Sherlock Holmes: Holmes for the Holiday

Sherlock Holmes... you know, for such a good movie, a director like Guy Ritchie seems like an unlikely suspect, his last movie being RocknRolla which earned a less than impressive $5.7 million. Never having even directed a movie that made much more than $30 million, you would expect his next venture to,putting it lightly, suck. Not so fast. Despite Avatar's undisputed prowess over the action-hungry box office, Sherlock Holmes managed to earn a quite respectable $207.9 million. Why is that? Elementary, my dear Watson: it's just plain good.

From the first time I saw the trailer for Sherlock Holmes in the summer, I patiently waited for it to hit theaters. Ignoring the wake Avatar had left behind, I ventured to try to see it opening night, which just happened to be Christmas. Almost needless to say, I was unsuccessful, but the first chance I got to see Sherlock Holmes, I fell in love. This being the second time I saw it, I was no less impressed, and quite possibly more intrigued than the first time.

Guy Richie's filming style is intuitive and precise, without seeming abstract or forced. This is what millions of filmmakers around the world are trying in vain to attain: shooting from the waist, and hitting dead center. What makes this movie stand out is his unique perspective, the way he frames characters, creates moods, and provokes emotions. If every director in the world could direct like Richie did, every movie in the world would be worth seeing.

However, even with Guy Richie's genius at work, it was Hans Zimmer's masterful score. No amount of angles, lighting, or performance could match the effect a score as wonderful as this one holds over this movie. Zimmer himself has managed to attain a remarkable variety in his works. Although he was made famous in his work in Gladiator, Pirates of the Caribbean, Perl Harbor, and the Batman franchise, his extensive resume includes movies such as Shark Tale, Frost/Nixon, The Simpsons Movie, Kung Fu Panda, and It's Complicated, and that's not to mention his part in the influential London band, The Buggles. A master at his craft, Zimmer creates a world so vivid, that visual information hardly needs to be seen in order to understand what is happening.

Ok, it's time for me to bash the bad stuff: why detective books such as Sherlock Holmes (which, by the way, the movie didn't adhere to whatsoever) are so much fun, is because the reader gets to try to solve the mystery. it's like a puzzle that is gradually being solved, and the viewer can realize what it's a picture of before all the pieces are in place. This movie didn't allow the audience even a sporting chance to figure out the mystery. Although the more major twists and plots could be anticipated, no logic could possibly be involved. Most of the various mysteries involved chemicals and specialized substances that are far outside of the spectrum of common knowledge, and while the grand scheme of things could be guessed at, no reason was involved whatsoever.

The bad news: while Richie, Downey, and Zimmer deliver an almost perfect movie, I can't help but wonder if it was a lucky stab into the dark, or skill on all three accounts. The good news: we can expect a sequel sometime in 2011. You should go see it as soon as it comes out. I'll see you there.

Oh, and one more thing: am I the only person that thinks Mark Strong (Lord Blackwood) looks strikingly like Steve Carell?

The Hurt Locker: You don't have to be a hero to do this job. But it helps.

My first thought when Kathryn Bigelow won the Best Picture Academy Award for The Hurt Locker was wow, she not only beat her ex-husband James Cameron and his $2.5 billion, chart topping Avatar, but also the heavy-hitting popular movies such as District 9 and Inglorious Basterds. And that's not to mention the indy-style films like An Education and A Serious Man the Academy favored last year by giving the Oscar to Slumdog Millionaire, as well as the Cinderella-story cliche of Precious, the Family movie stab made by Up, and the critical acclaim held by Up in the Air and The Blind Side.

I was a little afraid the Academy had picked one of those terribly boring, average, depth-less movies that are considered "art" by awards communities, instead of going with a good, deep, meaningful movie such as some of the other nominations. I was terribly wrong.

Hurt Locker was surprisingly well made, well thought out, and well acted, and completely overshadowed Avatar, Blind Side, and Up (The only 3 Oscar nominees I have yet seen.) Not one to get worked up about movies, I was glued to the edge of my seat.

The characters were unique and entertaining, but without falling into the cliche stereotypes Hollywood loves so much. The one problem I did have was one particular character that seemed to drift away during the movie. When the movie began, he was a joking, teasing comrade and friend with the other soldiers. Very soon, he became a disturbed man constantly thinking of death; both his own and other peoples'. This could possibly be a result of seeing his team leader die, but later in the movie, he became just another soldier who is angry about being injured, rather than wanting his life to end. Although he contributed greatly to the movie, some consistency would have added greatly.

The idea of a soldier who disarms bombs for the adrenaline rush to the extent that he stops caring about everything else is golden. The quote at the beginning of the movie, "War is a drug" seemed irrelevant until the end of the movie, when it all tied together. On the whole, this movie is a work of art from start to finish.


It was beautifully framed and filmed, showing Katheryn Bigalow's ability to capture characters by more than just cleverly placed lines and timed expressions, but by the way the walk, the way they look when nobody else is watching, the way they respond to actions around them, and the way they solve their problems. While the characters in this movie might not have been as eccentric or exaggerated as in most movies, they had a depth and a quality to them that no amount of acting or characterizing can provide.


