, "Grand Budapest Hotel" was by far the better film.

The film is about a hotel concierge and his lobby boy. The concierge is wrongly accused of murdering Madame D, an old rich woman. In her Will she's left him a valuable painting, "Boy With Apple". Madame D's son hires an assassin to kill the concierge, who's assisted in his flight by the faithful lobby boy.

The story in itself is good, but it's all about the cinematography. The colours are bright and dazzling, giving the impression that it's a fairy tale. In addition, every scene is perfectly framed like a piece of art, giving the impression of hyper-reality.

The concierge and the lobby boy. Do you see what I mean about the colours?

So this is the painting that people were willing to kill for? I don't understand art.

I've never seen Edward Norton looking so amart. It doesn't suit him. He's a jeans and t-shirt man, like me. But just look at the perfectly framed scene.

There are close-ups of newspapers several times during the film. The articles are all well written, albeit with American spelling. Very few films make the effort to use good texts in newspapers. However, there's one small error. Look at the date of the newspaper: Friday, October 19th, 1932. Wrong! It was a Wednesday.

Here's another edition of the Trans-Alpine Yodel, dated Tuesday, October 28th, 1932. That's wrong again. It was a Friday. But there's another error. The dates aren't even consistent with themselves. If the 19th had been a Friday, the second newspaper, printed nine days later, would have been printed on a Sunday. That's sloppy.

Success Rate:  + 4.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Captain Marvel (4½ Stars)

This was the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film to be released after Stan Lee's death. It begins with a tribute to Stan Lee built into the opening credits. The words "Thank you, Stan" at the end of the credits are a massive understatement. His contribution to modern culture can't be overestimated. My three-year-old grandson doesn't yet know the name Stan Lee, but he knows Spider-Man. He wears a Spider-Man jacket. Stan Lee's name will be remembered long after Martin Scorsese is forgotten. I would go as far as to call him the greatest man of the 20th Century. He will live in the hearts and minds of his fans forever.

The film contains a brief cameo that was filmed before his death. He's sitting on a bus attempting to learn the line for a film script. The line for this very film? Maybe. Captain Marvel walks past him and smiles down at him.

This is out of character. There's no logical reason for Captain Marvel to pay attention to an old man on the train when she's in the middle of a battle with a Skrull. This is Brie Larson smiling at Stan Lee. She loves him. Who doesn't? Every actor who ever appeared in a film with Stan Lee was in awe of the great man, a giant towering above normal mortals.

This film tells the origin of Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, but in a way it also tells the origin of Nick Fury. In 1989 he was a young agent, new in his job at SHIELD. He didn't believe in aliens from other planets until he saw one with his own eyes.

Captain Marvel has spent the last six years believing she's a Kree. Now she finds out that she's a human. She's had dreams about Earth, but now she finally discovers why. The dreams have been revealing to her the secrets buried deep in her mind. She comes to Earth to pursue the Skrulls, the arch-enemies of the Kree, but she discovers that she's been fighting on the wrong side of the war. The Kree have been the bad guys all along,

In the comics themselves it wasn't so clear. Both the Skrulls and the Kree are evil races, determined to conquer the universe. In the film the Skrulls aren't conquerors, they're just refugees fighting to survive. The Skrull leader, Talos, admits that he has blood on his hands, but it was in the past. Now he just wants to spend time with his family.

"Captain Marvel", the film, is yet another example of how Marvel has adapted the comics for the big screen. Random names are copied from the comics, but they're completely different characters. For instance, in the comics Mar-Vell is a male Kree warrior who comes to Earth and adopts the identity of Dr. Walter Lawson, a scientist who he witnesses being killed. In the film, Mar-Vell is a female Kree scientist who lives on Earth, calling herself Dr. Wendy Lawson. I frequently complain about the MCU getting the skin colour of its characters wrong, but mixing up the gender is a whole different level of blunder. Usually the word blunder is reserved for accidental mistakes, but I call this mix up a blunder, even though it's deliberate. I understand that it was a deliberate decision, intended to make "Captain Marvel" even more of a feminocentric film. All the major characters are female, and Captain Marvel herself is the most powerful character in the MCU. I'm surprised Nick Fury didn't turn into Colonel Nicola Fury. What about casting Octavia Spencer as Colonel Fury? Hmmm..... somehow that doesn't seem so bad.

That's a nice shirt, but don't you think it would look better without a bra? Aren't the women in the Kree Empire liberated enough to burn their bras?

