Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Back in the day, I was a big Guy Ritchie fan. I loved “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and have felt that every G. Ritchie film since then has been a pale comparison to his directorial debut.

However, that reign has ended with “Sherlock Holmes”. While critics and fans are giving the flick mixed reviews, I’m going to throw my hat into the ring and say I loved it.

I’m a fan of Sherlock Holmes and own all of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes’ works in one huge volume, so I can’t be accused of loving an updated version without some knowledge of the original.

And that is what I loved about Guy Ritchie’s interpretation – that Holmes wasn’t just some sissy thinker – but he was a lover and a fighter. And maybe Robert Downey Jr. isn’t everyone’s ideal of what Holmes should look like, but he looked fine to me.

The story unfolds and makes good use of characters from the original works, even if some of the characters were barely in the original novels (Rachel McAdams’ Irene Adler) and also set us up for a sweet sequel that will (hopefully) unveil Moriarty.

As for the cinematography itself, the style is all Guy Ritchie (especially the fight scenes – which I loved) and the script has some brilliant witty repartee between Holmes and Dr. Watson. I also loved Holmes narrative and how this narrative unfolded on the screen.

Speaking of Dr. Watson – the only thing I did not enjoy about this film is Jude Law. He made a fine Dr. Watson and it won’t stop me from viewing a sequel, but I just can’t stand the guy – not even a little.

Even though the Academy won’t give it any awards, “Sherlock Holmes” is definitely worth viewing. It is a thoroughly enjoyable flick with action, adventure, romance and laughter.

Trailers can be viewed by scrolling down to the end of this page. Stay tuned – I’ve got some more holiday flick viewing to do before the end of the week.

End.

Avatar (2009)

When you state that you are the “King of the World” you aren’t leaving yourself much wiggle room for success with your next project. But it does leave the door wide open to your critics. With Avatar, James Cameron has given the critics (and fans) an opportunity to criticize (or praise) everything about this movie for what seems like years while it was in production. Writing a review seems almost passé now (even though the film has only been out for a week), but I’m going to throw my two cents in anyway.

For those critics that state that there is no storyline in this movie and/or that it is weak, should rethink that point. There is a story and it isn’t weak. The problem with the story is that it has been done a hundred times in movies – it isn’t original. It is the same story that was told in Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai (to name two examples). Indigenous people are run off of their land by another group of people that are less than ethical about their reasons for wanting the land – oh, and there is a love story.

Putting aside the storyline, the real triumph of this film is the creation of new technology (the Pace/Cameron camera system). This technology will change the way 3D films can be made forever. James Cameron and Vincent Pace should be given props for that alone – regardless of whether Avatar is a good film or not. How many people (critics?) are visionaries in their fields of expertise that could create a new way to make movies after all these years? To come up with an original idea in an industry that occasionally seems all played out? That is the triumph of Avatar.

End.