Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

"Difficult, not impossible."

Making a good movie based on a video game is "difficult, not impossible," but sadly Prince of Persia doesn't quite manage it. The movie had a few high points and the plot wasn't all that bad, but the screenplay left much to be desired and the lack of chemistry between the two leads really lowered the tone of what really could have been a great movie.

The plot is in no way based on the game, except for the fact that there's sand the dagger can control it. No, in the movie Dastan (the Prince) is actually an orphan who was adopted by the King (rather conveniently) and later leads an army contingent with his two brothers. Shifty Vizier, and brother to the King, manipulates the eldest brother, named Tus, into attacking the Holy City of Alamut, against the protestations of Dastan. Well the invasion comes off pretty smoothly and along the way Dastan comes into possession of a strange dagger, which he 'accidentally' discovers can turn back time. It transpires that the princess Tamina is a member of an ancient order who are sworn to protect the dagger and the associated Sands of Time. Well she's none to pleased about the occupation of her city or the fact that one of the oppressors now holds their most sacred relic. Which leads to a fine mess when she is forced to go on the run with Dastan when he is framed for the murder of the King.

Jake Gyllenhaal did a pretty good job as Dastan, in my humble opinion. I saw a lot of the Prince from the video game in his performance, he clearly was giving it his all and trying to connect to the fans. Gemma Arterton on the other hand wasn't all that great as the princess, though she certainly performed the role of 'eye candy' to perfection. She had next to no chemistry with Gyllenhaal, which made the inevitable romance seem a tad forced. I also think that she figured out her lines were rather goofy because she seemed to have a hard time delivering them convincingly. The writers do have to take some heat for that though, I think I'd have a tough time saying "Secret Guardian Temple" with any kind of conviction too. The elder brother Tus (played by Richard Coyle) was sadly a pretty one dimensional character, perhaps because he wasn't really on screen that much. Far more interesting was the younger brother Garsiv (played by Toby Kebbell) who was playing an antagonist to the hero sure, but still managed to show some level of humanity in his performance. Ben Kingsley as the Vizier, Nizam, was really rather bland too. It's not too much of a spoiler to say he's the villain of the story, Ben seems to gravitate towards such roles. Kingsley really goes all out on this character to make him as shifty and sinister as possible, which worked out pretty well. There's really nothing better than a villain you love to hate. Finally a quick shout out for Alfred Molina who had a small supporting role in the movie as Sheik Amar, who in addition to becoming a reluctant ally of the prince, races ostriches. He added some nice comic relief to the movie along with his trusty sidekick Seso (played by Steve Toussaint).

The problem with the movie, as is so often the case with video game adaptations, is that they completely disregarded the story of the game. Sands of Time (the game) has a very solid, and well thought out story, so I really can't imagine why they felt the need to change it as much as they did. The new story isn't terrible, but it does seem rather strained at times. There are some actions taken by the characters that just don't make a lot of sense. Initially the goal is to take the dagger to the aforementioned 'Secret Guardian Temple' but when that doesn't work they instead go back to Alamut - the same city they started all this nonsense in. After the inevitable show down with Nizam......SPOILER ALERT...... Dastan succeeds in rewinding time all the way back to the aftermath of the invasion of Alamut (I think that point is about 20-25 minutes into the movie). Well if that was possible, why didn't the princess just tell him to do that in the first place, why did they go on a trek across the desert, because that would have made for a pretty short movie I guess...... END SPOILER. The other problem is that the whole motivation for Dastan is the murder of his father, something that we should be pretty invested in no? Well there lies another problem, the King himself has so little screen time, much less screen time with Dastan, that we really don't know him. Not knowing him, or anything about the relationship between him and his sons, it's hard to really feel anything for the character when he dies. It's not all doom and gloom though. The stunts and fight sequences were satisfying and the special effects (especially the rewind time effect) were absolutely spot on. If only they had invested such time and energy crafting the screenplay as they did on the special effects.

The single biggest issue I had with the movie is that it had the potential to be great, I wanted it to be great, but instead it falls way short of average. So while it may be somewhat entertaining at times, the movie really doesn't hold up to that much scrutiny. Of course I can't assume that everyone will scrutinize the motivations and actions of characters the way I do, so your mileage may vary.

Final verdict on Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: 

MacGruber

"Classic MacGruber!" 

While MacGruber occasionally hits on a good joke, for the most part it's crude, unimaginative and just down right stupid. I wasn't entirely surprised at this outcome, honestly I only saw the movie out of a morbid sense of curiosity. Now I wouldn't go so far as to say MacGruber is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life, but it's by no means good.

The plot, such as it is, revolves around the arch villain Cunth (Val Kilmer) who has stolen some kind of doomsday weapon and plans to use it on Washington D.C. Thus, the US military turns to the only man who can save them, MacGruber (Will Forte). There's also some back-story between Cunth and MacGruber about how Cunth killed MacGrubers wife, I'm not really sure why this subplot was in here as it really adds nothing to the movie. Vicki St Elmo (Kristen Wiig) and Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillipe) are MacGrubers reluctant sidekicks on the mission to take down Cunth (and yes every time a character says that name the 'h' isn't pronounced all that clearly). 

The gimmick of the SNL skit was that MacGruber's inventions and schemes never work, and inevitably everyone dies. This wouldn't make for a particularly lengthy movie though, so instead none of his inventions or schemes work, but somehow everyone lives anyway. I was never really a fan of the skit, I thought it was pretty shallow and the joke gets worse as time goes on. Will Forte really seems like he's trying too hard to hit the punchlines, every joke he makes on screen seems strained, which doesn't work so well in a movie that relies almost exclusively on said jokes. Val Kilmer (who really isn't looking too well these days, boy that guy put on some weight) is camping it up as the arch villain Cunth, delivering every line like a cliched, poor mans Bond villain. Cunth is a character so one dimensional that he could really have been portrayed by a cardboard cut out and the movie wouldn't have suffered from it. Then we have Kristen Wiig (resuming her character from the original skit) and Ryan Phillipe as the straight man to play off of the insanity that is MacGruber. Wiig looks lost for most the movie, I suspect she was wondering what horrible act she'd committed in a previous life to deserve being cast in the movie. Phillipe, to my surprise, actually tries to be professional, as if he's completely unaware of what a train wreck he's part of.

I know what folks say about analyzing slapstick movies like this one... that we should just leave our brains at home and enjoy the movie for what it is. Well yes, I agree with those folks, in fact I'm usually one of the people saying that - however that argument only goes so far. There is a delicate balance between farcical comedy and entertaining story telling, and I can assure you that MacGruber is completely unsuccessful in pulling it off. Instead it seems to be comprised of several SNL skits just mashed together to produce a feature length movie. To make matters worse only the smallest fraction of those skits are actually funny. It was somewhat embarrassing to sit in a theater watching a so called 'comedy' and nobody was laughing at the jokes. Or at least when there was an amused chuckle, it was more along the lines of the sound one makes when laughing at the boss's jokes (just to be clear, the term I'm shooting for here is 'insincere').

If you've seen the trailer for the movie, then you've seen the best gags already, don't punish yourself by submitting to 90 minutes of torture.

Oh, but wait... didn't I say this wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen? My analysis has been pretty harsh though hasn't it? So if this isn''t the worst movie I've ever seen what is? Well I can't honestly narrow it down to a single movie (though Edge of Darkness is very tempting) so instead just let me say I've seen my share of Uwe Bole movies and leave it at that.

Final verdict on MacGruber:

Iron Man 2

"It's good to be back!"

Iron Man 2 had big iron shoes to fill, and I think it has made a damn good attempt, but falls just a little shy of the brilliance of the original. Rotten Tomatoes rates the movie at 74%, and since I'm writing this up a full month after the release I'm fairly sure that score should remain constant.

This time around the movie begins in the aftermath of Stark's announcement that he is Iron Man. The US Military wants the suit, for obvious reasons and Tony is stalwartly refusing to turn it over. Into this situation comes Ivan Vanko, a man seeking vengeance against the Stark empire for the death of his father, Justin Hammer, a rival weapons manufacturer and the fact that Tony himself is slowly being poisoned by the very same device that is keeping his heart beating. As you can imagine things get pretty interesting before the end credits role.

Robert Downey Jr is still terrific as Stark, they really couldn't have cast anybody better in the role. He possesses just the right mix of authority and immaturity that really brings Stark alive onscreen. It was also great to see Gwyneth Paltrow back as Pepper Potts. The chemistry between her and Downey is very natural and adds a real sense of closeness to the characters. Mickey Rourke turned in a good performance, for the relatively small amount of screen-time he got. As Whiplash was billed as the villain of the piece, I rather expected to see more of him, instead his character was restricted to a few key scenes. Instead Sam Rockwell, as rival weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer, seemed to be front and center as the main antagonist to Stark and Iron Man. I absolutely despised Hammer as a character, for which I give enormous credit to Rockwell, his performance created a man the audience loves to hate.

A fairly large degree of press surrounded the fact that Scarlett Johansson was going to be playing Russian super spy Black Widow in the movie. Aside from serving up some rather delicious eye candy, she adds absolutely nothing to the movie. Her performance was bland and about as wooden as Keanu Reeves on a good day. It almost seemed like she didn't even care about the role, or the character, delivering every line with a completely expressionless look on her face and in a dry monotone. Is this the fault of the director? Did Favreau tell her to make Widow stoic? Was it really the case that she knew she was there to look hot and didn't really give a damn about anything else? Who knows, but I suspect the latter is the truth in this case.

Finally, we come to Rhodes. In the first movie Rhodes was played by Terrance Howard, in the sequel Don Cheadle steps into the role. I doubt we will ever know what really happened to spur such a switch, but it happened and we have to live with it. In any case I like Cheadle as an actor, I'm a fan of several of his movies (including the terrific Traitor), but it's difficult to gauge his performance without comparing it to Howard. Howard played Rhodes as a real straight laced air force officer, but also showed the capacity to kick back and relax with Stark. When Howard was Rhodes, it was easy to get the sense that he and Stark will good friends. Cheadle nails the straight laced air force officer, but in my opinion fails to convey the friendship between Rhodes and Stark, at least until the climactic showdown. This colors every action he makes in the movie to suggest that instead of being Stark's friend, he'd quite happily stab him in the back to satisfy the military.

Some have criticized the plot for being slow in places, I think I have to disagree on this point. I have, over the years, developed a foolproof system to determine if a movie is dragging or not. If I am repeatedly glancing at my watch to see how much time is left in the movie - then it's slow. I did not, even once, glance at my watch during the movie - thus I wouldn't call it slow. There are however some points that strained the realm of believability, such as how Stark solves the problem of his blood poisoning. In the interest of a spoiler free review I wont go into detail about it, but suffice to say it was both rather convenient and somewhat skeptical. As a whole though, the overall plot of the movie is fairly solid. Though granted it doesn't quite seem to flow as well as the original movie did - sequels are always judged harsher though.

Once again the special effects and fight scenes were top notch. Favreau has, in both movies, done a fantastic job of merging comic book style action with a real world feel. The Iron Man suits really feel like the they have weight, and when they strike something the sound effects really help sell the impact of metal on metal. Whiplash's energy whips also looked really good, though they were somewhat spoiled by their prevalence in the trailer. Between cutting edge visuals and top of the line sound design, the fight scenes really come alive in a big way.

Of course Iron Man 2 is about more than just fights. The continuing relationship between Stark and Potts is treated very well in the sequel, from the beginning we can sense connection between them that neither one is willing to pursue. Stark, as a results of the blood poisoning, has to come to terms with his own mortality and tries to tie everything off so that he doesn't leave a mess behind for the people he cares about. Despite the lack of what I'm call to call the "friendship vibe" caused by Howards replacement, there is also some development between Rhodes and Stark. Stark has to accept that he can't save the world alone and needs to trust Rhodes to help him, which means trusting another person with the Iron Man technology.

Overall I thought that Iron Man 2 is a really entertaining movie. Is it as good as the first, when I walked out the theater I thought so, but on further reflection I think perhaps it does fall short a little. There is an element of 'Die Hard syndrome' to be had here. While the sequel is a good movie in its own right, as a follow up to the near perfect Iron Man it does seem a tad lacking. The other factor to consider is that Iron Man 2 bears the burden of having to lay threads for the Avengers movie (which is the only reason Samuel L Jackson's Fury was in there) which also bloats areas of the story with unnecessary exposition that is probably what most folks find slows down the pace of the main story. Despite this I still really enjoyed the movie, and will definitely be adding it to my collection when it gets its DVD release.

Final Verdict on Iron Man 2:

The Losers

"Am I the only one who sees the shirt?"

This is without doubt, the most fun I've had at the cinema since.... well... a long time ago. The Losers is an explosive action fest with terrific humor and a stellar performance by Chris Evans. You owe it to yourself to spend an evening at the theater with this movie.

So lets begin, as is so often the case, with the plot. A special forces team comprising of Clay (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Jensen (Chris Evans), Roque (Idris Elba), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) are on assignment for the CIA. Their target is some sadistic drug lord, whom they have tracked to his shady retreat in the middle of some backwater jungle. In order to eliminate the target, in an homage to Tom Clancy, is to use a laser guided missile. While lasing the target, a bunch of kids show up in truck, and the guys are no longer inclined to incinerate the place. However Max, the man puling the strings, overrides their ability to communicate with the pilot launching the missile and they decide to go in on foot to rescue the kids. Then, without spoiling the specifics, there's a big double cross and they are all left for dead. Cue your standard revenge plot and things get rolling.  

As I pointed out already, the clear winner in the movie is Chris Evans. He steals every scene he's in and manages to inject something really natural and likable into his character. You might argue that he's channeling his Fantastic Four character a little too much, and you might be right, but honestly I think it works in this particular instance. Having said that the entire 'team' of actors worked very well together, and were quite convincing in their portrayal of a group of guys who've been working together for a while and really trust each other. Morgan in particular was fun to watch as the leader of the little group of misfits, and seemed to enjoy channeling Hannibal Smith - yes I am also looking forward to the A-Team movie. Oh, and lets not forget Zoe Saldana, who couldn't be further from Uhura in this movie, which was good as I wasn't particularly impressed with her Star Trek role. Amazingly she seems to have pretty good chemistry with Morgan, which I honestly wasn't expecting.While I do like Jason Patric as an actor, he has done some really good movies over the course of his career (and yes some stinkers too), but I'm not really convinced he was the best choice for the role of the arch villain. He just didn't seem all that menacing, and his character was bat shit crazy. You have to be one hell of an evil genius to randomly kill off your aids and henchmen by the bucket-load every time the wind blows.

Now, let me take a moment to discuss some of the criticisms of this movie. First, folks seem to have issue with the cliched action movie stereotypes that are present in The Losers. Yes I admit it, they probably do cram almost every one of them into a little under 100 minutes. However, just because a movie contains action movie cliches does not mean that it's automatically a bad movie. I would argue that this movie works because of the cliches, I enjoyed it, the movies suspension of disbelief was maintained fairly well throughout (with the exception of the snuke, but I'll get to that in a minute) and the characters kept me interested in what was happening to them. So just because there were gun fights and explosions, things that happen in every other action movie on the planet, this is somehow a bad movie? I disagree. Point number two, once again arguments that the plot does not make sense. Virtually every movie made in the last fifty years is guilty of some kind of plot hole appearing. Sometimes these plot holes are minor and excusable, to the extent that you don't even catch them on your first, or even second viewing, and other times these plot holes are horific craters that actually causes the audience to stop following the movie for a moment as their brain tries to understand what the hell just happened. The Losers, without doubt, is closer to the snafu end of the spectrum, than the earth shattering "what the hell is going on" end. Yes there are plot holes, but when we live in a world that allows Sam to be resurrected by the robots in heaven, you have to put things in perspective. As such, as long as Mr Bay and Mr Cameron are still making movies, I give The Losers a free pass in regard to plot holes. Plus, every movie based on a comic book sacrifices plot at some stage in the game (even the Dark Knight - the best comic book movie in the history of the human race had plot holes).

I will, briefly, comment on my one complaint about the movie: the snuke. The sonic dematerializer was probably the dumbest thing they could have come up with (having not read the comic I have no idea if this is accurate or not), but suffice to say I didn't particularly care for it. Why couldn't it just have been a regular old nuclear warhead? Would that not have been deadly enough? Not to mention that every time somebody said snuke, I flashed back to that episode of South Park.

Aside from the snuke issue, I loved this movie. I highly recommend it to everyone out there who appreciates a good old fashioned action flick. Of our own little group, 3/4 people loved it and the fourth though it was 'alright'. I'd say that's a pretty damn good average, wouldn't you?

Final Verdict on The Losers:

Date Night

"Put your junk in reverse!!"

Surprisingly fun and entertaining! I didn't expect too much from Date Night; like most folks I figured most of the best gags would be in the trailer. Well I was pleasantly surprised by the overall entertainment value of the movie, the best jokes were not spoiled in the trailer, the gags all landed very well, the audience were all having fun and laughing along with said gags. Overall it was just a really fun movie with a great cast and a ton of laughs.

The plot (lets all remember this is a comedy, pure and simple) revolves around Phil and Claire Foster (played by Steve Carell and Tina Fey respectively) a middle aged married couple who seem to be stuck in a rut. When their friends Brad and Haley Sullivan announce they are filing  for divorce, it shakes up the Fosters enough to try and add a spark to their marriage again. This leads them on an impromptu trip into the city for a romantic dinner at a very exclusive restaurant. Without reservations they have no chance of getting a table, so they 'innocently' snag someone else's table when they fail to show up. One unfortunate case of mistaken identity later, and they are stuck in the middle of an extortion scheme and running for their lives.

Steve Carell was an actor I tended to ignore, at least until I saw Dan in Real Life and Get Smart (both of which I liked). After seeing those two movies, I decided Carell was worth my time, prior to that the only time I had seen him was in The Office, which I despise. Well once again I can say Carell was a lot of fun to watch, especially when coupled with Tina Fey. The two actors have great chemistry together and play terrifically well off of each other. I do like Tina Fey, she earned my undying respect with her Sarah Palin parodies. It was also nice to see Mark Wahlberg flexing given the opportunity for some comedy, personally I loved his scenes and I think he was a good match for Carell and Fay. I have to give a special shout out to James Franco and Mila Kunis who were especially hilarious in their brief appearance - keep an eye out for them when you see the movie.

Overall I found this to be a fun and entertaining comedy, it managed to keep the 'stupidity' level in check, such that while there were rather ridiculous moments in the movie, on the whole it stayed out of national lampoon territory. I loved the characters, the acting was great and you can really tell as your watching that everyone involved was enjoying the experience. So, Date Night get's my stamp of approval, I recommend that you see it either in theaters or later on DVD.

Final Verdict on Date Night:

Green Zone

"I know what you did!"

Action packed, but still grounded in reality Green Zone is an entertaining flick, but if the infamous Greengrass shaky cam  makes you queasy then you might want to wait for the DVD. The first thing I thought when I saw the trailer for Green Zone is that this was essentially a fourth Bourne movie. Well having seen the movie I can say with certainty that this is NOT a Bourne movie. Matt Damon plays a very different character in this movie, though it is not unfair to draw similarities. The critics are polarized on this one, currently it sits at 50% on RT.

The basics of the plot follow events in Iraq after the US have seized Baghdad and are scouring the city in search of WMD's. Matt Damon plays Miller, one of the US troops tasked with securing WMD materials uncovered by highly placed intelligence asset Magellan (an asset completely controlled by Clark Poundstone a political suit played by Greg Kinnear). Miller is dissatisfied though as every site he and his team hit comes up empty, worse there is no evidence WMD's were ever present in the first place. When he attempts to raise questions about the intelligence asset, his concerns are quickly dismissed, nobody wants to question it. Enter Brendan Gleeson as Martin Brown, the resident CIA chief who is just as miffed about the situation as Miller. The two quickly join forces in an attempt to uncover the truth about Magellan and to answer the one big question - were there ever any WMD's to begin with?

Matt Damon has established himself as a very diverse actor over the last decade, and he delivers another solid performance in this movie. The thing I like best about Damon is his ability to humanize pretty much every character he plays (I choose to forget about Stuck On You, I bet he does as well). Take a look at the Bourne Supremacy, The Departed and Rounders, in every movie he plays a different character, but still brings substantial depth and presence to each. Another favorite of mine, Brendon Gleeson, has a terrific range as well, if you watch his part in this back to back with In Bruges, you would be hard pressed to believe it was the same person. Gleeson is especially good at the whole brusque no-nonsense attitude of the CIA officer who has to bend his knee to the room full of politicians (I think he did a much better job in this kind of part than Crowe did in Body of Lies). As long as I'm talking about cast, I have to mention Greg Kinnear. I don't know if its the character, the writing or just the way he plays it, but Poundstone comes across as a complete villain. I know Hollywood likes its black and white heroes and villains, but this guy has absolutely no redeeming qualities at all - in fact I'd say its one of the few points in the movie that really breaks with the overall realistic theme.

One consensus we did come to after seeing the movie is that the ending feels a little unsatisfying. However, we also came to the conclusion that perhaps that was the point. As I discuss this in greater detail keep in mind that this is fiction, not fact (even if I believe this is a plausible scenario). In the movie, the constant question as to whether there every were WMD's is answered conclusively, it is also suggested that the politicians were responsible for the war that was claiming the lives of US soldiers. As such an unsatisfying ending was really the only option. Something to keep in mind though is that the ending is anything but uplifting, not that its as horrifically depressing as Edge of Darkness, but it is gritty and real - so if you like your movies to be light and fluffy, skip this one.

Other than the ending I can find no real point of fault with this movie - well other than for those with motion sickness (Greengrass loves the shaky cam). All in all the movie feels very real and very down to earth, in a somewhat similar fashion to Black Hawk Down. I like movies that try to stay faithful to the source material over those that choose to fall into the generic black and white morality tale. After all is said and done on this one I found it very entertaining and would certainly call it another success for Damon et al. Go see it before it leaves theaters.

Final Verdict on Green Zone:

Sherlock Holmes

"You must trust me, I am a professional."

Robert Downey Jr and Guy Ritchie together create something really exciting with Sherlock Holmes, successfully merging a great detective story with solid action and even a believable romantic sub-plot. I expected a lot from this one, as a fan of both the director and the star, and I am happy to say that it delivered - and then some. For consistency the RT score right now is 68%, but I have to admit to losing a bit of faith in those scores since Avatar is sitting at 82%, there is no justice in the world it seems.

As the movie opens we are thrown right into the middle of an important case where Holmes (Downey), with the assistance of Watson (Law), is chasing down criminal mastermind Lord Blackwood (Strong) before he can murder an innocent young woman. It's non stop action as they two close on their quarry - and subsequently secure the scene before the police can even get there. Blackwood is captured, imprisoned and sentenced to death by hanging, case closed - or is it? Shortly after the sentence is carried out, Holmes and Watson are called to the cemetery, where it appears that Blackwood has 'risen from the grave'. Whats really going on? Can Holmes solve the case before Blackwood can carry out his plan? What does Holmes old flame Irene Adler (McAdams) have to do with it, and who is the shadowy figure she is in contact with? As the end credits role, all these questions will be answered and it will leave you eager for a sequel.

The casting on this movie was pure perfection. I can think of nobody better suited to play Holmes than Robert Downey Jr. As Watson, Jude Law represented the perfect companion to Downeys Holmes. Law's Watson is a no nonsense kind of guy who doesn't put up with any of Holmes games, there is a great scene in which Watson goes so far as to punch Holmes in the face - marvelous. The real shining performance for me comes from Mark Strong - the same man who stole every scene of RocknRolla as Archie - as the villain of the movie he is equally as strong and driven as Holmes, making for some great scenes when the two actually meet face to face. Finally McAdams turns in a solid performance as Holmes old flame, doing a great job of breaking up the boys club while still holding her own.

Anyone familiar with Ritchies other movies will feel right at home with his directorial style. He favors the wide angle shot, capturing as much of the scene as possible, especially during the action sequences. One of the things I love most about Ritchie is that you can actually track his growth as a director, if you watch Lock Stock, Revolver and Sherlock Holmes in sequence, you can really see how Ritchie has refined his work. One thing that did concern me when going to see the movie was how much action and explosions there seemed to be in the trailer. This was not the Holmes I grew up with, but I am happy to say that it all blends together seamlessly in the finished product. The action sequences don't detract from the mystery, they add to it by delivering a sense of urgency and drama.

Overall I was very happy with this movie, it was fun, exciting and very enjoyable. The entire cast deliver superb performances, the plot is thoughtful and consistent, and finally it established Downey as the leading man in what is sure to be yet another franchise (in addition to Iron Man). Perhaps this is the single greatest comeback story any actor in Hollywood has ever managed to pull off. Go see the movie, and then buy it on DVD.

Final Verdict on Sherlock Holmes: