Movie Review: Murder Mystery (Spoiler-Free)

Murder Mystery (film).png

Rating: 7 out of 10 stars


My roommate convinced me to watch this one by showing me this trailer. As far as movie trailers go, it’s a pretty good one – providing a glimpse of the character of the movie without giving away any major plot points. Check it out!

Anyway, I am so glad she convinced me. It was totally worth it. Read on to find out why.


Murder Mystery was released on Netflix in June 2019 and fits neatly into three genres: action, comedy, and crime.

The movie stars Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Luke Evans, and Terence Stamp, among others.

According to, 30.9 million households watched at least 70% of the movie within 3 days–a new record for a Netflix film.

Murder Mystery also won a People’s Choice Award for “Favorite Comedic Movie.”


Will Netflix Make Murder Mystery 2? The Case For A Sequel - CINEMABLEND
Nick and Audrey Spitz

Nick Spitz, a police officer in New York, has been married to a hairdresser named Audrey for 15 years. However, they have not yet gone on their honeymoon. They had plans to go to Europe, but the plans kept getting put off.

Nick Spitz has failed his detective exam multiple times, but he lies to his wife by telling her he is a detective and has had a recent raise. To keep up this façade, he acts like an actual detective.

When they are on the plane on the way to Europe, the couple meets Charles Cavendish, a billionaire who invites them to join his family on a yacht. After some hesitation, Nick and Audrey agree.

Everything is going well until Malcolm Quince, the uncle of Cavendish, is murdered before he could sign his will, which stated that his fiancé Suzi would receive his entire fortune.

The primary suspects? The Americans–Nick and Audrey Spitz. In order to avoid some serious jailtime, the couple must solve the mystery and prove their innocence.


  • Humorous script
  • Drama
  • Hilariously complicated mystery with many layers
  • Surprises throughout
  • Unexpected ending
  • Chemistry of the couple
  • Amusing character types


  • Many sex jokes
  • Uncreative title


Humorous Script

Why Grace Ballard from Murder Mystery looks so familiar
Grace Ballard

This movie is filled with lines that are creative or just plain funny. The banter between the couple is especially convincing. My favorite quote is this:

All women are actresses, dear. I’m just clever enough to get paid for it.”

Grace Ballard to Nick Spitz


Murder Mystery: 11 unbelievable reasons why Jennifer Aniston and Adam  Sandler's Netflix comedy is the worst film of the year
Colonel Ulenga

There is so much drama in this movie that it is completely ridiculous. Luckily, that’s the point.

Colonel Ulenga, for instance, tampers with the body by removing the knife, only to be told he shouldn’t have touched it. As a result, he promptly puts it back, oblivious to the cries of horror by everyone else present.

(This is no spoiler – it was included in the trailer.)


The mystery is hilariously overcomplicated. Every time you feel like it’s solved, the movie throws more surprises in your face. It’s the sort of crime no one could predict the solution to. You just have to prepare yourself to be surprised and hang on for the ride.


The Cast & Characters In Netflix Murder Mystery Movie
Suzi Nakamura

When the couple joins the family on the yacht, they do not realize the sheer amount of ill will directed at Malcom Quince. This no doubt worsens when Quince asserts:

You are all leeches.”

Malcom Quince

Each character has a complicated history with Malcolm Quince. Furthermore, the characters have intense personalities and veiled motives that make this mystery fun to follow.

Nick and Audrey have great chemistry–they truly act like a couple who have been married for fifteen years. Watching them interact is entertaining, comedic, and refreshing.

Sex Jokes

I don’t mind the occasional joke or two of this kind if it is consistent with the character who says it, but I did feel that these were a little excessive.

Uncreative Title

Far more important to me is the lack of a compelling title. I told my dad that he should watch Murder Mystery. It took him longer than expected to find the trailer because “murder mystery” is too common a term.

It isn’t clever. It’s pretty much stating what the movie is about, like those bland essay titles I used to do before I knew it was better to have an impactful title.


I rated this movie a 7 out of 10 because I enjoyed it and would be willing to watch it again in a few years. I recommend it for an audience of teens and adults, which is consistent with its official rating.

Rating System

If you’re interested in how I rate movies, check out my rating system.


Show Review: Sherlock Season 2 (Spoiler-Free)

Sherlock and Moriarty are 'absolutely obsessed with each other', confirms  Andrew Scott | The Independent | The Independent

Rating: 9.8 out of 10


After watching the first season of Sherlock, I was super excited to dive in to Season 2. Below I share my impression of the season as a whole. As it is a spoiler-free review, I will limit how much I reveal of the plot.


Sherlock Season 2 aired in 2012 and was produced by BBC and Hartswood films. It is based off of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes books, but instead of being placed in Victorian England, the show is set in modern-day London.

The show stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Rupert Graves, Una Stubbs, Mark Gatiss, Louise Brealey, Andrew Scott, and Lara Pulver.

In addition to being nominated for various awards, Sherlock won in three categories in the Primetime Emmy Awards.


By this time, Watson and Sherlock have been living together in a flat for some time, solving mysteries and generally getting better acquainted. We last saw them in Season 1 when Moriarty was threatening their lives.

In this season, Sherlock and Watson face off against Moriarty and also have to contend with the dominatrix Irene Adler.


  • Phenomenal acting
  • Immersive setting highly relevant to a modern-day audience
  • Strong character development
  • Benefit of a familiar character with a new spin
  • Intriguing new character this season
  • Intelligent, occasionally comical, script
  • Engaging plot
  • Carefully chosen camera angles
  • Introduction of the mind palace
  • Catchy theme song


  • Nudity
  • Over-the-top drama when Sherlock is thinking deeply (in his “mind palace”)



The acting, especially by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, was incredible. They both played their parts well.

All of the fantastic and obnoxious qualities of Sherlock were brought out and emphasized. This season, for the first time, we see Sherlock take a vague interest in a woman, and we see him exhibit actual fear. Cumberbatch was highly skilled at demonstrating both.


Sherlock Holmes - Wikiwand
Sherlock and Watson’s flat in Sherlock

The setting in Season 2 is the same as Season 1, unsurprisingly. The presence of modern conveniences such as security cameras and phones remains a way for this new Sherlock to test his intellect. This transition from the Victorian London of the books to modern-day London is seamless.


Sherlock is a highly intelligent man who lacks empathy. He is nevertheless shown on several occasions to have at least some degree of care depending on who the person is. He is always blunt, but occasionally shows remorse for his words when they have caused damage.

This quote reveals just how blunt he can be.

You repel me.”

Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock

It is demonstrated in this season that he cannot always reign in his emotions, even though he considers them “a grit on the lens.”

He shows emotions he has not shown before as he meets new challenges. These emotions expand on his character rather than contradicting it.

It was more than that, John. It was doubt. I felt doubt. I’ve always been able to trust my senses, the evidence of my own eyes, until last night.”

Watson is of higher-than-average intelligence, but he cannot compete with Sherlock. Watson, however, has a deep sense of empathy and values human life while wanting to negate human suffering. He has a high tolerance for Sherlock, but even he loses his temper sometimes at Sherlock’s careless comments and ill-timed deductions.

The relationship between Sherlock and Watson gets closer in this season (although there is a fair share of tension and squabbles). Sherlock even attempts humor to “break the ice.” Watson responds with:

Funny doesn’t suit you. I’d stick to ice.”

Watson to Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock
Irene Adler (BBC series) | Villains Wiki | Fandom

Irene Adler is the new character added to the mix, a dominatrix. She is intelligent enough to banter well with Sherlock, and provoking enough to make Watson uncomfortable.

The thing that is the most fun about Irene Adler is the way Sherlock reacts to her. Between her and Moriarty, Sherlock has some well-matched antagonists.

My favorite line of hers is this:

You know what the problem with a disguise is, Mr. Holmes? No matter how hard you try, it’s always a self-portrait.”

Irene Adler in Sherlock
Sherlock's Andrew Scott: fans asked me every day whether Moriarty would  return

Moriarty is undeniably intelligent and his schemes are both elaborate and effective. He’s a good villain – creepy, bizarre, and insane.


The script is clever, deepening the relationship between the characters and creating many funny moments. Just one of the many examples of humor in the text is when Sherlock asked Watson to punch him. When Watson seemed confused, Sherlock asked if he heard correctly. Then, Watson said this:

I always hear ‘punch me in the face’ when you’re speaking, but it’s usually sub-text.”

