These are the last remaining movies that I have yet to review from 2009. They also just so happen to be (in case you forgot) the biggest box office hit of the year and the #12 entry on that list (soon to be #10, no doubt). In other words, you might have heard of them.
Since I'm more than a month removed from viewing either, and since I more or less drained my supply of Avatar thoughts in LAMBcast #9, I'll spare myself the exercise in giving it a proper review and spare you the need to read too much more about the most written-about movie of the new millennium, no doubt. Holmes, meanwhile, will just be the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak, though really, it's not all that deep of a film, so any thorough analysis seems like a waste of time anyway. Instead, some good and some bad about each and my ratings for them.
Avatar
Good:
* The most visually interesting film yet created, I dare say. I'm envious of the folks that got to create a world from scratch - they probably didn't realize it at the time, but I'd imagine they had more fun making it than anyone did watching it, and that's saying something.
* Stephen Lang makes a hell of a villain, even if said villain is paper thin.
* The USB connectivity between the natives and their world. This felt to me like the only original element added to this story, though I'm sure someone will come along and tell me that it, too, was swiped from another piece of pop culture (FernGully, perhaps? Haven't seen that, so I wouldn't know all of the minutiae).
Bad:
* All the talk of Avatar being this generation's Star Wars is bullsh*t; for all that people might like to trash Lucas (myself included), at the very least, that film had characters that were memorable beyond three days of seeing the film. I can scarcely name three characters from Avatar.
* Unobtainium. It comes off as a joke either way you interpret it, but it's equally bad no matter what. They should have just called it MacGuffin and got it over with.
* Its place on top of the (fake) box office list and granting of a Best Picture nomination. I won't go so far as to trash the movie, but things like that really, really, make we want to. I wasn't exactly thrilled with Titanic's spot on top of the b.o. list, either, but it sat better with me for some reason.
Sherlock Holmes
Good:
* The banter between Downey, Jr. and Law is what makes the film. Without it, my early dreaded Wild Wild West feeling from the film seems pretty accurate. The period, the emphasis on new technology in the mid-19th century, the silent giant, the nobody-cares love interest - it's all there. But Holmes and Watson have one of the best buddy non-romances we've seen in an action flick since Top Gun, and Guy Ritchie's tough guy charm was a great way to un-stuff the place.
* Speaking of Ritchie, I enjoyed his touches (the slo-mo stuff) and the overall mood he brought to the table. An excellent match of source material and director.
* Eddie Marsan - the excellent character actor and future FF-UN has a mostly unmemorable role, but is always a welcome addition to any cast.
Bad
* The Scooby Doo ending. It's understandable that a film like this needs to have an element of Scoobyness, but this one left a bad taste in my mouth. We all know that Holmes is a genius and all that, but having a series of clues that might only be guessed by a brilliant chemist (and even then, probably not) takes the fun out of a mystery movie, if you ask me.
* Along the same lines, the script was written in such a way that the characters - all of them - were too comfortable with whatever situation they were in, regardless of the situation. Everyone was always multiple steps ahead of the audience, and were somehow steps ahead of each other, even when they weren't. We get it - they're all light years ahead of the rest of the peons that were inhabiting their world.
* Rachel McAdams. I felt bad for her more than anything. Just a pointless role, or a badly written one. Maybe they should've gotten Salma Hayek to reprise her Wild Wild West role.
And then...
Since I'm more than a month removed from viewing either, and since I more or less drained my supply of Avatar thoughts in LAMBcast #9, I'll spare myself the exercise in giving it a proper review and spare you the need to read too much more about the most written-about movie of the new millennium, no doubt. Holmes, meanwhile, will just be the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak, though really, it's not all that deep of a film, so any thorough analysis seems like a waste of time anyway. Instead, some good and some bad about each and my ratings for them.
AvatarGood:
* The most visually interesting film yet created, I dare say. I'm envious of the folks that got to create a world from scratch - they probably didn't realize it at the time, but I'd imagine they had more fun making it than anyone did watching it, and that's saying something.
* Stephen Lang makes a hell of a villain, even if said villain is paper thin.
* The USB connectivity between the natives and their world. This felt to me like the only original element added to this story, though I'm sure someone will come along and tell me that it, too, was swiped from another piece of pop culture (FernGully, perhaps? Haven't seen that, so I wouldn't know all of the minutiae).
Bad:
* All the talk of Avatar being this generation's Star Wars is bullsh*t; for all that people might like to trash Lucas (myself included), at the very least, that film had characters that were memorable beyond three days of seeing the film. I can scarcely name three characters from Avatar.
* Unobtainium. It comes off as a joke either way you interpret it, but it's equally bad no matter what. They should have just called it MacGuffin and got it over with.
* Its place on top of the (fake) box office list and granting of a Best Picture nomination. I won't go so far as to trash the movie, but things like that really, really, make we want to. I wasn't exactly thrilled with Titanic's spot on top of the b.o. list, either, but it sat better with me for some reason.
 | "Darn tootin!" |
| Shaky Cam Rating (details): | LAMBScore: |
 |  |
Sherlock HolmesGood:
* The banter between Downey, Jr. and Law is what makes the film. Without it, my early dreaded Wild Wild West feeling from the film seems pretty accurate. The period, the emphasis on new technology in the mid-19th century, the silent giant, the nobody-cares love interest - it's all there. But Holmes and Watson have one of the best buddy non-romances we've seen in an action flick since Top Gun, and Guy Ritchie's tough guy charm was a great way to un-stuff the place.
* Speaking of Ritchie, I enjoyed his touches (the slo-mo stuff) and the overall mood he brought to the table. An excellent match of source material and director.
* Eddie Marsan - the excellent character actor and future FF-UN has a mostly unmemorable role, but is always a welcome addition to any cast.
Bad
* The Scooby Doo ending. It's understandable that a film like this needs to have an element of Scoobyness, but this one left a bad taste in my mouth. We all know that Holmes is a genius and all that, but having a series of clues that might only be guessed by a brilliant chemist (and even then, probably not) takes the fun out of a mystery movie, if you ask me.
* Along the same lines, the script was written in such a way that the characters - all of them - were too comfortable with whatever situation they were in, regardless of the situation. Everyone was always multiple steps ahead of the audience, and were somehow steps ahead of each other, even when they weren't. We get it - they're all light years ahead of the rest of the peons that were inhabiting their world.
* Rachel McAdams. I felt bad for her more than anything. Just a pointless role, or a badly written one. Maybe they should've gotten Salma Hayek to reprise her Wild Wild West role.
| "Darn tootin!" |
| Shaky Cam Rating (details): | LAMBScore: |
 | |
