the man from U.N.C.L.E (2015). directed by guy ritchie.

departing from my usual dislike of action films, i come to like the man from U.N.C.L.E very much. it doesn't take itself seriously, at least the two main characters try to have fun with all the pretensions that they need to carry. it has a little bit of the early steven soderbergh's ocean films, which is fun. i read some other reviews and a lot of critics don't enjoy this movie as much - calling it plot-less and such, but i've been watching too many cartoons on the big screen that despite the colour attack, i find the film lightheartedness really nice. to give credit to guy ritchie's style of direction, i wouldn't have watched this on the basis of armie hammer and henry cavill alone. 

sherlock holmes: a game of shadows (2011). directed by guy ritchie.

only in guy ritchie's sherlock holmes that sir arthur conan doyle's beloved detective gets a nickname of shirley. the film is pretty much like the first one, robert downey jr.'s non stop manic energy hit fever pitch that he reminds me of early jackie chan movies. it's enjoyable though, and i especially like the scene between holmes and moriarty dueling over a chess game when they are in fact poking holes in each other's plans - moriarty's war mongering ambitions vs. holmes' i-am-going-to-defeat-you-because-i-can. my only complaint is that i find downey's fake british accent extremely muddled, that at times i could not understand what was he saying. or perhaps i am just a little hard of hearing. 

i don't know if other people feel this way, but i find holmes and watson touchy-feely-boyfriend-ly relationship comical in a good way...heck they could have made a cute, adventurous couple had watson not insist on marrying a woman - in ritchie's universe, that is. 

snatch (2000). directed by guy ritchie.

first of all, thank god for putting quentin tarantino and guy ritchie here on earth. we need film makers who make their own genres undefined by other people. unconstrained. i watched this movie many, many years ago and had the chance for a re-watch last week, my god, it was as funnily crazy as the first time i watched it. how great is that. hail to the master of losers-finish-last-but-will-definitely-win!

watch out for brad pitt as the pikey who speaks incomprehensible english. i always thought pitt is naturally funny. 

rocknrolla (2008). directed by guy ritchie.

every country needs at least one quentin tarantino. and the brits have one in the form of madonna's ex, guy ritchie. ritchie's RocknRolla (2008) is irreverent and what could go wrong will go wrong. it's a crazy underworld full of drug dealers, small time crooks with gay best friends, russians like roman abrahamovic, bored accountants married to gay men, old school gangsters and junkies.

and it's funny like there's no end to it.

sherlock holmes (2009). directed by guy ritchie.

roger ebert isn't usually kind towards remakes. he surprisingly is in Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's Sherlock Holmes!. i guess he's right when he said "The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked 'Sherlock Holmes'".

it's been some time since i encounter the word dastard, which was aptly used by ebert in the article and frequently employed by arthur conan doyle which means a despicable coward. brings back fond memories of sherlock holmes, indeed.

sherlock holmes (2009). directed by guy ritchie.

i managed to catch sherlock holmes (2009) today and mr. downey was a joy to watch, that i think he risks turning into johnny depp or jack nicholson in his ability to swallow the screen. that's not a bad thing on its own if the story is about one person alone, but not when you have other characters vying for attention too.

i am a big fan of sir arthur conan doyle's sherlock holmes. definitely one of the books that contributed to my nearsightedness apart from william shakespeare's tragedies. yes, i am a romantic for hamlet and king lear. going back to guy ritchie's holmes, this is not a tribute. merely character adaptation. whilst downey brought his own brand of holmes, which is the antithesis of doyle's holmes; the story has a mass appeal effect to it. it's not strong enough. it's downey's talent that he can be comical without trying, and he is fantastic with expressions which made him quite a stand out. but holmes, would take a lot more than that.

ritchie is aiming for entertainment, not a faithful adaptation. nevertheless, my opinions are eerily similar as this one, taken from imdb.com

Has "Busted Franchise" Written All Over It, 15 December 2009

As a long time Sherlock Holmes fan,I really wanted to say something good about this one, but I really can't. Guy {Madonna's ex} Ritchie modern take on the classic Conan-Doyle stories seems to have been made for a contemporary audience who has no clue {get it?}-on who Holmes is. Downey totally fails as Holmes in a character who is too modern-and possibly too ambigiously gay for the role-not that there's anything wrong with that. Law is just alright as Watson and he does try to bring some comic relief to the character. The story has Holmes trying to stop a plot to destroy London. There are the usual CGI scenes, but for some reason most of them are pretty well done and do manage to capture the essence of what London probably looked like at that time. Even though it is a good looking and well produced movie, it is predictable from start to finish, even though some interesting diversions are placed to add some momentum to the story line. Obviously looking for a new franchise, the producers of this should hope that the Baker St. boys are a hit at the box office. Movie itself is fairly likable, but it just falls flat on what it has to deliver. That's the trouble with Holmes when new stories are written to cater to contemporary tastes. Perhaps if an original Conan-Doyle story was used, this would have turned out better. Where are Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce when you need them?

at best, i give this movie a C.