John Watson in Sherlock


Without spoiling anything, all I can say is that if you liked the plot of Season 1, you will like Season 2 as well. The episode I found most interesting in terms of plot was The Hounds of Baskerville.

Camera Angles

The camera angles chosen at various times during the episodes added to the drama. For instance, the camera was jostled to simulate running in one of the episodes.

Mind Palace

Season 2 introduces the concept of a mind palace, a memory technique that mentally connects information to an imagined physical location. It is a testament to Sherlock’s ego that he calls his imagined location a palace rather than a house or street or even a mansion.

While on the topic of his mind palace, I should mention that Sherlock does some really dramatic motions while he’s thinking of it. Fly-swatting, phone-swiping, head-jolting sorts of motions. It’s all very dramatic and unlike him to be that expressive.


There was a scene with nudity in it. I do not think that it was a wise choice on the part of the directors. Having that scene reduces the size of the potential audience while catering to the whims of a small percentage of their audience. Before and after that episode it really doesn’t seem like that kind of show.

That being said, there were some conveniently placed items of furniture and people that limited how much one could really see of the nude person, so I do not feel like it was a major con.


This show really deserves it’s rating of 9.8 out of 10. Although I admit I liked Season 1 best, this season was so good that I would certainly recommend it, and would gladly watch it again.

Rating System

If you are interested in how I rate things, check out my rating system.


For my review of Season 1, click here.


Movie Review: Enola Holmes (Spoiler-Free)

Enola Holmes (2020) - IMDb

Movie: Enola Holmes (2020)

Rating: 6.8 out of 10 stars


When I found out that there was a movie about the teenage sister of Sherlock and Mycroft, I was skeptical about it. How would it compare to other renderings of the Holmes family?

The answer: it doesn’t. While entertaining enough to be fun watching once, it failed to measure up. Read on to find out why.


Enola Holmes was released in 2020 as a Netflix original. It is based on The Enola Holmes Mysteries: The Case of the Missing Marquess by Nancy Springer.

The film stars Millie Bobbie Brown, Sam Claflin, Henry Cavill, Helena Bonham Carter, and Louis Partridge.


Enola Holmes' Trailer: Millie Bobby Brown Is Sherlock Holmes' Sister |  IndieWire
Enola Holmes from Enola Holmes

The plot revolves around 16-year-old Enola Holmes, whose mother goes missing. When she becomes the ward of her brother Mycroft and he tries to force her into an oppressive finishing school, she escapes and concocts a plan to find her lost mother.

She stumbles across the missing Viscount Tewkesbury and becomes immersed in two mysteries: Who is it that is trying to have Tewkesbury killed? And where is her mother?

The movie Enola Holmes is both a mystery movie and a story of self-discovery.


  • Unique take on the Holmes family
  • Creative pop-up book illustrations
  • Costumes interesting, had a lot of thought behind them
  • Enola had a fascinating childhood
  • Enola is good at cracking codes, self-defense, hiding/disguises, memory
  • Will likely be appealing to an audience of preteen and young teenage girls


  • Constant breaking of the fourth wall
  • Henry Cavill is a terrible Sherlock
  • Mycroft is reduced to a disgruntled babysitter
  • This is definitely not going to satisfy Sherlock Holmes fans
  • Enola is not much of a mystery solver



It is safe to say that movies and shows about Sherlock Holmes are overdone. But ones that focus on his family? Not so much.

This is not Sherlock’s story; it is 100% Enola’s story. The name Holmes is important in the title because of the legacy it carries of mystery, ingenuity, and creativity – not because Sherlock is a significant character.

This is a new take on the Holmes’ family – one that has not been overdone, and one that could create a worthwhile series of its own.

Pop-up Art

The choice to include pop-up animations to introduce the family was creative. These were also used throughout the film, along with journalistic illustrations that made the movie feel like Enola’s personal diary.


Netflix's 'Enola Holmes' Quotes to Use as Instagram Captions
Enola Holmes from Enola Holmes

The costumes were designed by Oscar-nominated Consolata Boyle. According to Boyle, Enola’s red dress was chosen to represent courage. She also utilized ivory, as it is a color associated with the suffragette movement. Each costume was carefully chosen. To learn more, check out this article


Enola Holmes is a likeable character with many skills. She is good at cracking codes, self-defense, and disguises. Her memory for details is impeccable. Her courage and generosity is also notable.

