The Gentlemen

First Hit: A few scenes were to fun watch, but as a film, it was poorly constructed.

I’ve never seen a Guy Ritchie film that I thought was constructed with thoughtfulness and skill. He either attempts to cover too much ground or is more inclined to use pop and dazzle to engage the audience.

In this film, he has to use narration throughout to create, set up, and deliver the story. He hides his inability to write a good screenplay by making the narration of his story part of the storyline his characters say to each other.

Specifically, watch most of the scenes between a dirt-digger detective and reporter Fletcher (Hugh Grant and Ray (Charlie Hunnam). Ray is the right-hand man and consigliere for Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey), the weed lord of England. Because Fletcher is attempting to blackmail Mickey and Ray, he explains the whole story to the theater’s audience by reading the screenplay with Ray.

This is the main issue with this film. Having to rely on this narration to provide a lot of the movie’s context is troubling. However, I will say the way it is done here is better than having an unknown voice over-explanation.

The story as I saw it, was that Mickey wants to sell his vast marijuana growing and distribution empire to Matthew (Jeremy Strong). The reason for selling was unclear and unconvincing. Matthew is a wealthy eccentric Englishman who is intrigued with the possibility of buying this empire for $400M. However, it is a lot of money, and to drive the price down, Matthew engages “Dry Eye” (Henry Golding and a term used for Asians). Dry Eye makes an offer that Mickey scoffs at, but because the offer to sell to Matthew was supposed to be secret, Mickey is now on guard.

Then the story adds complexity because we learn that Matthew and Dry Eye are working some sort of side deal to assist each other in reducing the price, but each plans to screw the other as well.

Adding to this is Fletcher, who, through his detective work, documents all the goings-on between all the parties, which led to the script he reads from. His hopes are to sell the screenplay to Mickey and Ray for $20M so that Mickey and Ray will know all the subversive planning that is going on to drive the price down.

The most fun part of the film is when we have scenes with Coach (Colin Farrell). His group of boys is caught raising havoc in one of Mickey’s underground farms, so he owes Mickey and Ray. The payback to Ray and Mickey are amusing and fun to watch.

Confused? One could be, but this convoluted story is kept on track by the narration scenes. This saves the film from being a total disaster and it also makes it a poorly constructed film.

Anyway, there are lots of side plots and stories in this movie, including Mickey’s wife, Rosalind Pearson (Michelle Dockery). She’s supposed to be the most magnificent woman in the world, but it is only in the eyes of the beholder. There is the newspaper owner who hired Fletcher. There is Lord George (Tom Wu), head dragon, heroin distributor who crosses Mickey.

The movie has lots of twists that are used for creating interest and complexity, and in some cases, it works, but mostly it doesn’t.

McConaughey's role in this makes me wonder. At times he selects fantastic parts like in film Dallas Buyer’s Club and other times, he chooses roles like this one. He does it well enough, but it’s really a role of false, blustery, and cool-man behavior. Hunnam is outstanding as Ray, Mickey’s right-hand man. Grant is oddly compelling as a bad guy. I’ve not seen him recently, and seeing him here was fun. Farrell is brilliant as the Coach of a group of guys and honest to his word. Actually, I liked his character and role the best of all. Dockery is okay as Mickey’s wife and auto builder entrepreneur. Strong is mediocre as the wealthy and odd Englishman who wants to buy Mickey’s empire. Golding is formidable as Dry Eye, a youngish Asian who wants to make his mark. Wu was perfect as the wry old heroin distributor. Ritchie wrote and directed this film, and as I’ve indicated, Guy has little to offer in the realm of filmmaking and his background in music videos is where his talent may lay.

Overall:  Although entertaining at times, being so convoluted the required narration means the story and film needs additional work.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

First Hit:  This was one of the worst scripted and directed films ever and a true waste of time.

If I ever chose to sit through another film directed by Guy Ritchie, I would hope someone comes into the theater and shoots me.

I would prefer the pain of this than to sit through another mindless attempt by a man who has no understanding of filmmaking. He has good actors, whom I’m sure got paid well, puts them in front of a camera, and through a bunch of special effects try to  makes something that people will sit and oooo and ahhh to.

Please will someone give Richie an apprenticeship to a filmmakers school?

Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, knows better than to do films like this with a director like this. He's too smart, at least I thought he was. Jude Law, as Dr. Watson, will, with experience, know better than to do films like this where he has no character development or meaningful part. Michelle Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney, wrote a crappy, mindless script. Guy Ritchie might do well doing music videos which tell no story. In the film business the objective is to tell a story. His attempt here and in the previous one Sherlock film, which I also panned, at directing reeks of an amateur child playing with grown up tools and only liking the switches and dials to play with.

Overall: How does he get money to make these things?

Sherlock Holmes

First Hit: Although the film was filled with action, it lacked any deductive mystery which is what Holmes was all about – solving mysteries by logical deduction.

I don’t mind good action films, however this film is about Sherlock Holmes one of the best investigated story lines of our time.

Therefore the action in this film seemed to be in search of a mystery or story and none was found. Generally, I would say this film lacked a good script, story line, and intention. There was nothing really compelling about this version of Sherlock Holmes.

Granted Robert Downey Jr. was a great casting choice for this role but how the incompetent Guy Ritchie (director) showed Holmes’ deductive powers was nothing less than a cop out.

In essence, Richie showed Holmes’ deductive abilities by showing the audience an upcoming scene in slow motion with an occasional voice over by Downey indicating what he was thinking, and then you watched the scenes in normal speed.

This might work for MTV music videos but does nothing but point to the audience and say “I can’t create mystery and deductive scenes, so I’ll show you the results, and then show them to you again in case you missed it the first time”.

The other way he tried to show Holmes’ power of deductive reasoning is that he would revisit scenes while Holmes explained what he saw and figured out when he first visited the scene.

Other issues with the film were the numerous times I saw an obvious matte background on which the scene was shot.

One bright spot in the film was Jude Law’s very adequate version of Dr. Watson, Holmes counterpart and partner in their crime solving business.

Ritchie needs to quit trying to direct full length big time films. My basis for this statement is to watch an Eastwood film then watch a Richie film – no contest. One knows what they are doing and has clear intention and the other throws a lot on the screen in some semblance of order and hopes the audience thinks it’s good. Downey, on the other hand, puts all his energy into making the character work. This is something he does all the time and here he is totally involved and it shows. Law is good as a counterpoint to Holmes and their interactions are strikingly good.

Overall: I was bored and simply waited (hoped) for something interesting to come along and it rarely did.