Success Rate:  + 5.4

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Vox Lux (4 Stars)

Celeste Montgomery grew up in a poor family on Staten Island, New York. When she was 13 she was involved in a school shooting. One of her classmates shot the whole class, including Celeste. She was the only survivor, but she had a bullet lodged in her spinal cord that could never be removed. After months of recovery she performed a song in her local church expressing her feelings about the attack. This caught the attention of the nation, and she was invited to record the song professionally. It became a massive hit, and it launched her career as a pop star. Despite the efforts of her manager to protect her, she got involved with sex and alcohol at the age of 14.

The film jumps forward to 2017, when she's 31 years old. She's going to perform her first concert in three years on Staten Island to promote her sixth studio album, "Vox Lux". On the morning of the concert there's a mass shooting on a beach in Croatia. The shooters are wearing masks based on Celeste's first music video. There are demands for her to cancel the concert, but she insists on going ahead. She only just makes it, because she drinks massive amounts of alcohol in the afternoon.

The film is at the same time powerful and depressing, but when I walked out I was still struggling to find the film's message. Is it a film about the destructive power of show business? That's a subject in the film, but I don't think it's intended to be the primary message. The film doesn't linger on Celeste's gradual decay, it skips over most of it in the 16 year jump between 2001 and 2017. In this time she's changed so much that she's hardly recognisable as the same person. She's nervous and neurotic, but she's also filled with delusions of self grandeur. When she was young she believed in God, now she says that people should believe in her.

I can't help feeling that Celeste is based on a real life superstar who came to fame as a child. There's nobody who became a star after a school shooting, but I'm sure that there are other singers who started young and were destroyed by the temptations of star business.

I didn't enjoy the music. It's the shallow sort of pop that's commonplace nowadays. I've tried to judge the film on its own qualities, not the music, which takes up large chunks of the film.

I would have enjoyed the film more without the 16 year gap. I would have liked to see an extra half hour about Celeste's life in her troublesome years. The narrator tells us a little of what happened, but I would have liked to see it played out. The first part of the film, Celeste's early years, was excellent. I had problems relating to the latter part because I couldn't join the dots and trace what had happened to the timid little girl. How did she progress from believing in God to wanting to be a God?

The more I think about the film, the more I want to see it again. I'd also like to discuss it. If you like the film, please tell me your thoughts in the comments box.

Captain Marvel (4½ Stars)

I decided today, quite spontaneously, to watch "Captain Marvel" again. Somehow I appreciated it more than I did the first time, two weeks ago. Partly it's because I've got over the initial shock of Captain Marvel being a woman (although I still consider that to be a blunder). Partly it's because I appreciated the battles in the opening scenes more. Partly it's because I could pick up more details in a second viewing.

I felt a surge of pleasure in the final scenes, where Carol Danvers was able to unleash her full powers. The biggest problem with the MCU films in general is that Marvel's greatest super-heroes are toned down in comparison with the comics. They're made much weaker because someone sitting at a desk somewhere in Marvel Studios thinks that heroes with too much power would be unrealistic. So what? Why do we need realism?

Even Thanos' infinity gauntlet was burnt out after snapping his fingers. That never happened in the comics. The gauntlet (more precisely, the combination of the six stones) gave its wearer infinite power, so it was impossible for it to be exhausted. I'm looking forward to seeing Captain Marvel, the most powerful hero in the MCU, battling Thanos in "Avengers Endgame", but I hope his gauntlet has recharged itself by then.

I was sad to see Stan Lee's cameo appearance in the film, since I knew it was his last. The world is a poorer place without Stan Lee, but at least we can still read his comics.

Captain Marvel (4 Stars)

This is the 21st film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, released in March 2019. Yes, that's now. I watched the film in the Cineworld Broad Street cinema in Birmingham on March 10th while I was on holiday, and I'm now writing about it on March 21st after returning home. Don't worry, I've backdated my post to make it appear in the right place.

As far as Marvel continuity goes, this film is a mess. In the film Carol Danvers gains super-powers after being exposed to the Tesseract, one of the Infinity Stones. In the comics she gains her powers after being caught in an explosion with the Kree warrior Mar-Vell, who called himself Captain Marvel. She gave herself the name Ms. Marvel. (I would have preferred Marvel Girl, but that name was already taken). It wasn't until 35 years later, in 2012, that she changed her name to Captain Marvel after Mar-Vell's death.

