Sher-locked

Matt here! The BBC's Sherlock recently ended its quick -- albeit eventful -- third season in early February, and I'm already going through withdrawal! What started as a contemporary retelling of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary invention -- the legendary detective Sherlock Holmes -- has become a massive hit, allowing for the reemergence of old fans as well as forging new fans when it comes to the "world's greatest detective." First, let it be known, that if you are into any kind of crime drama/procedural shows -- fiction or non-fiction -- then you should immediately rent the DVDs or stream this show! At first glance of a season of Sherlock, one may immediately notice a season is only made up of 3 episodes; however, each episode is an hour-and-a-half long! So they are pretty much a series of trilogy movies. This contemporary spin on Doyle's great creation and his greatest stories include: A Study in Scarlet (here, the episode: "A Study in Pink"); The Valley of Fear and The Adventure of the Dancing Men (here: "The Blind Banker"); The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans (here: "The Great Game"); A Scandal in Bohemia (here: "A Scandal in Belgravia"); The Hound of the Baskervilles (here: "The Hounds of Baskerville"); The Final Problem (here: "The Reichenbach Fall"); The Adventure of the Empty Hearse (here: "The Empty Hearse"); The Sign of the Four (here: "The Sign of Three"); and The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton (here: "His Last Vow").



The series stars Benedict Cumberbatch (Star Trek Into Darkness, 12 Years a Slave) as the titular Sherlock -- the contemporary version which still holds true to a lot of the classic Doyle character (although, with some discretions): rather than smoke a pipe, this Cumberbatch's Sherlock wears nicotine patches (yes, more than one at a time), he is able to make correct deductions from the quickest, smallest clues, and he has eidetic memory. He is described in the premiere as having Asperger Syndrome or being a psychopath, and he is highly anti-social. Sherlock describes himself as "a high-functioning sociopath." Cumberbatch can spew out run-on sentences and give a ton of answers before you can say, "Elementary, dear Watson." 

Sherlock's business partner and longtime friend Dr. John Watson -- mostly portrayed as a comic foil to Sherlock -- is played with more seriousness by the wonderful Martin Freeman (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy). Freeman's Watson brings a very hard, skeptical aspect to the character while also representing the "everyman" (or, the viewer) in his experiences with Sherlock. Watson is an army doctor veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and is at first put off by Sherlock but quickly amazed by Sherlock's gift for deduction based on minimal clues. Inevitably, Watson meets a woman who is loving and quite extraordinary, Mary Morstan (brilliantly played by Freeman's real-life partner, Amanda Abbington); and, gratefully, to change things up a bit, Mary has secrets which make her a formidable equal to the dynamic duo. 

Speaking of equals, to update Sherlock's famous quasi-love interest -- "The Woman" a.k.a. the woman Sherlock comes close to loving in the only way Sherlock can romantically love -- the creators adapted Irene Adler (Lara Pulver) into a dominatrix who believes in power and trading secrets for money. She is the only person who can somewhat perplex Sherlock and her addition to the series in season/series 2 is essential! 

Finally, there is the king of all villains as far as I'm concerned: Moriarty! Andrew Scott as Sherlock's arch nemesis, the genius villain consulting criminal James Moriarty may very well be one of the best villains EVER! As Moriarty says, "Ever fairy tale needs a good old-fashioned villain."  He and Sherlock's rivalry are what inspired the classic nemesis pairings such as Batman and the Joker, Peter Pan and Captain Hook, Doctor Who and The Master, and Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort! Scott takes Moriarty to all new levels that I didn’t think possible on television. He’s an evil whose presence is felt with every minute he’s on screen. When he angrily rumbles that he will "burn the heart" out of Sherlock (a great line, by the way), you believe him! To Moriarty, everyone is merely a pawn – their lives insignificant and expendable. He is a “consulting criminal” whose intellect matches Sherlock’s, and whose cunning and ruthlessness places him above no other. I was a bit disappointed with his and Sherlock's "end" in the season 2 finale. However, it has been teased he may be making a return, which caused me to nearly wet myself!

I have to admit that I've been very disheartened with the state of television lately. With all of the gossipy reality shows and mind-numbing reality competition shows filling the prime time slots, it's difficult to find a show that really stimulates your imagination and keeps you well entertained. Fortunately, four shows this winter saved me from complete television anaphylactic shock: The Walking Dead, Downton Abbey (Yes, DOWNTON Mother-F'n ABBEY!!!), Doctor Who (Yes, I KNOW I'm coming on-board late, but I'm all caught up and am a diehard fan!), and Sherlock! They were the only shows where I became excited to watch what the characters were in store for that particular week. Don't get me wrong. There are other shows on TV that I watch, but I don't get as much from them as I do the aforementioned four shows.

The greatest thing about one of the newest incarnations of Doyle's timeless character is placing him in the modern day and the brilliant writing and production by Steven Moffat (who took the reins as head writer and executive producer for Doctor Who) and Mark Gatiss (who plays Sherlock's brother Mycroft in the series, and has also contributed to Doctor Who). The writing the show churns out is some of the finest writing in television today. It's got it all: from drama to action to comedy to suspense to even a touch of romance (although, it doesn't come from Sherlock himself!). Each movie-length episode's story propels the arc of the show forward, never with a lull, and keeps me guessing in an age when I can predict what is going to happen on nearly 95% of the shows I watch. Sherlock is probably the only show on TV where I wonder how the writers are going to write solutions for the predicaments they place their heroes in; I also wonder what they're going to do next, where they'll take the characters. Here is just a sample of the cliffhanger-like writing in the series when Moriarty first comes face-to-face with Sherlock:

Even CBS' mild Elementary (another adaptation of Doyle's Holmes) doesn't even come close to the excellence of the BBC's version -- and it's a universe I feel needs respect. After all, this is the story that helped inspire famous fictional icons such as Batman, Dr. Greg House, Dr. Spencer Reid, and Shawn Spencer, as well as spawn many incarnations of the character by many talented actors. Now, the series will be entering its fourth season/series if the BBC decides to pick up the show again; despite the busy schedules of Cumberbatch and Freeman (who have recently shared billing in The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug and The Hobbit: There and Back Again), as well as producers Moffat and Gatiss, the producers have written out stories for seasons four and five so that is a good sign the show will be picked up for another season.



Sherlock takes television and makes it smart again! It's no longer merely some mindless wasteland populated with attention-seeking wannabes, vapid, superficial money princesses, unfunny distracting swill, or sex-driven plots. If you're looking to watch television that actually requires your attention and thinking -- and is extremely entertaining -- then the BBC's Sherlock should be your top priority in your rental queue; this is not a show to put on "in the background" and hope to catch the gist of what is occurring (it's too involved for that and deserves anyone's full attention). My favorite episodes are season two's "A Scandal in Belgravia" (which introduces Irene Adler) and "The Final Problem" (a Moriarty-centric episode). But the entire series has great episodes! The only unfortunate aspect to Sherlock is the time between seasons/series. I'd love to think season 4 will premiere in January 2015, but that's probably wishful thinking. Nevertheless, the wait is more than worth it!

Jay & Matt Review "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"

JAY'S REVIEW:

It's fitting that this first review I'm writing for this new venture is for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. Filmmaker Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy remains to me one of my favorite examples of when studio commitment and creative genius came together to deliver something wholly unique in cinema history. It is one of the reasons I like to watch and write about movies. So, I can't think of a more suited choice for my first piece on this site.

As many who have read J.R.R. Tolkien's classic novels, I find it nearly impossible to not bring baggage as a fan of the books into the movie theater with me. Avoiding comparison is an exercise in futility. For me, Jackson could not have done a better job adapting Professor Tolkien's masterpiece, Lord of the Rings for the big screen. He cut, expanded and added in all the right places, staying faithful to the author's vision while also understanding that this was a book with volumes that needed a bit of "tightening".

It was inevitable that Jackson would return to adapt Tolkien's first novel that took place in Middle Earth, The Hobbit. Unlike LOTR, this is a much shorter, tighter, and more childlike adventure novel. Sure, it has a few moments of darkness, but taken as a whole, The Hobbit is a whimsical fantasy tale that kids have read for generations.

For whatever reasons, Peter Jackson decided that he wanted to take this roughly 300-page book and spread it out over 3 long films called, in order: An Unexpected Journey, The Desolation of Smaug, and There and Back Again. Was it the studio who pushed for it, seeing a mountain of gold of their own (sorry for the unnecessary metaphor)? Was it Jackson, himself, wanting to pull out all the stops to prove he could top the monumental achievement he had already accomplished a decade ago? Probably both, and other reasons as well. I knew one thing for sure: that the creative team behind this venture would have to add a lot to the somewhat compact narrative of The Hobbit in order to fill in all the gaps.

The dwarves of Erebor finally return home in Peter Jackson's second installment of The Hobbit. Hopefully, that big dragon isn't expecting company!

The first installment in this new trilogy was last year's An Unexpected Journey. It started the story of Bilbo Baggins' quest to help the 12 dwarves of the lost kingdom of Erebor retake their home from the clutches of the dragon, Smaug. Released to mixed reviews, many thought the movie took too long to get going. Extensive scenes involving dwarves singing, eating and making merry in the home of the dismayed hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, were called boring and too long. I liked the movie for the most part. It had some pacing issues, especially at the beginning, but I like that it took time to try and create individual characters for the dwarves, who, save Thorin, are mostly static in the book.  In the second half of Journey, the story really took off, and the scenes with Gollum in the cave and the finding of the ring were brilliantly staged and acted by Martin Freeman (Bilbo) and Andy Serkis (Gollum).

Well, I'm happy to say that the second film in the trilogy, The Desolation of Smaug, doesn't suffer at all from any drawn out exposition. Even at 2 hours 40 minutes, there doesn't seem to be an ounce of fat on it. After a quick prologue, set in a familiar inn, in a familiar town, we pick up right where we left off with the company of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), after having successfully escaped Azog, the pale orc and his warg-riders. The film follows the rest of Bilbo's and the dwarves' journey to the Lonely Mountain. On the way, they narrowly escape from a horde of vicious giant spiders in the depths of Mirkwood Forest, only to be captured by the king of the wood elves, Thanduril (Lee Pace). After some clever use of his new mysterious ring, Bilbo helps the dwarves escape in an exciting barrel chase scene, only to meet a new friend in Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans), who helps them sneak into Laketown, a city close to the base of the mountain.

Oakenshield and his dwarves are taken prisoner by Thanduril and taken to the legendary wooden elves' Mirkwood Forest kingdom.

Finally, in the film's climactic final third act, we see Bilbo attempt to fulfill his contract as the company's resident "burglar" -- to steal back the precious Arkenstone and come face-to-face with the fearsome dragon, Smaug. This is where the movie really shines for me. Smaug is the best digital creature creation I've seen since . . . . well, Gollum. I found him not only to be gargantuan and terrifying but also majestic and beautiful in his self-serving, prideful way. As Bilbo tells him, "Truly the songs and tales fall utterly short of your enormity, O Smaug the Stupendous." I mean, I knew he was going to be awesome, but I didn't know he was going to be f#^*king awesome! Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness) was an excellent choice to voice "the greatest of calamities" as well. His voice bellows through the cavernous chambers of Erebor.

A familiar face returns in the elf Legolas (Orlando Bloom), and Jackson has taken the liberty of writing in a new character, Turiel (Evangeline Lilly) to provide a possible love story, and a strong female that is non-existent in the male-dominated source material. I guess my only gripe is that the introduction of Turiel -- and her affections for both Legolas and the dwarf Kili -- seemed a bit forced. Especially the scene where the she-elf saves the ailing Kili, who was poisoned by an orc arrow, by applying a medicinal weed to his wound, a nearly identically shot moment that copies the scene from Fellowship of the Ring where young Frodo (Elijah Wood) is saved the same way by Arwen (Liv Tyler). It was a rare moment where I felt Jackson went too far, and the Turiel/Kili subplot should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Not originally found in the novel, Jackson added Turiel (Lilly) and Legolas (Bloom) to the story, as well as a bit of a love triangle.

Another interesting addition is the scenes of Gandalf (Ian McKellan) and his journey to the ruined fortress of Dol Guldur. These scenes were never in the book as well, but they serve Jackson's purpose of trying to connect this story to Lord of the Rings by showing the growing evil that will soon be unleashed upon Middle Earth. I won't spoil it for you but a familiar sight welcomes Gandalf there, and the old wizard realizes there are much greater dangers in store for the world than Smaug represents.

Overall, The Desolation of Smaug is an improvement in many ways over its predecessor. Its a return to form for Peter Jackson, and it will provide fans of the book and earlier films all they could want from an epic adventure story about a little hobbit and very big dragon ... and everything that happens in between.

Matt's Take:

Maybe it's the holiday season but I have to say that I couldn't agree more with Jay's review! I cannot express enough of how unimpressed I was with An Unexpected Journey; it is noticeably absent from my "Top Films of 2012" list. I too am wondering why Jackson decided to take a 300-page book and stretch it out to three films, but if I had to guess, I'd say it have to do with dollar signs. I understand Jackson wanted to make the dwarf characters more developed but I still feel more could have been cut from Journey. And when I found out Warner Bros. was inevitably releasing an extended version of that film on DVD, I truly wondered what more Jackson could have added to a film series that already has added material not originally released in the book. Now, I'll admit that if it were a Star Wars extended edition, I would buy any version in a millisecond. But I'm not a big enough LOTR geek to shell out an extra $20-$30 for a film I wasn't crazy enough about in the first place! 

If filmmaker Kevin Smith thought LOTR was a film where all the characters did "was walk," he must have had a field day with critiquing Journey. (WARNING: VERY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

Fortunately, with Smaug, Jackson gets back on track to what made his Lord of the Ring films so great and fun. I would easily see (and buy) an extended version of this film! The addition of the love triangle between Legolas, Turiel, and Kili doesn't really bother me as it did not take central focus of the story (not yet, anyway!), and the addition of Gandalf's visit to Dol Guldur is very welcomed as I greatly approve of Jackson's tying this film series to his masterpiece LOTR series. As for the dragon Smaug, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, he met every expectation I had; then again, I'm a little biased because, when it comes to Cumberbatch, I'm a BIG fan of his (if you have not seen his Sherlock on BBC yet, I immediately order you to Netflix, rent, or buy the first two seasons)!  

To me, whereas the only real highlight of Journey was the meeting between Bilbo (Freeman) and Gollum (Serkis), in Smaug, the highlight was the barrel river ride/fight scene. Seeing Legolas in action was a sight to behold just like in the LOTR films, and even seeing what fighting these dwarves could do in such a tight situation gave me a newfound respect for them and The Hobbit franchise. Up until this movie, I found the movie series and the book to be not that impressive simply because I didn't quite care for the dwarves or their plight. To me, I had the same belief that Beorn (Mikael Persbrandt), the "skin-changer," has: "I do not care much for dwarves. They do not think of anything that they feel is beneath them." 

Nevertheless, a great movie that is a must-see for the holiday season! 

JAY & MATT 
WARNING: May contain spoilers!

JAY: So, my first question for you is . . . have you read the books?
MATT: I read your review and have to say I agree with it! Yes, I've read the book!
JAY: Thanks! I really liked the movie, but not without a few quibbles.

Like I said in my review. The Turiel/Kili thing kind of bothered me.

MATT: It didn't really bother me. I didn't feel it was a main focus ... not yet, anyway!

JAY: Maybe I'm just getting cynical, but I was like . . . . really, do we need this?

I guess Jackson needed to put something in for the ladies to connect with, huh?
MATT: I think it never hurts to put a strong female lead in a film ... especially when it's a mostly male-dominated movie!
JAY: Ok, now you're gonna make me sound like a male pig!! Ha, ha!! 
MATT: No! What bothers me more was how the entire series started! "Journey" was awful (notice it didn't make my "Top films of 2012" list!
JAY: I liked Evangeline Lilly in it. Thought she was great. I just thought it would be a romantic relationship between her and Legolas. The Kili thing came out of left field for me.
MATT: That did feel a little forced because it's as if Jackson's trying to make some moral statement about how "love knows no bounds." That's not in the book, and it doesn't really need to be in the film because it doesn't serve any purpose but to add extra drama.
JAY: Exactly! Back to Journey. I didn't dislike it as much as you. I would never call it "awful". It suffered in the beginning but got much better going on.

It all goes back to stretching this books over 3 movies. Jackson is walking a tight rope.

The beginning was bound to suffer.

Question: Which is your favorite of the LOTR Trilogy?
MATT: Journey surely had its moments but it seemed like a job when it came to watching that film.

As for my favorite LOTR film, Return of the King!
JAY: See, that makes sense. Mine is Fellowship of the Ring. I tend to like beginnings more than endings. I liked its slower pace and intimate feel.

MATT: I could see that but I wouldn't compare Fellowship to being as slow as Journey! 
JAY: I agree. Journey was bogged down. Did you see this in 3-D? 
MATT: No, didn't see it in 3-D! To me, that's a technology that's more of a trend or gimmick rather than a helpful filmmaking technique. 
JAY: I feel the same. I am not a fan. Only 2 movies have been must sees in 3-D: Hugo and Gravity.

I saw this in 2-D as well. And I think it suffers.

Jackson shot it in a high frame rate for 3-D so when you watch it in 2-D some parts look really fake.

Journey was the same.

The barrel chase in particular looked fake.

MATT: That's the thing with these films, though. Of course, we know they're fake but I thought the barrel chase scene was the best thing about this installment!

We can't really comment on technology on these films as they've already been marveled over, but the story and pacing was much better in Smaug than its predecessor.

I mean, let's call The Hobbit films (and book) out for what it really is: a prequel!
JAY: Agreed! But, do you think the barrel chase scene is better than the scene with Smaug!?

MATT: Maybe I just like seeing orc-killing and Legolas' kickass fighting moves! But, don't get me wrong, Smaug was great!

JAY: He was spectacular!

It was the only moment I wish I was seeing it in 3-D.
MATT: Of course! Looks who was portraying Smaug. Cumberbatch did motion capture for it as well!
JAY: Cumberbatch was a perfect choice. Ironic that he is reunited with his Sherlock co-star. Ha, ha!

MATT: Yeah, and they're trying to kill each other!
JAY: I think Freeman is sooooo good in this and Journey.

He was the obvious choice. Did you the know he was Jackson's only choice? They had to stop filming his scenes for 3 months in order to let him go back to England to film the 2nd season of Sherlock.
MATT: Makes sense! And they did the best thing for the films by doing that. Freeman's another actor I like a lot and think is very underrated. What will be interesting is how the Bilbo/Oakenshield conflict will be played out in a just-under 3-hour movie in the next installment. I like how they teased it in Smaug.
JAY: Yeah. The Battle of Five Armies will be awesome.

What did you think of the scenes with Gandalf in Dol Guldur?
MATT: I LOVED them. Adding them in was a much-welcomed addition as they perfectly tie in the inevitable events of the LOTR story. I think if Jackson had not included them, most fans would ask, "Hey, how did all of this evil come into the land without a so-called powerful wizard like Gandalf not noticing?"

At least, that's what I would be asking.

What about you?
JAY: I'm with you. The reveal of Sauron was just great. Guess we should throw a spoiler warning up there. I showed the growing threat and how much worse it is than Smaug. Would have liked more Radagast the Brown, though! I love Sylvester McCoy!!

Bird-poop face is awesome!!

MATT: He's OK, but I like Bard (Luke Evans) and can't wait to see his role in the next movie!

JAY: I was also intrigued by the changes made with Bilbo's use of the ring. 
MATT: I thought it was really cool when he could understand the spiders while he was wearing the ring.
JAY: Yeah, that in particular was nice. In the book there is no inkling of the ring's evil. It is just a magic ring Bilbo finds that makes him invisible.

Jackson was very subtle with how he hinted at its influence over Bilbo.

It wasn't forced.
MATT: See, I think that is crucial if you're tying all the stories together, which, I believe, is essential in a film series like this. 
JAY: True. I liked when Smaug called it "precious". Nice touch. 
MATT: Yes!

JAY: One last thing I want to bring up. I can't help but wonder how these movies would be different if Guillermo Del Toro made them?

He was supposed to direct but bowed out when their was that prolonged fight over the rights between Warner Bros. and MGM.

MATT: I almost shudder to think. Unlike you, I'm not a big Del Toro fan. 
JAY: Well, I hated Pacific Rim. It was not my cup of tea. But the guy who made Pan's Labyrinth making this would be very interesting! 
MATT: Pacific Rim was the WORST movie of the year! 
JAY: Yeah, I may agree with you on Pacific Rim. But I always thought Del Toro's sense of whimsy was more pronounced than Jackson's and would compliment this book well.
MATT: I think we're in agreement that, out of a movie to go see during the holiday season, Desolation of Smaug is a must-see!

It's just a minor setback that its first installment -- An Unexpected Journey -- was so slow.
JAY: Agreed!  

Please feel free to let us know what you thought of the movie! Did you agree with us? Was it really spectacular in 3-D or does it not matter?