This movie was a jewel of a war movie. Although I have seen very few of the Oscar Nominees, this one tops them all hands down. It's not just another action packed, stereotyped war movie, it's a work of art with a real depth most movies can only scratch the surface of. If you haven't seen this movie yet, get out there and watch it, you won't be disappointed.

Old Dogs: Sit. Stay. Play Dad.

Ah, the wonderful world of family entertainment! Cheesy one-liners, predictable endings, grimace-worthy acting--it's true, my expectations for family movies are below rock bottom. Was I thrilled, excited, and stimulated by Old Dogs? Not exactly. Pleasantly surprised? Yes, I would have to say so, because while Old Dogs is not the shining torch of the winter blockbusters, it is at least a brighter-than-expected ember.

I'll have to say, the acting wasn't half bad. Granted, Robin Williams should probably have enough experience to pull off just about anything by now, but everybody in the movie acted just well enough to exceed my expectations.

This is a difficult movie to take seriously, but I'll give it a shot: the story was lamentably predictable with few surprises and many cliche "forshadowing" aka "repetitive" jokes. Most smaller characters were taken from stocks that Disney would be ashamed of. For example, two reoccurring child-proofers had some of the most pathetic characters ever. One was characterized by not knowing what he was doing, and the other was characterized by eating peoples food. Now, as character traits, these aren't all so bad, but that was their entire character. To create a minor character, you need to start from a stock base, and add maybe 1 or 2 memorable traits. In this case, the traits were the entire characters.

Enough complaining: on the whole, I was actually entertained and humored by this movie. It was funny, although corny; emotional, although not exactly moving; and heartwarming.... no, scratch that. my heart was more "defrosted" than "warmed" by this movie, but they made a noble effort. As far as family movies go, this one is a jewel. As far as Spring blockbusters go, save your money.

The one problem I did have was it's use of rather mature topics to set up funny situations. For example: apparently Robin Williams' and John Travolta's characters go to Miami, get drunk, meet two women, and hook up. While this would be perfectly acceptable in a drama or comedy, mature topics such as this have no place in family comedy, where jokes should be based on things relevant to the target audience, in this case: children, and the parents that get dragged along.

In conclusion. this is a good, solid, entertaining family movie. If you're looking for something to take your kids to, or hang out with friends, this is a good choice. If you're looking for quality entertainment or deep, moving dramas, keep looking.

The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's still got it

 Let's take a short look at Peter Jackson's short but extremely impressive track record: Director of the now historic Lord of the Rings series: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, critically acclaimed; King Kong: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, critically acclaimed; the future Hobbit 1 and 2: fictional, fantasy, action-adventure, already critically acclaimed; and... The Lovely Bones: drama, little-know, and certainly not critically acclaimed. Surprisingly, Jackson still delivers excellently in this new medium.

It's an understatement to say that this was a good movie. In fact, I enjoyed this movie more than any movie I've seen in a very long time. It was excellently, excellently shot, extremely creative, and intriguing to say the least.

Where to begin.... the story: This movie deals with some tough, brutal issues. It is based around a man who traps, rapes, and kills girls, hides the bodies, and moves to a different state every time someone gets hot on his trail. Although these subjects are dealt with very appropriately and maturely, they are not present in the least bit lightly. It's hardly a spoiler to reveal that the main character is, in fact, dead for almost the entire movie. The movie seems to be loosely based around her family attempting to find her murderer while she is in her own world "Between Heaven and Earth" filled with imagery from the real world. But, not surprisingly, there are no happy endings when the main character has already met her death.

The presentation of the movie is astoundingly well done, with massive use of imagery, sometimes confusing, but often very clever. In Susie Salmon's (The main character) "in between", the entire world is made of memories from her life, sometimes intertwined with what is happening in the real world. When her distraught father begins breaking bottles with ships inside of them (an obsession of the father brought up earlier in the movie), giant bottles with real-life ships begin to float and crash on her virtual ocean, with an astounding emotional effect. in fact, almost every aspect of her in between world is based around the real world.

But there's more to this movie than imagery and a good story: it comes equipped with a huge emotional force that I was not expecting from Jackson. Usually not an emotional moviegoer, I was moved by this story, and almost felt the characters desperation, frustration, fear, and unrest. I'm certainly not one to frequent the Drama genre, but this is one of the most powerfully emotional movies I have ever seen.

The only flaw with this movie would have to be the ending. I suppose it's the happiest possible ending for a movie where the main character has been raped, murdered, and stuffed into a safe in the first 15 minutes, but it left just a little to be lacking. While her family learns to cope with the loss after over 2 years, her sister avoids being caught by the same man, and the molester dies a brutally harsh death by falling down a cliff, I (the audience) cannot quite feel relief or a sense of completion.

On the whole, this was an most excellent film, and excites me to see what Jackson will do with his upcoming Hobbit movies. This movie left very little to be lacking, and certainly left me agape, moved, and, most importantly, satisfied. This movie comes with a very high personal recommendation from me to you.... so what are you waiting for? go see The Lovely bones while it is still in theaters!

Valkyrie: because Tom Cruise still can't act. Surprise!

I know, I know. Valkyrie is old news. Bear with me.

Is there anybody left on this planet that still thinks Tom Cruise can act? He can speak lines, maybe, but act? No. With that in mind, I didn't think Valkyrie was half bad. Granted, my expectations had been for a Nazi Germany action flick, as the trailers seemed to indicate, but in that regard, I was sorely disappointed, as this movie contained so little action, an occasional explosion was the best we get. Of course, being based off a true story, there's only so much a filmmaker can do, but some excitement would have been much welcomed.

About the characters... *sigh.* Most of the characters seemed to be stock characters, drawn off of previous movies, with a cast that didn't seem to quite connect. On their own, each actor was good for their roll, but each one created a different dynamic, and too many clashing dynamics made for a lot of weak characters. While Tom Cruise's character enjoyed the most screen time, his was one of the more poorly developed characters.

The plot was, to say the least, poorly executed. Things were never fully explained or quite clear, and the movie attempted to go in too many different directions at the same time. I can't elaborate any more on the problems with the plot, considering it is based on a true story, which the filmmakers seemed to be trying to make abundantly clear.

Aside from character and plot issues, it was a beautifully shot movie, although it relied a bit to heavily on "standard" shots. one scene in particular caught my eye: it shows a record spinning in the center of the screen, and while slowly zooming in, the camera begins to turn, until it is spinning along with the record, making the record seem to be standing still, and the needle spinning around it. While this was a creative scene, it held no significance. With an eye-catching scene such as that, the record should have been significant in some way, maybe brought up throughout the movie, or with a significant song playing. As it is, it was playing a famous Wagner song, which was, while inspiring, rather insignificant.

On the whole, the movie was excellently shot, but the severe flaws in the characters and plot development gave it a very weak foundation. If you enjoy dramas, this is a rather beautiful, if trivial, take on the politics of Nazi Germany, but if you are looking for a good, exciting, action movie, I'm afraid you'll have to look somewhere else.

Alice in Wonderland... whatever happened to Tim Burton?

As a huge Tim Burton fan, I have been waiting for around half a year to see Alice in Wonderland at midnight, and even arrived at the theater two hours early just to get good seats. Why? Because of Tim Burton. He's come a long way since Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but frankly, after being completely blown away by Sweeney Todd, I was expecting a little bit more from my favorite director, particularly when combined with his usual team including legendary film composer Danny Elfman and highly-talented Johnny Depp.

On the whole, the movie seemed a bit forced. It almost seemed as though production decisions were based on Tim Burton's past films, with very little relevance to the actual film. For instance, the trees had Tim Burton's trademark spiral branches, but it didn't add to the movie in any way, it was just decoration. While some 3D effects were surprisingly convincing, it seemed on the whole to be a novelty, as for most of the movie, I entirely forgot I was seeing it in 3D.

If there's one thing I love about Tim Burton's films more than anything, it's his vision. Unfortunately, his vision was highly disappointing in Alice in Wonderland. The characters especially disappointed me, particularly The Mad Hatter. after seeing posters, watching film clips, and previewing trailers, I was excited to see Johnny Depp back in his usual role, but I found his character confusing, inconsistent, and poorly executed. He delivered his lines so in such an average Johnny Depp way, I forgot it was supposed to be anything special, and often disregarded his character entirely. He slipped in and out of a lisp, sometimes took on a British accent and a deeper voice, and lost his voice when he yelled... sometimes.

Not a single character in the movie had an identifying personality characteristic. The white queen had her arms in the air much of the time, but not enough to form a character, the Knave of Hearts was only tall enough to look slightly disproportionate, Alice hardly even had a character, and the white hare slipped from indignant and demanding to docile and eager to please for no discernible reason.

But this movie wasn't a total loss. Tim Burton didn't fail to put in some of his classic macabre violence and cringes, as a monster gets his eye pulled out on-screen, a miniature Alice must cross a black, murky, river by stepping on the faces of floating, long-dead enemies of the queen (even stepping into the mouth of one), and the head of a monster is graphically severed and rolls down a flight of stairs, remaining in the background for several minutes.

A patch of humor here and there redeemed the movie on a whole, particularly the Mad Hatter's "Futawaker" near the end of the movie. Now and again, the 3D effects were used to great effect, making me wince and flinch from time to time.

On the whole, this movie failed to follow Tim Burton's masterful Sweeney Todd, or to live up to it's promising trailers and posters, but was it a waste of time and money? I'd say not. Like Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate factory, this is a far from perfect adaptation, but was still enjoyable, and i believe will become part of movie culture in the next couple of months. Not to be forgotten, but not to be awed, Alice in Wonderland is nothing more than an anteater in sheep's clothing: beautiful and intriguing on the outside, but ridiculous on the inside.