The film takes place in 1995. It starts with Captain Marvel training on the Kree homeworld Hala. She thinks she's a Kree, but she's having nightmares about a previous life. While on a mission for the Kree she crash lands on Earth, and she slowly realises that this is the planet where she was born. She battles with a party of Skrulls, shape-shifting creatures who are the arch-enemies of the Kree. She allies herself with Nick Fury, who's a disillusioned SHIELD operative who is considering quitting.

My initial impression is that this is the weakest MCU film since "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008. I'll retain my final judgement until I've seen it again, preferably another twice. What I like about the film most is that Carol Danvers is a very powerful character. Almost all of the Marvel heroes have been made weaker than in the comics, but the film's Carol Danvers has the full power of the comics' Ms. Marvel. She's almost as powerful as Drax ought to be. She's probably the most powerful character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The MCU needs a heavily powered being to battle Thanos. Let's see what happens next month.

Enemy at the Gates (5 Stars)

This film is based on the Russian World War Two hero Vasily Zaytsev. A lot happens in the film, and if it weren't for the dates of key occurrences flashing on the screen we wouldn't realise that the film only covers a two month period, from September to November 1942.

Vasily came from a poor peasant family. As a child he was taught how to hunt by his grandfather. In 1942 he was sent to Stalingrad as one of many soldiers, but it became immediately obvious that he was exceptionally skilled as a marksman. He ignored the normal German soldiers and specialised in killing German officers. He was made the leader of a newly created sniper division in which he was able to pass on his skills to other soldiers. He didn't teach anyone how to shoot -- only the best marksmen were allowed to join his division -- he taught them his tactics, how to hide, which targets to shoot, which to let live.

When I saw this in the cinema in 2001 I was in awe. It's like no other war film I've ever seen. There's no glory. There's no honour. It's just two armies, the Russian and the German, desperately fighting for the heap of bricks that are all that's left of a once mighty city. Even the integrity of the sniper at the centre of the story can be questioned. It's been said that snipers are the most cowardly of all soldiers. A sniper doesn't stand up and fight man to man, he hides in the shadows and kills opponents who have no chance to fight back.

In 1942 Germany already had the upper hand in Stalingrad. It looked like the Russian forces would be driven back towards Moscow. This one man, Vasily Zaytsev, was instrumental in halting the German attack. According to the official figures he killed 257 Germans in three months.

I can't think of any other film in which Jude Law acts so magnificently. As Vasily Zaytsev he's young and nervous, only gaining his calm when a rifle is in his hands. We feel for him, we urge him on in his battles.

Ed Harris, on the other hand, is a wonderful actor in every film he appears in. This is just one of many brilliant performances in his long acting career. He plays Major König, a German sniper sent to Stalingrad to take out Vasily. The battle between the two is nothing like the fast moving action films that we see every week in the cinema. It's a battle of wits. The two men stalk one another, both trying to remain invisible, hiding for hours waiting to make one single shot.

The battle of the two snipers is just as ugly as the town that serves as their battleground. They have to crawl through the mud and hide among piles of corpses.

This is a highly underrated film. Why don't more people like it? Maybe it's because the film's hero is a Russian? We shouldn't let ourselves be biased by modern day politics. A good film is a good film, whoever the film's heroes are. If you've never seen this film, watch it and tell me what your immediate impressions are when the credits roll.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk

The Aviator (4 Stars)

I vaguely remember watching "The Aviator" when it was first shown on television more than ten years ago. All that stuck in my mind was the aerial scenes and the plane crash. Today I finally returned to it, determined to remember more this time. The chances are better. I write a blog now, so if I'm still alive in 2027 I can read this post to remind myself about the film.

The film is famous for several near misses at the Academy Awards. It's the film for which Leonardo DiCaprio should have won the Best Actor award. (He had to wait another 11 years until "The Revenant", which wasn't in the same class as "The Aviator"). It's the film for which Martin Scorsese should have won the Best Director award. (He had to wait another two years until "The Departed", which was definitely inferior to "The Aviator"). It should also have won the Best Film award. The top awards in 2005 went to "Miilion Dollar Baby", which is quite remarkable, because it really wasn't such a good film, as most critics agree today. Jamie Foxx was awarded the Best Actor award for his performance in "Ray", which is so ridiculous that I doubt even Jamie expected it. "The Aviator" was nominated for 11 Oscars in 2005, of which it won five, one for Cate Blanchette as Best Supporting Actress -- wasn't she the Lead Actress? -- and the other four in technical categories. It should have won twice as many.

"The Aviator" tells the story of Howard Hughes from 1926 to 1947.  He was a tortured soul who was unlucky enough to become America's richest man. He was born in 1905. His father made millions from the invention of a drilling bit that was used in drilling for oil. His mother died in 1922 and his father in 1924, making him one of the richest men in America at a precariously young age.

Howard Hughes had a passion for two things: films and flying. He was a multi-millionaire at 20, but his passion for films, or rather his obsession with films, put him in danger of being bankrupt by 25. At 21 he began to make a film called "Hell's Angels" about the fighter pilots of World War One. Over a period of two years he invested two million dollars of his personal wealth in the film (the equivalent of $30 million today). When the film was complete he was unhappy with it, because sound movies had just been invented, so he spent another two years and another two million dollars on refilming it. The gamble paid off. The film earned eight million dollars at the box office, enough of a profit for him to continue with his passions.

Howard made more films, but he gained notoriety for his flying exploits. He set several speed records for planes, including a round the world flight in 101 hours, less than four days. Howard designed planes himself, he let his engineers build them, he fine-tuned them himself, and then he flew them himself, much to the horror of his business associates who thought he was putting his life at risk. Flying was too much fun to leave it to others.

He also bought Trans World Airlines (TWA), which he intended to become America's largest airline company. He spent $18 million of his own money on 40 new planes, because the company itself didn't have enough money. This failed to make him a profit because the boss of Pan Am, Juan Trippe, bribed a Senator to write a bill not allowing companies other than Pan Am to provide flights to Europe.

With Howard's business sense and his knack for making money came a curse. He was obsessive and paranoid. He was constantly afraid of uncleanliness and being infected. He couldn't touch things that other people had already touched, things like door handles. Eventually it got to the state that he couldn't endure personal contact with other people. This became the most extreme in his later years, not shown in the film, but even in the 1940's he spent days alone in a hotel room. He was afraid to visit the toilet -- a place with a high risk of infection -- so he urinated into empty milk bottles in his room.

During his early years, as shown in the film, Howard had many girlfriends who were film stars. The most famous were Katharine Hepburn and Ava Gardner. He also had a relationship with Faith Domergue, who was only 15 when they met. He sent her to school every day in a chauffeur-driven car, because he insisted that education was essential.

Even within the 20-year time-frame the film omits many details of Howard's life. He was a complex man. He might not have been a likeable man, but the film concentrates on the details that make him sympathetic to the viewer. As viewers we rejoice in his strengths and pity his weaknesses. Leonardo DiCaprio excels in portraying him. He really should have won the Oscar for Best Actor.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (3 Stars)

I don't know what's happened to Guy Ritchie. The first films that he directed, "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" (1998) and "Snatch" (2000), are two of the best films ever made. "Snatch" almost made it into my list of 30 films to watch before you die. From then on it just went downhill. One flop after another. I admit that I enjoyed his two Sherlock Holmes films, but I seem to be in the minority. Everything else he's made is unwatchable.

Now comes "King Arthur: Legend of the Sword", the first in a series of six films about the legendary British king. I had mixed feelings about going to see it in the cinema. The trailer looked strangely anachronistic, with people wearing clothes that would be acceptable today. I half expected to be disappointed, but I gave it a chance.

King Arthur is said to have ruled over part of southern Britain in the 5th or 6th Century, but it's not certain whether he ever really existed. It's possible that he's just a figure in a series of plays and poems that were written as late as the 11th Century. There are only vague historical references to a man of this name, but he may not have been a king, and even if he was a king the stories about him were certainly written at a later date. In particular, he's said to have ruled from a castle at Camelot, but this is a mythical city that wasn't invented until the 12th Century.

The 500-year period after the Romans left Britain in the 5th Century is often referred to as the Dark Ages. This time is dark from our current point of view. The Romans were diligent at keeping records. There are scrolls chronicling the population, tax income, court cases and every smallest detail of public life. We know practically everything about Britain from 77 to 400 A.D. Then the Romans left, leaving the country in the hands of squabbling warlords. As well as defending their lands against invading Vikings and Saxons, they fought against one another. Education was a low priority, and very few people outside of monasteries knew how to read and write. It was considered unnecessary to keep records. We know almost nothing about daily life, and we can't even be sure about the names of the rulers. It wasn't until the reign of King Alfred of Wessex (871 to 899) that it became common to keep records. It's a tragedy that the years from 400 to 871 have been wiped from history.

Guy Ritchie is fanciful in his telling of the story of King Arthur, inventing his own legends as he goes along. He presents Britain as a country co-inhabited by mages, beings who inherited magical powers. The mages were tolerated because they supported the kings, but after Modred attacked King Uther's castle in Camelot Uther decided to slaughter all the mages. In turn Uther's brother Vortigern, who was trained by mages and can perform smaller feats of magic, kills Uther and usurps the throne. Uther's infant son Arthur is sent away for his protection and is adopted by a prostitute in a London brothel. When he grows up he doesn't even know his own identity. The key is a magical sword called Excalibur. Only Arthur, the true king of Britain, will be able to pull this sword out of the stone where it's embedded.

This is a fantasy epic rather than a story grounded in reality. It belongs to the Swords and Sorcery genre. The film fails to excite. Charlie Hunnam lacks charisma as King Arthur. Jude Law is compelling as Vortigern, but all the other characters are forgettable.

This time I'm not in the minority in my opinion. The critics and the public agree with me that this is an unremarkable film, average at best. Based on the abysmal box office results the next five films won't be made. Let's give Guy Ritchie a chance to rediscover his magic somewhere else.

Spy (4½ Stars)

If ever a film has screamed "Sequel" this is it. Despite a few small criticisms, which I'll go into below, it's an almost perfect comedy spy thriller. If Austin Powers was the comedy spy of the 20th Century, Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy) is the comedy spy of the 21st Century.

Susan Cooper has been working in a basement office of the CIA supporting field agents for ten years. After the murder of an agent while on a mission she's given her first field job. She's only supposed to observe and report back, but she rushes into action, making direct contact with Rayna Boyanov, a woman selling a nuclear bomb on the black market.

Melissa McCarthy plays a comically incompetent spy. My only complaint about the film is that other members of the CIA also make mistakes. Jude Law plays a suave super spy who accidentally shoots a captive because he sneezes. The CIA in Langley suffers from vermin in the basement. I would have found it better to see the CIA running as an efficient organisation with only Melissa making mistakes.

I love the retro film poster for "Spy". Up until the 1950's it was usual for film posters to be drawn by artists. In the 1960's this practise was slowly phased out in favour of photo collages.

Check out this photo taken at the film premiere. Miranda Hart (6'1") doesn't just tower over Melissa McCarthy (5'1") but also over Jason Statham (5'9"). The director Paul Feig, on the right, is also slightly shorter than her, only 6'0", but he seems taller in the photo. My guess is that he wore shoes with high heels because he felt intimidated.

The film briefly shows a classified CIA document about Rayna Boyanov's dating habits and sexual preferences. Here's a full transcript of the document.

Memorandum on Rayna Boyanov's Dating Habits

Ms. Boyanov has a habit of engaging in sexual congress with a number of celebrities and political figures along with a cornucopia of underworld elite. The former groups are disconcerting. Great effort must be taken to verify the complicity or lack therof of these partners in her criminal activities. With intimate access to luminaries, both men and women, one can assume that at the least she has garnered intelligence and at the worst embroiled these prominent figures in her schemes.

It is also worthy of note that many of her sexual partners suffer injuries as she is a violent and cruel lover. She regularly engages in sadistic dominatrix behavior, both dishing out pain as well as receiving it - often in an embarrassing fashion. We can presume that this not only pleases her, but provides blackmail fodder.

Agents should be directed to covertly discover as much as they can about Boyanov's past and current relationships. When necessary and feasible, agents should engage as many of her past partners as possible in an effort to determine what secrets or level of indoctrinations to which they have fallen both victim and prey.

Boyanov is reputed to be a fan of various fringe sex acts including Dirty Sanchez, Angry Pirate, Hot Lunch, Angry Dragon and her favorite - the Rusty Trombone.

---

If you don't know what these sexual acts are you're not alone. I had to do a web search as well. I've lived a sheltered life. Even after reading what they are I have no wish to indulge.

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Spy (4¾ Stars)

I was disappointed with Melissa McCarthy's last film, "Tammy", but the trailers for "Spy" looked so good that I had to go to the cinema to see it. Any reservations I had were unfounded. It was one of the funniest films I've seen for a long time. People were laughing throughout the theatre. What made "Tammy" bad was that it was just 90 minutes of jokes about a fat woman. After the first 10 minutes I stopped laughing. "Spy" has fat woman jokes as well, but it has much more. This was obvious from the very first minutes. The theme song and the opening credits were a perfect imitation of the classic James Bond films from the 1960's.

Melissa McCarthy plays Susan Cooper, an overweight CIA agent who works in an office guiding the field agents and giving them technical assistance. After an agent she has a crush on, Bradley Fine (Jude Law), is killed while looking for a stolen nuclear bomb, no other agents can be sent to continue with the mission because it's revealed that the enemy knows all of the CIA agents. Someone unknown has to be sent, and Susan volunteers. She's given instructions to simply observe the enemy and not get involved, but due to her boundless enthusiasm she gets into fist and gun fights.

Jude Law is so perfect as a James Bond type spy that I'm surprised he was never offered the role. He would be better than Daniel Craig, who isn't James-Bond-ish at all. Jason Statham must have a big sense of humour, because he's making fun of himself in the action roles he's played recently, such as the Expendables and Fast & Furious films. The film has the typical James Bond exotic locations, Paris, Rome and Budapest. It has hotels and casinos. The only thing that's missing is Melissa McCarthy walking into a hotel room and finding a naked man in a shower.

The obvious question is whether it's funnier than "Man Up", which I watched last week. I would say Yes. It's not necessarily a better film. I enjoyed "Man Up" because of its subtle mix of comedy and serious themes. That's not the case with "Spy". In "Spy" it's just humour from beginning to end, with no serious message to take home. This is a film that everyone should watch.

Grand Budapest Hotel (4 Stars)

This is a film that's worth watching for the cast alone. I don't think I've seen so many big stars in one film since "Mars Attacks". Some of the stars only have small roles, such as Tilda Swinton, who only appears for a few minutes and is barely recognisable. The main characters are Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori.

The story is interestingly nested, starting in 1985, then a flashback to 1965, where a story is told that takes place in 1932-1933. Ralph Fiennes is Gustave H., the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional country of Zubrowka. (The film was actually shot in the German town Görlitz, also used as one of the main locations for "The Book Thief"). Gustave is a casanova and has had affairs with many guests, including the old widow Madame D. When she dies he is invited to the reading of her will. In a recent addendum to the will, drafted on the day of her death, she leaves to Gustave the only item of great value that she owns, a painting called "Boy with Apple". The will's executor says that he will have to wait until the authenticity of the addendum is checked, but seeing the hostility of the family Gustave grabs the painting and runs. This leads to him being framed for murder. With the help of the hotel's lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) Gustave breaks out of prison. The two are pursued across central Europe by the family assassin J. G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe).

The film has been described as "all style and nothing else". That's unfair. The film has an interesting plot and great actors who perform the story. But I agree that it's all about the style. From beginning to end we have almost absurd colours in every scene. The whole film has an overwhelming fairy-tale atmosphere to it.

After the film I went to Scruffy Murphy's, a pub in the centre of Birmingham which is now Birmingham's only remaining rock club. I used to be a regular visitor from 2002 till 2007. I'm not sure why I stopped going. I probably just got lazy and relied on YouTube for live music. But it's not the same. Far from it. Apart from that, by going to Scruffy Murphy's I support local bands, since most of the performers are based in or near Birmingham.

There were three groups playing tonight. The opening act were Glass Bullet, a Canadian rock band. They reminded me of Green Day in their early years, before they became famous. I hope they don't read this, they might take it as an insult. Very good, medium hard rock songs. They had the traditional 4-piece rock band line up: drums, bass, lead guitar, rhythm guitar/singer.

The second act was a duo called Needle Poppets. They had a difficult time winning the crowd over. They're not really the Scruffy Murphy type. It was noticeable that a lot of the fans left the concert room after Glass Bullet, heading to the main pub room upstairs, but those who remained were in for a treat. They're a duo from Birmingham, and although the texts were often dark and gloomy they were sung in a singer/songwriter style. They're a curious group.

The main act, also from Birmingham, was a punk band called Drag, short for "DRessed like A Girl". I don't know why they picked this name. The singer and guitarist were definitely real girls. They are a high energy punk group with a style reminiscent of the late 1970's. The crowd loved them, and they're obviously a band with a big future ahead of them. It was a night to remember.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (3½ Stars)

This is the sequel to "Sherlock Holmes", once more starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. My guest writer Kaylena already reviewed it here.

Instead of writing about the whole film I'll just zoom in on the chess game between Sherlock Holmes and his nemesis Professor Moriarty in one of the final scenes. The last 13 moves of the game are called out loud, but we aren't shown the position on the board. The question that most chess fans will ask is whether these moves are possible. If I had watched the film when it was first released in 2011 I would have researched it, using the pattern matching algorithms of the chess database program Chessbase; as it is I'm two years late, and the work has already been done for me. My main source is a blog post by Stefan Jonsson.

According to the film's chess consultant, Adam Raoof, "Not much of the footage of the actual game we filmed survived the edit, but it was a famous Larsen game with reversed colours and using some variations". The game he's referring to was between Bent Larsen and Tigran Petrosian in 1966. Unfortunately the first few moves of the game that we see being played don't match the ending. Holmes is shown playing Black, although we can calculate from the final 13 moves that he must have been playing White. This is a goof, but admittedly something that practically nobody would notice. Another goof is in the photo below, taken from the film. The black king and queen are on the wrong squares. Evidently Mr. Raoof wasn't paying attention.

The game's full notation is printed below, or click here to replay the full Holmes-Moriarty game in a Javascript window.

Sherlock Holmes - James Moriarty

 1. e4 c5
 2. Nf3 Nc6
 3. d4 cxd4
 4. Nxd4 g6
 5. Be3 Bg7
 6. c4 Nf6
 7. Nc3 Ng4
 8. Qxg4 Nxd4
 9. Qd1 Ne6
10. Qd2 d6
11. Be2 Bd7
12. O-O O-O
13. Rad1 Bc6
14. Nd5 Re8
15. f4 Nc7
16. f5 Na6
17. Bg4 Nc5
18. fxg6 hxg6
19. Qf2 Rf8
20. e5 Bxe5
21. Qh4 Bxd5
22. Rxd5 Ne6
23. Rf3 Bf6
24. Qh6 Bg7
25. Qxg6 fxg6
26. Bxe6+ Kh7
27. Rh3+ Bh6
28. Bxh6 Rf5
29. Rxf5 gxf5
30. Bf7 Qb6+
31. Kh1 Qxb2
32. Bf8#

---

Addendum on June 29th: This is something I've never done before. I'm extending my post a day after I first wrote it due to comments I've received. Usually I would add additional thoughts in the comments section, but in this case it's too much.

After I made my post an anonymous person contacted me and suggested the following game as an alternative to the game that I included in my post. Click here to replay it in a Javascript window.

James Moriarty - Sherlock Holmes

 1. c4 e5
 2. Nc3 d5
 3. cxd5 Nf6
 4. g3 Nxd5
 5. Bg2 Be6
 6. Nf3 Nc6
 7. Ng5 Qxg5
 8. Nxd5 Qd8
 9. Ne3 Qd7
10. d3 Be7
11. Bd2 O-O
12. O-O Rad8
13. Bc3 Nd4
14. Re1 f5
15. Nc2 f4
16. Na3 Bg5
17. Nc4 fxg3
18. hxg3 Qf7
19. Rf1 e4
20. Bxe4 Qh5
21. Bxd4 Rxd4
22. Ne3 Rf6
23. Qb3 Kh8
24. Bf3 Qh3
25. Bg2 Qxg3
26. fxg3 Bxe3+
27. Kh2 Rh6+
28. Bh3 Bxh3
29. Rf4 Rxf4
30. gxf4 Bf2
31. Qxb7 Bf1#

It has two major advantages over the game in my original post:

1. Sherlock Holmes is playing black.

2. The opening moves are the moves we see being played.

This game also matches the final 13 moves that are spoken out loud in the film. The reason is that in the film the old "descriptive moves" are used, which are ambiguous because they make no difference between White and Black. Since the 1980's unambiguous algebraic moves have become more common. For instance, the following algebraic notation and descriptive notation describe the same four moves.

Algebraic: 1. e4 e5 2. Nc4 Nf6

Descriptive: 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. N-QB3 N-KB3

This game is a good construction to match what the film shows us, but I still think that the more plausible explanation is that the film's opening moves were a goof. The reason is that this construction contains severe blunders on both sides. In move 23 Holmes could have taken Moriarty's Queen (23... Bxb3). Even worse, in move 28 Moriarty misses an immediate checkmate (28. Rf8#). The game in my original post, which follows the 1966 Larsen-Petrosian game until move 25, is a lot more logical.

Sherlock Holmes (3½ Stars)

My guest writer Kaylena already reviewed the film here. I'm not quite as enthusiastic about it as she was. Like her, I haven't read any of the Sherlock Holmes books.I've heard it claimed that the books contain a certain amount of action, not just logical deduction and investigative work. That may be the case, but in the Sherlock Holmes films I've seen in the past the detective was far from being the fighting figure that Robert Downey Jr. portrays. To me this was a very different Sherlock Holmes, difficult for me to grow accustomed to. It was a big shock to see him taking part in bare knuckle boxing matches for fun. (See the photo above).

In many ways, the character is identical to Tony Stark in the Iron Man films. Holmes and Stark are both geniuses. Holmes and Stark are both eccentric to the point of madness. Holmes' sidekick, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), is the nagging voice of sanity, much the same as Pepper Potts in the Iron Man films. Or maybe the robot butler Jarvis is the one who fulfils that role.

The setting is perfect. Guy Ritchie was the best choice for director. He has a passionate love for London, and his dull coloured portrayal of the streets has a morbid beauty. I need to watch the film again. This is a film I'd like to sit and watch with someone else. It's a shame Kaylena lives so far away.

Sherlock Holmes 2: A Game of Shadows [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Since this film is still in theatres I will keep the synopsis brief in order to give viewers a chance to experience the film for themselves and enjoy it fully. The film takes place 8 months after the original (I may be mistaken on that time, but I believe that's right...) and Watson has been preparing his wedding to his Fiance while Holmes has been investigating violent terrorist attacks happening throughout Europe, bringing countries to the brink of war. After reuniting with Watson, the two embark on a journey to uncover the plans of Prof. James Moriarty and his involvement with the ongoing attacks.

This is an excellent follow-up to the original, with Robert Downey Jr. bringing back his eccentricly brilliant Holmes and Jude Law as the straight-man to his odd ways. The use of the pre-planning combat returns, which was a favorite of mine, demonstrating the unique mind of Holmes to predict the actions of his opponents. Certainly worth checking out for those who have seen the original or are fans of Sherlock.

Sherlock Holmes [Guest Writer] (5 Stars)

Okay so I think we all know the concept of sherlock holmes but you may not know this particular story. In London, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downy Jr.) and his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) captures the follower of black magic and serial killer Lord Blackwood that has already killed five women when he is about to kill his sixth victim. Blackwood is sentenced to be hung and Dr. Watson attests to his death. However, Blackwood mysteriously returns from the afterlife and Inspector Lestrade summons Sherlock to help the Scotland Yard in the investigation. Meanwhile Dr. Watson intends to get married and leave the team while Sherlock is visited by his former lover Irene Adler that has a secret agenda of her own.

I enjoyed this film for many reasons but the biggest reason was the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes and Watson. I've never read the books but I've seen countless adaptions of these two characters and the one that most sticks in my head is the one of a skinny professor-like-stick-in-the-mud quoting, "Elementary my dear Watson." and a pudgy-overfed Watson tagging along on his coat-tails. Now I understand that this is cliched but it's gotten to the point that if you ask anyone about Sherlock Holmes this is the imagery that first pops into their minds but Guy Ritchie (the director) gave him a stunning and exciting new image that is both modern, realistic, manly with a touch of comedy.

Robert played this role well and the only other movies that I really can remember loving him in was Only You (probably memorable because it was one of the very few romance movies that I actually stayed awake through and enjoyed) and Iron Man (not including Sherlock). I've seen him play a lot of other roles in plenty of movies and I enjoyed them but I guess those are the roles that stuck with me the most next to this latest one. I loved Jude Law (I love Jude Law period) in this film and thought he really brought a flair to Watson that was long overdue. The whole film was a great modern adaption of a classic that I think was well done. In this new era of remakes over remakes this was one of the few that did it well - giving a nod to the past while pulling it into the future without it looking...boring.

I also enjoyed the storyline and it kept me laughing, on the edge of my seat during action scenes, and excited to see what would come next throughout the entire film. I saw this 3 times in theaters and then bought the DVD and have since watched it a total of probably 11 times so you can see that I am a fan of this flick. My brother had much more insight to this movie than I did, probably because he was remembering the "history" of Holmes but since I didn't ask too much about it (I honestly didn't care) I can't really say. Maybe if you know the history you can enlighten me about it since my brother's explanation would only serve to confuse the hell out of me.

Any-who, this is a really great movie with a good, solid storyline behind it and quality actors that play their roles extremely well while bringing something new to the table and doing the story and characters justice.