Enola is not much of a mystery solver, however. She did not solve either mystery mentally, but instead by courageous action and being where the action was happening.

Sherlock from Enola Holmes

Sherlock is an ineffective character primarily because it seems like the actor is trying to be two things at once: the friendly, compassionate big brother and the emotionally detached detective. For instance, Sherlock says:

You’re being emotional. That’s understandable, but unnecessary.”

Sherlock from Enola Holmes

Yet he is so emotional that, according to Screenrant, Netflix was sued by the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who claimed that this emotional Sherlock was based off Sherlock stories still under copyright.

Sam Claflin interview - Millie Bobby Brown is a "powerhouse"
Mycroft from Enola Holmes

Mycroft is reduced to a disgruntled babysitter who continuously fails in his attempts to control Enola. He has no redeeming qualities.

Breaking the Fourth Wall

I know this is a legitimate storytelling technique, but it was excessive in this movie. It strained one’s suspension of belief to the breaking point. Enola looks at the camera all the time, reminding viewers over and over that this is just a movie and that it’s all fake.

If you are looking for the escapist qualities of a good film, you won’t find them here. The constant reminder of the camera’s presence ruins any chance of the sort of realism that allows one to be absorbed in a story.


I gave this movie a 6.8 because it was better than the average movie. However, I would not be interested in watching it again.

While this movie is not for everyone, it is likely to appeal to an audience of preteen and young teenage girls.

Sherlock fans are likely to be disappointed. If you go into the movie without comparing it to other media that depict the Holmes family, you’ll be better off.

My Rating System

If you want to know how I rate movies, check out my rating system for movies.


My Rating System for Movies


I figured it was about time to share the reasoning behind my ratings – after all, just a number of stars seems pretty arbitrary. So if you are interested in how I come to my decisions, this is the article for you.

Without further ado…

1 star – A rating reserved for one of the worst movies on the planet. I wouldn’t watch it again if you paid me. I could barely get through it. There are no pros and I would not recommend it for any audience.

2 stars – The movie was really bad, but has an insignificant pro or two. I would not watch it again unless I was paid a hefty sum as compensation. It may be appealing to an extremely limited audience, but nevertheless is terrible in quality.

3 stars The movie was bad, but it could conceivably be worse. It may have a handful of minor pros. I would not watch it again unless you paid me a decent amount as compensation. It may be appealing to a limited audience, but it is low quality.

4 stars – The movie was not good, but it has a few pros. It may be worth watching again just to laugh at how bad it is. At the very least it’s not super cringey or unbearable. Some people probably would find it at least interesting, even if it could not really be called good. The quality is not very good.

5 stars – The movie was average. It has enough pros to make it look appealing, at least from the outset, but it doesn’t satisfy. Nothing makes it stand out in a bad or good way. You could maybe convince me to watch it again, but it would take a lot of persuading and I would at least need popcorn as compensation. Some people probably would like this movie, but I at least found it lackluster.

6 stars The movie was slightly better than average. It has its cons, but also comes equipped with several redeeming features. I’d rather not watch it again, but if you insist… There is probably a decent-sized audience for this movie, including a handful of people who will fight you to the death if you say anything bad about it.

7 stars This was a good movie. It had several cons, but it makes up for it with pros. I would watch it again, but probably not for a few years. There is either a large possible audience or it is very appealing to a smallish audience.

8 stars This was a great movie. It probably had a couple of cons, but more than made up for it in pros. I would watch it again in a year or so. There is either a large possible audience or it fits into its particular niche extremely well.

9 stars This is an awesome movie. It maybe had one con, but who cares?! It was so worth it. I would watch it again in a few months if you asked. The movie is accessible to a wide audience or it fits into its particular niche almost perfectly.

10 stars This is one of the greatest movies I’ve ever seen. There were no cons that I could think of. I would watch it again next week if you asked me. Or possibly even if you didn’t. The movie is accessible to a wide audience or it fits into its particular niche perfectly.


Movie Review: Jumanji: The Next Level (Spoiler-Free)

Jumanji: The Next Level | Buy, Rent or Watch on FandangoNOW

Rating: 7 out of 10 stars


For my sister’s graduation party, she was allowed to choose any movie for the family to watch. She chose Jumanji: The Next Level, and boy, am I glad she did. This hilarious sequel to Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle truly takes the game to a whole ‘nother level.

This movie was released in 2019, and fits into three genres: Fantasy, Adventure, and Comedy. It stars Jack Black, Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart, Karen Gillan, Alex Wolff, Nick Jonas, Morgan Turner, Ser’Darius Blain, Madison Iseman, Awkwafina, Rory McCann, Danny Glover, and Danny DeVito.


Embarrassed and disappointed by how his boring life compares to that of his friends, Spencer repairs the game console that originally sucked him and his friends into the game Jumanji. Entering the game, he hopes to become Smolder Bravestone and find a sense of purpose again.

His friends are shocked and bewildered by Spencer’s choice to return to Jumanji. After some hesitation, they decide to enter the game to bring him back.

Only things don’t go as planned. The two elderly men upstairs (Spencer’s grandfather Eddie and Eddie’s once-friend Milo Walker) get sucked into the game as well.

Jumanji: The Next Level review: a pretty good body-swap comedy ...
Smolder Bravestone and Franklin Finbar

What follows is hilarious. Catching Eddie and Milo up to speed is harder than expected, allowing for a lot of jokes.

Nigel then gives them their next mission, which is to defeat Jurgen the Brutal and return the Falcon Jewel to its rightful owner.

Throughout their journey, the heroes face a herd of ferocious ostriches, a rope bridge maze reminiscent of the randomly moving staircases at Hogwarts, and a horde of violent simians.

The twist at the end offers hope of a sequel.


The humor and irony offered in this movie was great, although at one point it was extremely cringy. Just wait for the part with the hyenas, and you’ll see what I mean.

The length of the move is 123 minutes, which was long enough that it didn’t feel rushed and short enough that it didn’t drag on.

Eddie’s antics were hilarious at first but almost got annoying because of his stubbornness and bad judgement.

Milo’s tendency to draw his explanations out made for some funny scenes.

The relationship between Eddie and Milo created some of the most touching moments in the movie.

I didn’t see as much of some characters as I would have liked.

Jurgen, like the villain of Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, is not well-developed at all. He is a pretty standard bad guy with almost no backstory. Yep, he’s just evil because he’s evil. I even forgot his name because he wasn’t very memorable, and had to look it up.


Overall, I rated this movie 7 out of 10 stars because it was hilarious and enjoyable, but certainly wasn’t one of the best movies I ever watched. I wouldn’t mind watching it again in a few years.


Movie Analysis: Artemis Fowl (with Spoilers!!!)

Artemis Fowl (film) - Wikipedia

Movie: Artemis Fowl (2020)


This review contains spoilers for the Artemis Fowl movie and the book series.

This is my first movie analysis, and let me start out by saying the movie sucked…but had a couple of positive qualities. And by a couple I literally mean two, and that’s it.

First of all, decent special effects. Haven City looked appropriately fairyish and high-tech. It all had this blue tinge to it that made it look otherworldly. And the device that sentenced Mulch Diggums to prison was creative.

Artemis Fowl's World Explained: Fairies, The Aculos & More
Holly Short in Haven City from Artemis Fowl

The troll looked much more human than in the Artemis Fowl graphic novel, but whatever, it looked fine.

Troll (Artemis Fowl) | Villains Wiki | Fandom
Troll from Artemis Fowl

Also, the therapy session scene near the beginning of the movie was pretty good. In it, Artemis Fowl acted like his usual pain-in-the-neck, prideful self like he was in the book series. The scene was pulled straight out of book 2 (The Arctic Incident). Artemis insulted the therapists chair with poise and intelligence.

Okay, there you go. That was all that was decent about the movie, in a few sad little paragraphs.


As a fan of the Artemis Fowl series, I was mortified by how Disney mutilated what had been an enchanting story into an awkward compilation of multiple books’ plots with some entirely new random stuff thrown in.

They also managed to mangle the beloved characters of the books series and make them…a bunch of goodie-goodies! The horror!

The movie starts out with the media converging on the Artemis Fowl case, revealing that Artemis Fowl Sr. is suspected of stealing relics. This sounds promising. (Now if he really was a criminal in the movie, that would be accurate.)

Mulch is telling this story under interrogation, so he butts in with his dull narration. Who’s Mulch? Well, the movie doesn’t tell you that yet, so stay tuned. The only thing we know about him is that he looks oddly like Hagrid from the Harry Potter movie.

Why Mulch Diggums from Artemis Fowl looks so familiar
Mulch from Artemis Fowl

We get to know Artemis Fowl Jr., who loved Ireland.

Ireland,field,pasture,landscape,scene - free image from

Yeah…I don’t think the Artemis Fowl in the book loved anything…or at least would never admit to it.

Of course, the movie has to prove he loves Ireland. Cue surfing scene and outdoorsy activities.

That was the moment I knew they were going to ruin the movie. Artemis was a pallid, inactive boy in the book series. The first book literally said, “Sun did not suit Artemis. He did not look well in it. Long hours indoors in front of a computer screen had bleached the glow from his skin. He was white as a vampire and almost as testy in the light of the day.”

Artemis is no outdoorsman. If this was the Artemis from the book, he would probably fall off the surfboard and drown. What am I saying? He would never get on a surfboard in the first place.

Artemis Fowl from Artemis Fowl

We get to know this new-and-not-improved Artemis Fowl better in the therapy session scene, which seems to exist mostly because it gives the viewers background information such as the fact that Mrs. Fowl is dead (instead of mentally unstable and hiding away in her room like in the book). Also, that his father is frequently away on business trips.

But it is the one good scene in the movie, so it gets an excuse for its obvious purpose of exposition.

Now for a series of affectionate father-son bonding moments. Based on the book series, it’s hard to imagine Artemis Fowl showing actual affection. In the graphic novel, he hugs his mother once and it’s touching (but kind of out of character). But in the original series, Artemis showed very little affection toward anyone. Ever.

Artemis Fowl Sr. from Artemis Fowl

After the father-son scenes, Artemis Fowl Sr. leaves on a trip and is kidnapped by Opal Koboi. Good old Opal, who made her first appearance in the second book.

She should look like this:

Opal Koboi from the graphic novel series

In the movie, she looks like this:

Who's the Artemis Fowl villain? Without a post-credits scene, we ...

Don’t ask me why Disney made her look like a Sith Lord. I guess to make her creepier than a pink-haired pixie, but it backfired.

I guess they thought giving her a grating voice would help with the scare factor too, but no…it was hard to take Miss Sith seriously.

Apparently Opal Koboi is after the Aculos, which is a fancy-looking upside-down acorn…I mean, fairy artifact…with mysterious and dangerous powers.

Wait, what? What’s the Aculos? That wasn’t in the book series. Where did that come from? And why is it at the center of this movie?

Artemis Fowl: The Aculos, the Disney Movie's New Plot Device ...
The Aculos from Artemis Fowl

Anywho, Opal threatens Artemis Fowl Sr.’s life if Artemis Fowl Jr. doesn’t get the bedazzled acorn (fairy artifact, sorry) for her.

Butler takes Artemis down to the basement, where Artemis Fowl Sr. has kept his years of research on fairies. Only…in the books Artemis Fowl Sr. was not the one who researched fairies, it was Artemis Fowl Jr.

But, okay, sure. I mean, this movie already made him the good guy, even though as soon as he goes missing he is accused of stealing artifacts. Artemis Fowl Jr. is indignant. His father, a criminal? Of course not. So he has some interest in clearing his father’s name.

And Butler is not the man he was in the books. He goes by Dom in the movie, and man, if you dare to call him something else, he will snap you in half.

Seriously? Dom? In the books, you called him Butler if you valued your life. Even Artemis called him Butler. Artemis didn’t even learn Butler’s first name until Butler thought he was going to die and revealed it later in the series.

Butler from Artemis Fowl

Butler has a little sister named Juliet in the books who is a niece instead in the movie. Juliet was a teenager in the books, but is another 12-year-old in the movie.

Juliet from Artemis Fowl

In the meantime, Holly Short is in Haven City. We get to see the other main character, finally. They didn’t mess her up at all.

Just kidding. They ruined her.

First off, she looks like a twelve-year old of average height. In the book, she was a 3-foot tall woman. Second, in the book she specifically had nut-brown skin. Why did they choose a white actor to fill this role? I guess they tried to make up for it by making a couple of secondary characters black, but why not just have a main character with brown skin? Also, the secondary characters they made black were in the role of servants.

Holly Short | Disney Wiki | Fandom
Holly from Artemis Fowl

Also, in the books, she’s a snarky, rebellious woman. In the movie, she is a kind of rebellious, sweet and dumb little girl.

Mulch picks her pocket, making his first appearance as a giant dwarf. In the books, he was just a normal dwarf. Kind of reminds me of how Hagrid is half-giant.

Moving on…

We meet Commander Root and…what the heck…he’s female! Why? Did they just feel like they didn’t have enough female characters? Cause Commander Root was definitely a dude in the book…one that came off as sexist at first, until it was revealed that he really was hard on Holly because he wanted her as the first female LEPrecon officer to be better than his other officers. That way she could prove females could work in a job like that.

Commander Root from Artemis Fowl

Anyway, I guess they really didn’t want him to come off as sexist toward women, so they made him female. And made the team of LEPrecon officers consist of several more female characters for good measure.

Now, if they wanted this film to represent women more, they should have had better female characters. Not boring and painfully unfunny Commander Root, childish and consistently helpless Holly Short, and the combatant who never shows her skills, Juliet.

It turns out the fairies do not have the Aculos either, because of the treachery of Beechwood Short, Holly’s father. Holly maintains that he is innocent. Don’t worry, Beechwood is a good guy too.

We meet Foaly shortly after Root, when they receive news of a troll that has escaped to the surface world. Now, in the books Foaly is a centaur with an affinity for tin hats. He is snarky, witty, and hilarious.

So of course in the movie he has absolutely no funny lines, and barely appears.

The only funny thing about him is the way he gallops around the room, looking like a prancing pony. That was the part of the movie that made me laugh.

So anyway, Holly is sent to the surface to deal with the troll in Italy. The troll attacks a party. Unlike in the book, no human gave Holly an invitation to enter the party that the troll attacked. This makes the rules of the movie inconsistent because fairies require human permission to intervene in situations like this.

The troll is defeated and Holly Short goes off to Tara because there is a clue to how she can clear her father’s name there. This is unlike the book because in the book she goes there to replenish her magic by completing the Ritual.

Artemis and Butler manage to kidnap her. The fairies find out and are dismayed. They retaliate by stopping time around Fowl Manor.

Artemis and the fairies attempt negotiations, which end in Artemis refusing to allow the fairies inside while he lives. The fairies decide to send in Mulch because they say he is a dwarf, not a fairy.

This is where the creators of this movie made a critical mistake. In Irish mythology, and in the Artemis Fowl series, dwarves are fairies.

The real reason Mulch was able to go inside the Manor in the book was because fairies technically can enter dwellings without permission – at the cost of their magic. Mulch lost his magic in the past breaking and entering into human dwellings, so he had nothing to lose by entering Fowl Manor without permission.

Mulch finds the Aculos located in a safe in Fowl Manor.

Artemis has a heart-to-heart conversation with Holly, where they bond over both having falsely accused/slandered fathers. Holly asks if they are friends, and Artemis says, “Forever friends.”

I almost died of laughter and indignation when he said that. It was like something straight out of My Little Pony. The Artemis in the books wouldn’t be caught dead saying something that sappy.

The Hub Renews 'My Little Pony' for Season 5 | Animation World Network
From My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

Under new management, the fairies send in a troll and turn off all magic in the house. The heroes of the story engage in a pathetic battle that consists mostly of the troll smashing things and Holly shrieking at people to untangle her wings from a chandelier where she is hanging like a pinned butterfly. Juliet is equally useless. Artemis and friends winning the battle seemed like a big accident.

In the book, Butler managed to take down the troll on his second try with some advanced martial arts. In other words, he was scary competent in the book, but awkward in the movie.

Butler almost dies after the battle, but Holly is able to heal him when Root regains control and turns the magic back on in the house. At this point, Butler cries. Yeah, this is not the Butler fans of the book know and love.

The whole dying scene was completely ruined by the creepy dolls that were all over that room. The whole time Butler was almost dying I was thinking, yikes, those things are freaky, why are they there?

Rather than give the Aculos to Koboi, Artemis asks Holly to bring back Artemis Fowl Sr with the power of the Aculos. She gladly complies (Stockholm Syndrome?), and it works because the movie needs to end soon I guess. Kind of anti-climactic, but whatever.

Artemis Fowl Sr. gives Holly a list of traitors to the fairies, which Commander Root orders her to investigate. She’s happy with that, and even gets some applause from the rest of the LEPrecon officers. For what exactly? Getting kidnapped and assisting the kidnappers?

Artemis Fowl calls himself a criminal mastermind at the end of the movie. That doesn’t make sense for multiple reasons. First, they already established him as the good guy. Second, he was horrified when his father was accused of crimes and wanted his name cleared.

So why would he be proud of being a criminal at the end? Also, he did very little that was criminal compared to in the books. In the first book, he kidnapped Holly just so he could get his hands on fairy gold. In the movie, he only kidnapped her to save his father.

Overall, this is a movie that fans of the original series will hate, and it is unlikely to win over any new fans.

It is not good as a standalone movie. For people to understand it, they have to have read the book. Yet it deviates so far from the book that those who have read the books will not enjoy it. At the same time, the movie’s so confusing that people who have not read the book will be turned off by it.


Movie Review: Artemis Fowl (Spoiler-Free)

Artemis Fowl (film) - Wikipedia

Movie: Artemis Fowl (2020)

Rating: 2 out of 10 stars


This is the first movie review on my blog, and I wish that the movie would have been better. In fact, this is one of the rare occasions that a movie has made me angry by how much it differed from the book.

As a fan of the Artemis Fowl series, I was mortified by how Disney mutilated what had been an enchanting story into an awkward compilation of multiple books’ plots with some entirely new random stuff thrown in.

Below, I have outlined the pros and cons of the movie. I will be as vague as necessary to avoid spoilers.


  • The movie had decent special effects.
  • The Therapy Session scene was well-executed.

Racking my mind for any other positive aspects of this movie….

I got nothing.


  • The characters were ruined
    • For example…
      • Artemis Fowl was a good guy in the movie – not a criminal mastermind.
      • Artemis was also an active outdoorsman in the movie, while he was a pallid, inactive boy in the book series. The first book literally said, “Sun did not suit Artemis. He did not look well in it. Long hours indoors in front of a computer screen had bleached the glow from his skin. He was white as a vampire and almost as testy in the light of the day.”
      • Butler and Juliet acted ridiculous in the movie, while they were serious and formidable in the book series (although Juliet has always had her moments of poor decision-making).
      • Mulch was a giant dwarf (an oxymoron, I know). In the book, he was just a normal dwarf.
      • Commander Root was cast as a kinder female character, while in the book Commander Root was male who was in a constant state of irritation, spouting curses continually.
      • Foaly was a prancing centaur with absolutely no interesting lines. In the book, he was the funniest character and was at least respectable.
  • The plot was completely different than the book.
  • An important detail of Irish mythology was messed up in the movie.
    • Hint: Dwarves are a kind of fairy.
  • The directors never should have tried to make a PG Artemis Fowl. Instead, it should have been PG-13 to incorporate more of the important aspects of the book series. The book series was originally intended for young adults.
  • It was an awkward compilation of multiple books.
  • In the books, Holly had nut-brown skin. In the movie, she was white. Instead, they made secondary characters Butler and Juliet black, even though they were Eurasian and white.

Once both the plot and the characters of a story are screwed up, it doesn’t have a chance. I knew that this movie was not going by the books as soon as I saw Artemis on a surfboard, but I had still held out hope that it would be a good movie. Yet it was by straying so far from the beloved characters and amazing storytelling of the Artemis Fowl series that the movie went wrong.

The only part of the movie where it genuinely seemed like Artemis Fowl was acting like he did in the original book series was during the therapy session scene. In that scene, he spoke and acted like the extremely intelligent 12-year-old that he was supposed to be.

It is not good as a standalone movie. For people to understand it, they have to have read the book. Yet it deviates so far from the book that those who have read the books will not enjoy it. At the same time, the movie’s so confusing that people who have not read the book will be turned off by it.

Overall, this is a movie that fans of the original series will hate, and it is unlikely to win over any new fans.

In another of my blog articles, there is a full length movie analysis (with spoilers!!!).