.. or, to have the full titles: "A Game of Shadows" vs. "Ghost Protocol". Why "vs." ? Well, because these had simultaneous release, because though different both are blockbuster action movies, because "the main villain" wants pretty much the same thing, because both are sequels, and .. because it sounds good as a blog post title :p .
In the "Sherlock Holmes" sequel we have a story, or better said a script, that's a bit more "hollywoodish" than the first part. Or at least more close to a James Bond movie. Holmes & Watson have to deal this time with the probably most familiar enemy from the books = prof. Moriarty. Who (light spoiler), after buying weaponry, weapon factories, etc, sets his purpose in life to start a world war that will justify his investment. Well ... If two years ago I was (very) positively surprised by how Guy Ritchie managed to resurrect the classic character, this time the result is not that impressing. This because inevitably you'll compare with the first. If you skipped though the first part, what you'll get is a pretty different stuff from what you usually get to see as an action movie .. + comedy .. + a bit of drama .. + making full use of the times in the end of the 19th century (= you could say also a bit of "fantasy") .. + others.
Even if, opposed to the first part, the mystery to resolve is a bit lost (that's why I allowed myself the spoiler before) the rest is still there. Meaning a mix of all-genres-in-one, garnished with the same top notch acting, the same slow motion effects that reminds of the first John Woo Hollywood movies, the soundtrack that's not that brilliant as the first but still has Hans Zimmer written on it, and probably the most important ... "the British charm" to say so, that's usually found in the more "contemporary" Guy Ritchie productions = starting with "Snatch" as example.
Passing to the other half of this post title, the last "Mission Impossible" starts to suffer from the same issues as the Bond movies (since I was already mentioning them before) = 1. different director, different feeling in the same context with the same main characters 2. you don't have much chance to remember (unless you're not some crazy fan) what and how happened in the rest, but fortunately you don't have too many continuity elements .. although this might apply also to Holmes, but since we only have two parts there it's not the case yet. As a story, as I was saying we have pretty much the same base idea. A villain with some financial resources wants to start a global war, the difference being that in this case the purpose is not to gain money from it, but just pure madness. I won't say more, because I'll spoil the main plus the movie has. And that's ...
For the two hours and twenty minutes it has, you don't feel them. The action, even if it doesn't have much of a subject behind it, it's pretty well built not to bore you with interminabile fights & explosions ( as in "Transformers" ). You get enough variation, from the location setting = the geographical position, up to the actual buildings = Kremlin + Burj Khalifa. You can add to these the elements from the rest of the series = the gadgets & the sidekick team (completely changed this time, although Ving Rhames makes an appearance on the end). Actually, I think this is the most attractive element throughout the whole movie, because if we have had only Tom Cruise as a solitary Ethan Hunt what we'll get would be "just another Bond" clone.
The problem in report to Holmes, is that here on the acting part, if you pay some attention, you'll tend to get you're eyes rolling if you know what I mean. Tom Cruise & Michael Nyqvist (the bad guy) are ok. But for the rest ... if I was saying about the sidekick team ... we have a mix of the same Jeremy Renner from "Hurt Locker" (= pure drama role), the same Simon Pegg from "Hot Fuzz" (= pure comedy role), and a Paula Patton who I didn't see until now anywhere, but who I'm not sure I want to see from now on (at least not for her acting skills). In the end though, the result is tolerable, the reason being .. the directing = Brad Bird. If it doesn't sound familiar, he is the same guy behind .. "Ratatouille" & "The Incredibles" from Pixar. And the part with tolerable doesn't mean it's an exceptional directing, but just the fact that it has a sort of the same cartoonish atmosphere (actually it's like a sort of "The Incredibles" in a more serious tone), atmosphere that justifies some overacting here and there.
So .. since I already wrote a lot :) and I don't have many ideas left, what can I say as a short conclusion is that both titles are perfect as "holiday movies" = just plain entertaining fun .. even if there is some difference in the overall quality between them ..
Rating:
SH 2 - 4 out of 5
MI 4 - 3 out of 5
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment