Holiday Movie Marathon: Hobbit 3

The Staples Family is trying to catch up on their movie watching during the usually lazy second week of Winter Break.  These aren't holiday movies.  They are just movies that came out during the holiday season.  Today's Offering is Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.  Only three of the Staples were able to attend this PG-13 flick.  

I know I risk losing my geek card with the following comment: I have never read any of The Lord of the Rings books.  I have tried.  Believe me.  I own them all.  I've sat down multiple times to try to read them.  But, for some reason, I have not been been able to accomplish that mission.  So I have the unique ability to judge the LOTR franchise of movies as a sci-fi/fantasy movie fan bue without the (sometimes) annoying habit of holding the movies up to the impossible-to-reach standards of the books.  I knew next-to-nothing about the series when I went to see the first movie.  I just knew that people who like the same things I like really liked the books and couldn't wait for the movies.  I still remember when I went to see the first LOTR movie with my father-in-law.  I believe we both had worked all day and were already tired.  We decided to go watch a three-hour movie.  Not a great game plan.  When we walked out, we were silent through most of the parking lot.  Finally I looked at him and asked, "What the heck did we just see?"  "I'm not quite sure."

That is the feeling a lot of people would have about this franchise.  There are bizarre names and places.  There are different kinds of creatures that all look vaguely human.  And there are a lot of crazy plot elements that are essential to grasp, but hard to do so.  For a good stretch of time I thought Saruman and Sauron were the same person because I didn't catch that their names were different.  I was confused by a lot of stuff, especially late at night after a full day of selling furniture.

Fortunately, I didn't give up on the series.  I rewatched the first movie before the second one came out.  I absolutely loved The Two Towers.  I still feel it is the movie of the entire franchise.  The Return of the King won a covered wagon full of Oscars, mostly as a reward for the entire series.  And it had two hundred endings.  I kept thinking it was over and then here came another piece of closure for some third tier character.  I did really enjoy the movies, once I got a handle on everything.  I've seen them on television since then and they hold up well.  They are not my favorite franchise or in my top five - probably not in my top ten, depending on if your count all the Avengers character movies as one franchise or separate ones.

When The Hobbit trilogy came out, my oldest son was really excited to go.  He had started reading the book and his uncles all were big fans of the series.  So the crew of us went and caught the first installment.  I was a little disappointed by much of the movie.  It was a lot of "been there, done that" to the movie.  The landscape and massive scope were not as exciting.  They weren't things we had never experienced before.  And the movie itself took a long time to get going.  There seemed to be a lot of narrative and not a lot of action.  My son, on the other hand, loved it.  He couldn't wait until the second movie came out.  But we, for some reason or another, didn't get to see it.  We bought it on BluRay, but didn't watch it right away.  With PG-13 movies, we have to find times where the younger two kids aren't around.  By the time we finally sat down to watch it, we got a third of the way through and got interrupted.  And then my daughter asked if she could see it.  So we went back and watched the first movie (much better the second time through) and the second movie.  Many people had told me that Desolation of Smaug was better than the first movie.  They were right.  It was more action packed and exciting.  The characters seemed richer.  Although it didn't carry some of the emotional weight of the first movie (I still love the scenes with Bilbo and Thorin at the end of the movie), it was a good quality entry.  None of the Hobbit films come close to the LOTR trilogy, but they are good in their own right.

Now it is time to close the franchise.  The three of us traipsed off to the theater to take in the epic conclusion.  There were some interesting takeaways from the film.  Naturally, be warned about spoilers.  This is not just a generic review as much as a more detailed examination.

1. I think Martin Freeman is brilliant.  I love him in Sherlock.  I think he is an inspired Dr. Watson and a brilliant counterpart to Cumberbatch's Holmes.  I also think was an incredible Bilbo Baggins.  He could communicate more in a frown of his mouth than many actors could with a soliloquy.  I thought Elijah Wood was good as Frodo in the LOTR trilogy, but I much preferred Freeman as Bilbo.  There were so many characters in this third movie that it felt like Bilbo got pushed out of the center too much.  I missed him.  
2. My biggest gripe was that there was a lack of closure in this film.  I know, that sounds ridiculous when Return of the King was blasted for TOO MUCH closure.  But no one left that movie and asked, "What happened to...?"  But when I was talking to a friend yesterday about the movie, my first question was "What happened to the Arkenstone?"  It never showed what happened to this majorly important element! The last person holding it was Bard the Bowman, head of the people from Laketown.  But we never really saw what happened to them either.  They were kind of winning their battle against the Orcs, but we didn't see where they went from there.  We also never really found out what happened to the dwarves.  Did they take over the city in the mountain?  Who is their ruler, since Thorin and his cousins got offed?  Strange.
3. Speaking of Thorin and his bloodline getting sacked, I really liked this outcome.  No, I wasn't rooting for those characters to get whacked.  But we have seen so many movies where the heroes get killed, only to have them reappear in a different form or to come back to life (every Disney movie, X-Men, Avengers).  It was actually a relief to see a movie where the good guys didn't come back.  There was pain in losing those characters, but it didn't feel like a cheap manipulative tactic.  Kudos to Peter Jackson for sticking with that outcome.
4. My favorite scene in the whole franchise had to be when the gigantic eagles came flying in and started wrecking havoc on the Orc armies.  One eagle came in carrying the Skinchanger and launched him into the fray.  He transformed into a gigantic bear and starting going crazy, destroying Orcs.  I could have walked out right there happy.  Let me again explain in all caps.  A FREAKING GIGANTIC EAGLE TOSSED A MASSIVE BEAR INTO A BATTLE WHERE THE BEAR STARTED GOING CRAZY!!!  If that is not the most awesome scene ever put on film, I don't know what is.  I still get chills thinking about it.
5. Did anyone out-turd-blossom Lee Pace this year?  First, he was Ronin the Accuser in Guardians of the Galaxy, complete with his weird black oozy mouth and his refusal to participate in dance-offs.  Then he was the arrogant punk woodland elf king Thrandruil in The Hobbit.  He does a great job being a jerk.  Don't know if that is what he is going for, but he is quite successful at it.
6. I know that Tauriel, played by Lost's Evangeline Lilly, was not in the book.  But I honestly thought her character was one of the best things about the trilogy.  I really liked just about every scene she was in.  Remember, I didn't read the book so I was okay with creative license.  
7. Who exactly were the five armies?  We were trying to figure this out last night.  There were the woodland elves, the dwarves, the humans, the orcs.  Was the fifth army the other orc army?  Or was it the eagles?  I never was completely sure who it was supposed to be.
8. For six movies we were tantalized with how awesome Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) is.  She is this massively powerful elf thingee.  But, unless I'm missing something, the movies never really showed that.  Well we finally saw her unleash her fury.  It reminded me of some sort of 1970s drug induced movie scene.  But there was little doubt she was an extreme bad butt.

Overall, I liked the third Hobbit.  It brought things full circle to the start of LOTR.  There were some very exciting scenes and a lot of emotional heft.  There was a lot of violence, even for a LOTR movie.  As usual, the blood was kept to a minimum, which is how they retained their PG-13 rating.  That and the fact there is so little offensive content in the other categories (language, adult situations, sexual situations).  I actually look forward to having the kids watch the original trilogy now that they have seen this trilogy.  I will say this for Peter Jackson - he managed to do what few people have been able to do.  He crafted a six-part movie franchise and didn't have as stinker in the bunch.  If you ranked the entire series, whatever you had as the worst movie would still be a really good movie.  Star Wars couldn't pull that off (Episode II).  James Bond couldn't do it.  I would even argue that a consistent series like Harry Potter didn't pull this off.  Its worst movie (Half Blood Prince, for me) was a bigger drop from its best movie than the LOTR series.  And it never reached the heights of Jackson's series.  Remember, all three of the first movies were nominated for best picture, with the third one winning.  Even though The Hobbit didn't get nominated like that, it still was a very good series.  That is truly an amazing feat for the creative team.  

It is always hard to say goodbye to a really good movie series.  I have felt that pain when Harry Potter ended, when Christopher Nolan said goodbye to Gotham, when Oceans Eleven quit robbing people.  And there is a loss knowing there will not be another entry in this franchise.  It can kind of be summed up in a conversation between the elves Tauriel and Thrandruil in The Five Armies.  For most of the movie, he sees her as a problem.  But here she is desperately hurting after losing someone she loves and he stands there watching her.  "If this is love, I don't want it.  Why does it hurt so bad?"  In a rare moment of civility, he responds, "It's because it was real."  Real love leads to real pain when it ends.  And there are millions of people who loved the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit franchises.  Seeing them end is going to be hard for them.  I count myself as one of those people.  Well done, one and all.

The Monuments Men

My wife is on nights at the hospital, so that means it is time for another round of “David Catches Up on Movies!” Last time, I watched some sci-fi films that I had managed to miss. This time, I am just grabbing anything that piques my interest.  I was again too tired on Wednesday night to watch a movie.  And after my lack of appreciation for the violent films, I decided to pick up "The Monuments Men" with George Clooney and a ton of other people.

I like George Clooney.  I mean, I don't know him or anything.  But I like him as an actor and entertainment personality.  One of my favorite movie franchises is the Oceans trilogy.  I have enjoyed several Clooney starring, directed, or produced projects (Good Night and Good Luck, The Descendants, Leatherheads, Up in the Air, Out of Sight).  I also like the fact that he is concerned about the world around him.  So whenever Clooney is involved in something, it immediately gains my attention.


I like Matt Damon.  Again, I don't know the guy personally.  I enjoy his movies.  Obviously, I am a big fan of Oceans.  I've also loved Damon in We Bought a Zoo, the Bourne Trilogy, The Good Shepherd, True Grit.  He's a good actor.  In addition, he also is very interested in helping the world around him.  Which is great.

I like Bill Murray.  One of my favorite movies is Groundhog Day.  I think Murray is a severely under appreciated actor.  I like John Goodman.  I like Cate Blanchett.  You see where this is going.  When I saw the marketing for The Monuments Men, it seemed like a surefire hit.  The cast is astounding.  Clooney directed it.  It is set in World War II, which has such a rich depth of available stories.  And there appeared to be a kind of Oceans Eleven vibe to it.  The previews seemed pretty humorous.  "'I appear to have stepped on a land mine.'  'Well what did you do that for?'"  And I mean, look at the tagline for the movie.  "It was the greatest art heist in history."  Good stuff, right?

Then I finally got to watch The Monuments Men.  I honestly felt like the movie suffered from the same problem that Clooney himself suffers from.  I never know when to take the film, or the actor, seriously.  Clooney has that little smirk, even when he is isn't in a funny movie.  I have had a hard time in some of his stuff because he doesn't really have an intensity switch.  The movie itself had the same problem.  Was it a lighthearted take on a marginal element of World War II?  Or was it something more serious?  

If you look at the cast, it is heavily loaded with actors very comfortable with comedy: Goodman, Murray, Clooney, Bob Balaban (Friends, Christopher Guest movies), Jean Dujardin (The Artist), even Damon.  The previews were heavy on the comedic elements.  The score by Alexandre Desplat had this kind of playful quality.  It seemed to be written for a old-school farce or something.  All of that is swirling around against the backdrop of the horrors of war.  

Then there was another problem, one that the characters IN the film seemed to wrestle with most of the time.  These guys were scampering around Europe trying to save works of art while there were millions of people trying to, you know, not die.  World War II saw some of the worst atrocities in human history.  The violence was so brutal (referring back to Saving Private Ryan, mentioned in my post the other day).  Concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, internment camps, atomic bombs, relentless bombing, starvation.  War is despicable.  World War II was beyond despicable.  As these artists are racing around, they try to get help from "real soldiers."  These war weary men look at the artists like they are crazy.  One officer responds to a request help with, "I know exactly what you want.  You want me to tell my guys, who are trying to fight off an enemy force, to risk being killed by not blowing up certain buildings."  It really was ludicrous.  

But, on the other hand, you could understand what these guys were saying as well.  Hitler didn't just want to win the war or take over the world.  He didn't even want to just kill the Jews.  He wanted to erase them from history.  Clooney's character keeps saying that it is important to preserve the culture of a people as well.  They make good points.  But, as one commenter on imdb.com said, "Who cares.  Twelve million people died."  Point taken.
The movie would be humming along, these guys sparring with and razzing each other.  Then, all of the sudden, someone would get killed.  Or they would find giant barrels full of gold teeth pulled out of the mouths of Jewish people killed by the Germans.  Then they would go back to goofing around.  Then they would rush some guy into a battlefield hospital who was destroyed by artillery fire.  Then they would flirt with a French resistance fighting artist.  It was weird.  

I have had a couple of days to think about the movie.  And I still don't really know what exactly Clooney was trying to do with the film.  Were we supposed to sympathize with the artists and their quest to save over three million pieces of art?  Or were we supposed to think that their efforts were juvenile when compared with the massive cost of the war?  There were times when it felt like these guys were being mocked by the movie itself - putting a huge discovery of art in juxtaposition with the barrels of teeth, for example.  At other times, it was clear that they were the heroes, protecting what no one else realized was even important.  But even the overall villainy wasn't clear.  Hitler was the ultimate bad guy.  He was the one behind all of the atrocities - the destruction, the Jewish persecution, the theft and/or destruction of tons of irreplaceable artwork.  But, the most tense moments in the film came when these artists were faced with a confrontation with the Soviets, who were planning on taking all the Nazi-stolen art back to Russia to make up for their losses.  And the people that raised the most ire for me were actually the allied military leaders who completely ignored the Monuments Men's warnings about several dangers, which led to the deaths of multiple people.  Again, it was weird.

Needless to say, I was very disappointed with the film.  It was extremely uneven in tone and message.  The acting was nice.  It was like having a good time with friends, chatting and hanging out.  Then those fun times were punctuated by shockingly horrific events.  Only, then we were expected to just go back to having a good time.  Why?  That's the question I was left asking.  Were we supposed to take on a bigger message, like how easily it is to just forget the horrors of the world around us in favor of what we see as important?  That makes me feel like the Monuments Men were completely misguided in their efforts.  Or were we supposed to realize that the cost of war is more than just lives and structural damage, but also the heart, souls, and culture of the people involved?  In that case, the soldier artists were definitely heroes.  I desperately wanted to like the film.  I wanted to see it as important.  But it felt like the movie itself kept me from succeeding in my mission.

Analyze this

With the kids back at school, I have been able to return to the world of sports radio and television. I don't sit there all day and watch a never ending stream of ESPN shows, mind you. I abandoned the Worldwide Leader years ago when it was apparent that what they considered sports coverage was some combination of loud-mouthed ignorant hosts arguing with each other. Instead, I usually have the Dan Patrick Show running on the radio or NBC Sports network while I am working. No matter where you get your sports coverage, one thing that is startlingly clear within a matter of days is just how much critical analysis has become the dominant source of content. This isn't analysis like Trent Dilfer may offer on ESPN, where he is breaking down plays and coverages. This is just plain criticism passing as journalism. It isn't limited to sports, either. I would wager that more words of criticism are written across the interwebs each day than any other tone. 

You see it in entertainment coverage, sports coverage, news coverage, food coverage, fashion, celebrity, travel - even religion.  Gone are the days of the simple reporting of facts or investigative journalism. Everything now has to have an editorial attached. One of the biggest examples of this was when CNN switched their sports provider from Sports Illustrated to Bleacher Report. SI is a (somewhat) respectable old school sports journalistic entity. Bleacher Report is basically a sports blog. Every article they write ends with some kind of editorial statement. Some of them are wildly out of place and unnecessary. But there they are. It is almost like the news outlets are worried we won't know what to do with the information they are providing us. So they also have give us the stance we should take now that we have the news. 

Look at political speeches. Some political entity will get on television and give a fifteen minute speech. Then the networks will run two hours of commentary breaking down and criticizing what that person said. And with the rise of Twitter, we don't even have to wait until the speech is over. We can start sending out our analysis as soon as the person hits the stage. "What a weasel." "What is that tie supposed to mean?" "How can this guy get elected when he mispronounces mujaheddin?"  

Slip back into the sports world for a moment. After last college football season, it was the unanimous opinion among sports people that Jadaveon Clowney would be the first pick in last year's draft. There was even spirited discussions about if he should sit out this season to make sure he didn't get injured like his old teammate Marcus Lattimore. He was the best player in college football, we were told. He is unstoppable, they said. It was like every college football expert was tripping over each other to join some insane Clowney posse. (No groaning, you should expect that by now people.) Living in Columbia, we have gotten more than enough coverage of Clowney. My twelve year old son, who could care less about football, wanted to watch the first game and came home telling jokes involving Clowney. (Why is six afraid of seven? Clowney) Two games into the season? USA Today had a headline this week asking if Clowney had already slipped in the draft. Sports outlets have already switched to debating just how overrated this out of shape wannabe is. The Gamecocks still have 10-12 games remaining this year. And he's washed up after just two?

Think about the news of Ben Affleck's casting as Batman. How much ink and web space was devoted to criticizing that choice? I clearly remember this uproar over Michael Keaton being cast. And Christian Bale being cast. And Heath Ledger being cast as Joker. In fact, the person who was the least criticized for being cast as Batman was George Clooney, who was so bad he has apologized for his role. Affleck is an Oscar winner for screenwriting and producing. He has been nominated as an actor. This isn't Zac Efron or Ashton Kutcher being cast here. We don't have any footage, any pictures, any script yet. But people have eviscerated the choice.  

So what, you may wonder. In fact, you may be waiting for me to be done to criticize me. I think there are several problems. First, being so critical all the time is a horrible way to live. It poisons your thought processes to where you start to find the worst in everything instead of the best. Think about if you go to a restaurant with a positive outlook. Let's say you know the owner or you're on a date. You will praise the things you like and overlook the things you dislike, unless the whole experience is a complete disaster. Maybe the chicken was a little dry. But the appetizers were great and the dessert rocked. You will probably walk out happy and see the experience as positive. If you go in angry and wondering if this dump will be any good, well, it will more than likely bring you down - no matter how good it is. 

Second, we get an overinflated view of our importance when we become full time critics. "People HAVE TO know what I'm thinking!"  It is like the universe is holding its breath to hear what we think of the new Harry Potter movies or Kate Winslet's dress. Since the Internet allows us to be anonymous in our criticisms. We can write rude things about an athlete who could tear our heads off in real life. We can say things about people we never would say to someone's face. Would you ever walk up to Ben Affleck and tell him he is going to suck as Batman? Would you tell the president to his face you think he is a jerk? Would you look an actress up and down and say she looks like a cow?  Of course not. But online, behind our screen names, we can be as cruel as we want. It makes us feel like we have power over those people, because we can cut them down. They may have the fame, money, and power we wish we had. But, dang it, we can be rotten on Facebook about them. We start to believe we are above the rules of common courtesy. We are superior to all those people who disagree with us. That's hardly a healthy view of things. 

The last reason I have to avoid the cult of criticism is something I realized yesterday in an unusual place. We fail to see the beauty of the "big picture" when we start to pick on and at everything. Last night one of my very favorite shows ended. We have been watching Burn Notice on USA since the end if season two. We caught up on the first two seasons quickly and have been avid viewers for five years. The show is far from perfect. It had had its ups and downs and its share of ludicrous story lines. It suffered from the entertainment trap of "too many layers of bad guys," where each conspiracy unveils another deeper layer. This season was much darker and different from the other ones. Instead of helping someone every week while constantly pursuing the bad guys behind the curtain, the team was kind of out to save their own skins. They were doing one job all season, only to stay out of prison themselves. They had to partner with slimy government agents to take down slimier bad guys. The problem came when the slime line wasn't so clear. Our honorable hero, Michael Westen, went so far under cover it looked like he wouldn't and couldn't come out. It was easy to pick on the season. Some episodes were frustrating. They weren't bad. But they were different. And that was hard. But as they tied all the pieces together, it culminated in one of the best series finales I have ever seen. Michael ended his quest the only way possible for a man like him. There were major sacrifices made - ones that were heartbreaking to see come to pass. But I couldn't have asked for a better ending after so many years invested in the show. 

So often we forget the big picture. We can be so critical of each quarter, half, and game that we miss out on the complete season or career. We get upset about a role being cast and miss out on the overall direction of the movie franchise. Think about the Avengers movie franchise. People griped about Robert Downey Jr being cast as Iron Man. It was originally supposed to be Tom Cruise. How stupid would that be in retrospect?  People were unhappy about just about everyone cast in the Avengers series, except Samuel L Jackson. But the movie itself was brilliant. The complete effort made sense. Imagine if the Internet existed when Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel. Would there be constant online whine and cheese fests over each panel?  "I can't believe he painted Jeremiah that way!!!  Omg!"  Would Lincoln or Reagan stood up to the constant news influx and the age of twitter?  Doubtful. Personally, I also think of the Bible and how people get hung up on battles over tiny passages while missing the whole story. It is often quite detrimental to be so obsessed with the parts that we miss the completed project. 

I know that I have battled a critical spirit in my own life. I have been labelled by many people as a negative person, with one minister telling me in junior high that I was "the most negative person he ever met." (That felt good.)  I will admit that I have been negative a lot and I still can easily fall back into that. I also like to analyze movies, restaurants, music, sermons, tv shows, and books more than most people. I like to think about them and critique them (which is not the same thing as criticizing them.) A critic doesn't have to be critical. We can examine a thing and judge it without bringing an acidic attitude into the process. What is our reason for that analysis? Is it to help people or ourselves? Is it to make ourselves feel better and tear others down? Is it to stir up issues and brings readers to our blog or twitter account? Are we being fair and allowing people to present the completed work before we tear it to shreds?  Maybe it would be helpful to turn that highly trained analytical eye inward for a spell to make sure we are doing things right first, and doing them for the right reason. It may give us a richer view of things were we aren't constantly tearing them apart. 

Alien vs Alien

My wife is out of town for the week. So that means that I'm bored. Instead of watching the shows stacking up on my DVR (all of which my wife wants to see), I am hitting up the Red Box and catching up on some movies that I have not been able to see yet. To make this even more fun, I will be blogging my reviews and thoughts about the films. Today's Final Installment: Super 8.

What is wrong with aliens today?  This is something that I noticed in some recent movies that has started to bother me.  When I was growing up, we had some really iconic aliens.  Think back.  There was the plethora of cool extraterrestrials in Star Wars and Star Trek.  You had THE alien in Alien and Aliens.  Then there was the predator in Predator.  I would even include E.T. as one of these guys.  They were recognizable and memorable.  If they were scary, they inspired fear.  But they also were just plain cool.  I remember when I saw Alien.  That thing was terrifying.  It looked horrible.  And it was a complete nightmare.  It had armored skin, even side of it was lethal, and it even had acidic blood - so if you did shoot it, it could kill you with its wound!  That is just vicious.  BUT, the alien was so ... stinking ... cool.  I felt the same way about the predator.  They were terrifying with their hunting helmets on.  And when they took them off, man, even worse.

I don't know filmmakers that came after those epic monsters were worried that they couldn't live up to the standard of awesomeness.  Maybe they were afraid that people accuse them of just making a cheap knock off.  Or it could be that they needed to follow the current mindset of "bigger, gaudier, blockbustier" when it came to their creations.  Whatever the reason, aliens in movies are just not doing it for me.

I noticed the trend back in Independence Day, actually.  I remember that they never showed the aliens in the previews.  My friends and I intentionally didn't read anything or watch anything that might show the invaders - just so they would be ready to be stunned at the big revealing scene.  Then they showed the things.  Whaaaa?  What the heck is that?  Their ships were cool, their attacks were awesome.  They were just stupid.  I mean, look at that thing.  As memorable as the movie is (and trust me, it has a huge following), the alien in it is just about the least memorable thing.  You don't see people with little figurines of that or hear anyone clamoring for more of the shovel headed freak.

This has continued with other movies.  I really have rarely been that impressed with the aliens.  It seems the reliance has been on their technology or their ships instead.  Many times we never even see the alien.  There is a menacing craft doing unspeakable damage.  But the thing piloting is is irrelevant.  Think about The Avengers this summer.  Now, I loved the movie.  Absolutely loved it.  But was anyone talking about the aliens in it?  Nope.  They were just cannon fodder.  They had nothing unique or awesome about them.  They actually were one of the weakest elements of the whole movie.

I watched Cowboys and Aliens the other day.  This is a movie that is based on the terror of these invaders.  Again, they never showed the aliens in the previews - just their ships flashing around and the mayhem they cause.  I was looking forward to see what they aliens looked like in their big reveal.  Again, I have kindly included a shot of these things.  What in the heck is that supposed to be?  Is that a fish?  A rock man?  They were ridiculous.  Their chest would also open up and these weird hands would come out.  It actually made no biological sense at all.  Was there a symbiotic relationship?  Were there two creatures inhabiting the same body?  What was the purpose of the second internal hands?  And do they have internal organs?  Plus there was no consistency in how to dispatch the aliens.  They seemed like they could take arrow or bullet hits, but if you hit their head (which seemed extra reinforced) they could die.  The whole thing was very bizarre.  I'm sure it didn't help the movie that the aliens - part of the title of the movie - were lame.

This all brings me to Super 8.  On the whole, this was a very good movie.  I loved it.  Well, I loved the first three-quarters of it.  Then it seemed to derail.  (Hmmmm.  Kind of sounds like another JJ Abrams project involving suspense and thrills.  cough LOST cough cough)  I thought the opening minute of the movie demonstrated Abrams' absolute brilliance at story telling.  The opening scene has the haunting score, penned by the always incredible Michael Giacchino.  There is a factory with a sign showing how many hundreds of days it has had without an accident.  A worker climbs a ladder and starts taking the numbers down, replacing them with just a 1.  Then it cuts to a boy sitting on a swing in the snow.  In just a moment, we already know this boy lost his parent.  Brilliant.  I loved it.

Abrams has a knack for opening a story - it is one of his hallmarks.  Consider the opening scene of Star Trek.  It was absolute mayhem.  And it was incredible.  I remember watching it with my friend, Greg, and he leaned over to me when the scene ended and the title screen came up.  "JJ Abrams is a freaking genius."  I agreed.  The pilot of Lost was as good as any television episode ever.  The same could be say about the pilot of Heroes, the pilot of Alcatraz, the opening of Mission Impossible III.  Abrams grabs your attention on a consistent basis.  The challenge is carrying that all the way through.

Super 8 started off great.  I was very interested in the story.  It was a great tale.  The train wreck that really catapulted the movie was intense and incredible.  I really liked the kids that were the center of the movie.  It was a very good movie and it was very enjoyable.  But...

Throughout the film, there is this monster hiding.  It escaped from the train and it now lurking in the city.  We see glimpses of things happening.  The monster is obviously formidable.  It can crush a car.  Somehow it affects the electricity in its area.  People scream a lot when it shows up.  It is supposedly terrifying.  They are building to the moment when we finally see it.  I am actually excited and nervous to see the thing.  I'm sure that Abrams and executive producer Steven Spielberg will come up with something worthy of the hype.

Ummmmm.  What exactly is that?  It has six legs, I think.  The first time we saw it on the kids' video it looked like a spider.  I thought maybe it was a giant spider.  A giant spider is what they are going with?  After Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter, we are supposed to be freaked out by a giant spider?!?  Then I realized it wasn't a spider. It had that weird face too.  What is that?  It looks like a dozen other creatures we have seen.  Actually, his face reminds me of Megatron from Transformers.

There are tweaks and such, but I wasn't that impressed.  It was ugly.  And then we are supposed to actually have some sympathy for it.  It just wants to go home!  Of course, it has killed dozens of people already and caused tons of damage.  One character has already said that it has no remorse or pity for anything.  And we are supposed to be like, "Poor spider looking transformer thing.  It misses its home."  Sorry.  Not working for me.

The other problem is that the scenes where we actually see the alien up close are so dark that I could barely make out details.  There is no big scene where the thing emerges so we can see it in its full glory.  It is always in shadows or silhouettes.  That's really annoying.  So we either have to deal with scenes too dark to actually be scared of the non-spider or we have to deal with Abrams love affair with lens flares.  [Side Note - there is an entire online community devoted to ripping Abrams for his love of lens flare effects.  For those of you who don't know, lens flares are this trick where light hits the camera just right and you get a little starburst of light in a scene.  Awww.  However, they also can be added through any video or picture editing software.  I know how to do them in Photoshop.  They are actually one of the first "tricks" people learn.  Star Trek was infested with them.  Light bounced off all the chrome everywhere and there were flares galore.  I actually laughed at one scene in Super 8.  It was a gas station at night (of course).  I counted six lens flares in one shot.  In a gas station.  At night.  But I quibble.]

I know that this whole alien thing may seem like a small thing to focus on in a rather enjoyable movie - especially for a guy who gave Cowboys and Aliens a VERY generous evaluation.  But, I think it should be an understandable rule in Hollywood.  If you are going to make a movie or show that focuses on the presence of a terrifying alien, then the alien needs to live up to the hype.  If not, then the movie kind of crumbles.  I mean, that is the crux of the conflict, right?  Was the alien in Super 8 scary?  Well, sure, if I was a kid standing there in a cave and that sucker came up to me, I would soil myself.  Heck, if I was the sheriff and that thing came jumping out of the dark at me, I would soil myself.  But I'm not. I'm a grizzled moviegoer who is used to aliens from decades of invasion movies.  I need to see something memorable.   I don't even know what I was hoping for.  I just know that wasn't it, especially with the big names that were associated with the film.

In addition, to have the movie end the way it did just seemed weird.  It almost felt like I had wrongly identified the main story arc.  The whole time we are sitting there worried about how to defeat this alien.  At the same time, we are supposed to be suspicious of the military guys, knowing they are up to no good.  The alien is actually going out of its way to hunt people.  He isn't just offing the clowns who cross his path.  He is out and causing trouble.  He takes out sympathetic characters, too.  So there is no reason to feel bad for this guy.  I am wondering the whole time how the kids and their parents are going  to fight off the military AND defeat the spider thing.  Then we get a twist that this guy just wants to go home.  And then he goes home.  Aaaaaand scene.  What?  That doesn't make any sense.  Everyone just stares up as his cobbled together ship takes off.  Now, mind you, only a couple people know that he just wants to go home.  But what's left of the town is just going to stare up approvingly at the killer leaving, as their buildings are burning all around them.  Nonsense.

In short, the movie was three-quarters very good and one-quarter confusing as heck.  The alien was disappointing on many levels.  And the ending was bizarre.  But there were some very cool elements and moments.  Which brings me to the end of my week of movie reviews.  I hope all two of you enjoyed it.  Actually, it is funny to see friends of mine out of nowhere putting status updates like "I finally am watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" or "Let's see if Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is any good."  I would like to think I made a difference.  Whether or not that difference was worth making is a different story.

Cowboys vs Aliens

My wife is out of town for the week. So that means that I'm bored. Instead of watching the shows stacking up on my DVR (all of which my wife wants to see), I am hitting up the Red Box and catching up on some movies that I have not been able to see yet. To make this even more fun, I will be blogging my reviews and thoughts about the films. Today's Installment: Cowboys and Aliens.


There is an especially funny episode of Friends where Rachel decides to make a traditional English trifle.  Her cookbook somehow gets some pages stuck together and she ends up combining the recipes for trifle (custard, lady fingers, and jam) and shepherd's pie (ground beef sauteed with peas and onions).  The resultant dish is reviled by all, with Ross going so far as to say, "It tastes like feet."  However, Joey eats not only his plate, but all the other hidden plates.  When someone asks him if he likes it, he says, "What's not to like?  Custard? Good. Meat? Good. Jam? GOOO-ooood!"

That exchange immediately popped into my head when I was thinking about Cowboys and Aliens.  On the surface, the individual elements of the movie look and sound great.  Jon Favreau, who brought us the incredible action movies Iron Man and Iron Man 2 and the class Christmas comedy Elf, was directing.  Steven Spielberg was producing.  As far as the cast goes, you have both James Bond (Daniel Craig) and Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) in roles that seemed created just for them.  The supporting cast was even stellar: Clancy Brown (Highlander, Shawshank Redemption), Keith Carradine (Deadwood), Olivia Wilde (Tron: Legacy, House), Paul Dano (There Will Be Blood), Sam Rockwell (Iron Man 2, Galaxy Quest), Walter Goggins (The Shield, Justified).  You get the point on the cast - a good strong cast.  It's a Western, which has a strong following.  It's a sci-fi, which has a stronger following.  Then you have a unique concept when so many people complain about too many reboots and sequels.

So, naturally, with all those great sounding ingredients, the movie bombed.  No, it wasn't a John Carter or Battleship level bomb.  But it was hardly the raging success everyone hoped for when it was made.  It took in $100 million in the USA and another $75 million overseas.  That doesn't sound bad, except it cost about $170 million to make, not counting the massive promotion costs.  So it didn't make blockbuster money.  Not only that, but its reviews were far from stellar.  If you go on Rotten Tomatoes - the online review site - the movie has a 44 percent fresh rating.  That means just 44 percent of people who reviewed it gave it a positive rating.  Among professional critics (translation: Morons that can't relate to the average moviegoer), it had a 50 percent fresh rating.  With the general audience, it had a 45 percent positive rating.  So, across the board, the movie just seemed to be not well liked.

When you actually read the reviews, few of them are actually viciously negative, though.  For some films, you will find hateful and scathing reviews.  I didn't see many like that at all.  Instead, most of them echoed along these sentiments.  "The movie wasn't as good as it should have been" or "It wasn't as fun as I thought it would be."  It seems like most people who went in thought they were going to get a fun, madcap, action film.  They were disappointed that the movie didn't deliver on it.

All of this puzzle me.  I remember reading about the movie from its original casting announcements.  I saw the previews, saw the marketing.  I don't really remember the movie ever being pitched as some kind of summer fun ride.  It wasn't supposed to be The Avengers or Fast Furiou6: More Fasterer and Furiouser.  So I'm not sure where people developed this perception.  After seeing the movie, I can say that the movie was a Western.  It had the pacing of a Western and the feel of one.  Thinking back on the Westerns I have seen, I don't remember to many of them having a frantic pace.  There aren't planes or guys in metal suits to race around.  There aren't race tracks and sports cars zipping back and forth.  People ride horses or walk.  It is dusty.  Fun time is sitting in a saloon and drinking, playing cards, and listening to music.  That's your average Western.

I know that the commercials highlighted the exciting moments of the film - Daniel Craig jumping off a cliff onto a spacecraft, Daniel Craig blowing up a ship with his bracelet weapon.  But it also showed a lot of Harrison Ford growling and Daniel Craig scowling and Olivia Wilde staring.  So, was Cowboys and Aliens mismarketed?  It is entirely possible that is the answer.  I know that even up to the release, friends of mine were not sure if the movie was supposed to be funny or not.  "Is it a spoof or something?"  [Answer: No.  It is not funny.  Very few laughs.]  When I would try to explain it to them, they would look at me and usually say, "That sounds dumb."  Now, these are the same people that have already pre-ordered tickets to Dark Knight Rises and can give you a fifteen minute dissertation on the symbolism in the Batman films.  They aren't movie noobs that don't get to a theater often.  But they still didn't catch the Cowboys and Aliens fever.

I remember in the past that there have been a handful of movies that were horribly mismarketed.  The strange thing is that I generally like those films because I judge them based on what they actually are.  But most moviegoers go in with a perception and are disappointed when the movie doesn't match that.  Here are a couple of examples.

• Hudson Hawk - This movie was supposed to be a typical Bruce Willis film.  Lots of action, some humor and sarcasm tossed in.  It was marketed as a caper film.  Bruce Willis was the best burglar in the world going after his biggest prize.  I can understand why someone would be upset when it turned out to be an action comedy about a duo of burglars who sang songs during their thefts instead of wearing watches.  It was zany and bizarre.  There were subplots about Da Vinci, the Vatican, mercenaries named after candy bars, and alchemy.  I loved it.  But it was NOT Die Hard 3: Rob Hard.
• The Cable Guy - Jim Carrey was a superstar.  Everything he touched up to this point was pure gold.  He was in the middle of a run that most stars would kill for.  Ace Ventura ($72mil), The Mask ($120mil), Dumb and Dumber ($127mil), Batman Forever ($184mil), Ace Ventura 2 ($104mil) led up to this movie.  The next two after it were Liar Liar ($181mil) and Truman Show ($125mil).  The Cable Guy thudded in at $60 million after costing $47 million to make.  It had Matthew Broderick, Ben Stiller (who directed it), Owen Wilson, Jack Black, and a very hot Jim Carrey.  People HATED it.  Why?  Well, simply enough, they were expecting a Jim Carrey movie.  They wanted to see him acting all crazy and speaking out of his rear end.  They thought he would twists his mouth sideways and cackle.  Instead, they got a VERY dark comedy and commentary on the unhealthy infatuation with entertainment, especially the voyeuristic appeal of criminal trials and the like.  It was should be paired up with Truman Show instead of Ace Ventura. Horrible marketing.
• Last Action Hero - Arnold Schwarzenegger at the peak of his drawing power.  He had just put out the monster hit Terminator 2 and was about to release True Lies.  This movie raked in a pathetic $50 million on a $85 million budget.  How did it fail so badly?  Again, it was marketed as a big Ah-nold blockbuster.  And it was NOT!!!  It was a BRILLIANT satire on the action picture genre that was about to collapse on itself.  Seriously, go back and watch it again.  I remember seeing it in the theater and being disappointed that it wasn't typical Arnold.  I watched it again a couple years later at home and loved it.  It was hilarious.  
• Shawshank Redemption - It wasn't marketed at all.  Or it was promoted as "from the mind of Stephen King."  Yes, he wrote the story it was based on.  But it was NOT a Stephen King film.  I remember seeing it in theaters and saying, "What in the world is THAT?"  I had no clue until the Oscar nominations came out that it was even a good movie.  Then I saw it.  WORST. MARKETING. EVER!  Seriously, this is one of the top 100 movies ever?  And it doesn't even get promoted.  Dumb.

So, did Cowboys and Aliens get tripped up by its own packaging?  I don't think it was as horribly mismarketed as those other films.  It wasn't presented as a comedy and then turned out to be a drama or anything.  But I do think it was communicated poorly.  People thought it was either a spoof, a rolling action flick, or a sci-fi film.  Each of those comes with a pretty standard set of preconceptions.  And those are all a pretty far cry from a Western.  Imagine if someone went into it thinking it was like Will Smith's Wild Wild West and realized it was closer to Unforgiven.  That would throw you for a loop.  

Judging the film for what it is, I actually liked Cowboys and Aliens.  I read one review that said Favreau couldn't control the erratic shifts in tone and mood.  Well, you're in a Western.  There's a guy who is wanted for all kind of crimes wandering through town.  People are coming after him, slowly, on horses.  One of them is a corrupt and cruel cattle baron.  They are threatening to hang him or ship him off to the marshalls.  Then three alien spaceships comes screaming down the middle of the street, blowing up stuff and snatching people.  That would be a erratic shift in tone and mood.  That is what made the movie so interesting to me.  How exactly would a Western gold rush city handle an invasion of massively technologically advanced alien spacecraft?  They don't have a clue.  They have six shooters and rifles and sticks of dynamite.  Think of the panic that ensued in films like Independence Day or V.  Those people at least had the benefit of having science fiction movies predicting alien invasions.  The Wild West didn't have that.  So it was a shock.

I also saw one reviewer mock the fact that the characters were able to overcome their differences to defeat a common foe.  Well, duh.  They had to.  Isn't that a common theme in movies from the very beginning?  And books?  And all literature?  Sometimes it takes a common enemy to help people learn that their differences are not really that important.  It puts things in perspective.  Why in the world someone would have a problem with that is beyond me.  That is the message at the heart of The Avengers.

I did enjoy the movie.  It wasn't my favorite movie of all time, or even my favorite Western.  (That still goes to Tombstone.)  I think that Jon Favreau has done better work.  Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig were both good in their roles.  And the aliens were actually very creepy and somewhat original.  There were some surprises that caught me off guard.  But I can understand the overall opinion that it didn't blow me away.  If I had spent the money to go to the movie in the theater, I would have been a little disappointed.  When I used to go to the movies all the time, this one would have fallen into the "good, not great, mostly forgettable, a little disappointing" category.  Now, I would have been more let down, since I don't go as often.  I wouldn't buy it, but I'm glad I saw it.  

Tonight I finalize my week of catching up with another film that I never got around to seeing.  Like last night's film, it has a lot of good credentials.  But this one lived up to the hype according to most people who saw it.  It is a good conclusion to the week - it has aliens,  secret agents, JJ Abrams, Steven Spielberg.  Basically it has a little bit of everything from the whole week.  Super 8.  Now the review won't probably be up until Saturday, though.  I'll be driving to Tampa on Friday.  Sorry to make you wait.  

Cruise vs Cruise

My wife is out of town for the week. So that means that I'm bored. Instead of watching the shows stacking up on my DVR (all of which my wife wants to see), I am hitting up the Red Box and catching up on some movies that I have not been able to see yet. To make this even more fun, I will be blogging my reviews and thoughts about the films. Today's Installment: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.


Last night I bypassed the Red Box and grabbed a BluRay that had been sitting on the shelf since I got it for my birthday - Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, aka Mission: Impossible 4.  I have, for the most part, enjoyed the Mission: Impossible series.  It is kind of a hard series to adequately assess.  When Tom Cruise decided to adapt the series, he for some reason came up with a plan to have a different director in charge of each series.  Usually in a franchise there is some kind of continuity - at least that is the goal.  You want to keep the same director, producer, screenwriter, and stars, if at all possible.  Otherwise you have a very uneven series.

I know that Batman is pretty high in the public awareness right now.  Part of the problem with the original series from the 90s was that there was so much changeover.  You had the Burton/Keaton movies, which were very good.  Then you had the Schumaker/Kilmer/Clooney films, which were disasters.  One very large reason that the current trilogy has been so good is that there has been very little change in leadership, acting, or anything.  (Well, except for switching Katie Holmes for Maggie Gyllenhaal, which really didn't matter at all.) You can also see this in the Star Trek movies.  They were extremely uneven, largely due to the fact that each movie had its own director with his own vision.  Harry Potter had several directors, but there was a common screenwriter, common producer, and the stabilizing influence of JK Rowling.  Plus they had the same director for the last four movies.

Tom Cruise actually wanted the change of vision.  The first movie, which was amazing, was directed by Brian DePalma and was more full of intrigue and mystery.  It was an older spy flick, where the main character had to unravel the story right along with the audience.  There still were some great action sequences (especially on the high speed train).  But the movie itself centered on solving the puzzle.  The second movie was helmed by John Woo.  As is his style, the movie was like a Hong Kong action movie.  There was a lot of stylized action and slow motion sequences.  It also served as a celebration of all things Tom Cruise.  The camera lovingly portrayed him as a model who could do anything.  I didn't care for the movie very much.  One of the best things about it was that it was filmed in Australia and I had just gotten back from there.  It was fun to see the various places I had been.  But I also annoyed my wife by pointing out where they had messed up the geography of the area.  [The funniest one to me was where Cruise and the bad guy battle at one place and then had a massive motorcycle race to another location for a second fight.  The two battle places were actually about a half mile away from each other and the road they raced on was what you take from Sydney to get to the beach.]  The third movie was directed by JJ Abrams.  It was typical Abrams with great action scenes, lots of character development, and brainy elements galore.  It was a bit of a mix of the first two films.


The style and pacing of each movie were completely different.  But there still were some common elements in all of the movies.  There are always surprises.  One way is in having characters pretend to be other people with hi-tech masks.  How many times in the four films has that technique been used - often to a shocking end (especially in MI3).  Another shocker is when there is a big time actor cast and then killed off early on in their appearance.  I still remember the absolute shock in the first M:I when Emilio Estevez got offed.  I don't think anyone suffered this fate in the second one.  But it happened in the third and TWICE in the fourth.  I like movies and shows that aren't afraid to kill off apparently major characters because it amplifies the stakes.  There is also always a lot of technology on display, fast cars, great action scenes.  And we almost always see Tom Cruise doing some kind of insane stunt that proves he is still a stud.  The first movie had the drop from the ceiling and the train chase.  The second movie had the free climbing scene at the outset.  The third movie had the bridge explosion.  And the fourth movie had the free climb up the tallest building in the world.

As far as Ghost Protocol itself goes, it was a very good action film.  I would say it was the second best film of the series.  Brad Bird, director of The Incredibles, took over this film - with Cruise and Abrams serving as Producers.  Simon Pegg returned from MI3, but the rest of the team was completely new.  We didn't even have Ving Rhames playing a major role as Luther for the first time in the series.  The team was completely isolated.  Somehow they still were able to get all kind of neat toys to use, anyway.  The other big change was the introduction of Jeremy Renner as another big time character.  (You can tell that his inclusion was intentional as a way to either spin-off or hand over the series at some point.)

For the most part, the movie took place overseas: Moscow, India, Dubai.  Even though it was set in exotic locales, it seemed like a tighter film.  A lot of the action took place in just a few places within those foreign cities.  They didn't roam all over Dubai - mostly they stayed in the hotel with just a few excursions elsewhere.  This actually helped the movie by allowed to build tension without being too frantic.  I thought this encouraged more character growth.  It also highlighted the isolation of the team - they had to make do with what they had and with each other.  The plot seemed far-fetched and familiar - someone wants a nuke, but for very different reasons than in many movies.  It wasn't the standard Arab terrorists either.  Personally, it was a nice touch for me to see the movie address some of the developing economies worldwide.  So many times when we see India or Arab countries portrayed, we see the dust and the poverty and the overcrowding.  This time, though, we saw that there are some very wealthy people in those countries.  The movie had elements in the slums and markets, but most of it stayed in the other areas.  That brought a unique feel to the movie.

The movie also did a great job with the character of Agent Carter, played by Paula Patton.  So many times in these movies women will only be included as victims or love interests.  Even Mission: Impossible has fallen into this trap.  The woman on the team is competent to a point.  The main character invariable falls for whatever woman lasts into the last half hour.  This time, though, she was a strong and competent agent throughout.  She had a history that motivated her and depth to her character.  She used her looks to accomplish tasks, but was not defined solely by them.  And there was no romantic connection with Tom Cruise - and not because she was a lesbian, which is one of the other cop-outs for action movies in their portrayal of women.

Tom Cruise himself is such a polarizing figure.  I am thoroughly convinced that in real life he is as wackadoo as they come.  Just by analyzing how he is marketed and portrayed, he is probably narcissistic.  His behavior dealing with Scientology and his marriages is beyond bizarre.  But, on screen he is still very popular - one of the last examples of an old-school movie star.  The Mission: Impossible movies have always been a great franchise for Cruise.  It reminds everyone of his drawing power and keeps him looking young and spry.  As long as it doesn't become a movie version of Glamour Shots, like MI2, the series is one of Cruise's strongest resources.  I have always liked Cruise on screen.  Personally, I think people are too harsh on him.  Most of the time, when he ventures outside of his typical wheelhouse of characters - the fast talking, smiling, likable, heroic characters - he gets slaughtered by fans.  I have never been bothered by those roles, though.  I thought he was pretty good in Interview with the Vampire and Valkyrie.  Actually, I was more ticked off by his going to the well too many times in movies like Knight and Day and Last Samurai.

Cruise's portrayal of Ethan Hunt has grown over the years.  In the first movie, he was the younger agent taking over the reins from the older generation.  In the second, he was the superstar.  (Unfortunately he was more like the whiny, self-obsessed Dwight Howard/LeBron James superstar.)  In the third movie he was getting older and realizing that there was more to life than just fighting and risking his life.  He wanted to settle down but was afraid of the risks involved.  In the fourth movie, he became the elder statesman.  He had a world weariness in his eyes that had come from too many losses, too many fights, too many double crosses.  He still is dedicated to his craft and understands its importance.  He has reached a place of expertise, where he knows what to do after so many years - no matter the situation.  However, you can still see that he is tiring of the battle.

I think this series still has legs.  They apparently have announced a fifth movie already, which I'm sure I will see.  If Cruise tires of the role, or if he just becomes too old to keep doing the field work, he could turn over the team to someone like Renner.  Or, if they want to continue to be daring by mixing things up, they could hand the reins to Patton and have a female lead the way. Based on precedent, there probably will be a new director for the fifth installment.  I would love to see Brad Bird get another shot since he did such a great job.  If not, I hope they find a good alternative that can add something and usher Ethan Hunt into the next stage of his career.

I hope you're enjoying these posts.  They have been fun for me and have given me something to do.  Tonight's feature will be something that I haven't looked at yet in this series - a bomb.  Not a real bomb.  Every movie I've watched had bombs in them.  But a movie bomb.  I'm going to be watching Cowboys and Aliens - something I really wanted to see, but didn't want to waste the money on.  Thank you, Red Box.

Sherlock vs Sherlock

My wife is out of town for the week.  So that means that I'm bored.  Instead of watching the shows stacking up on my DVR (all of which my wife wants to see), I am hitting up the Red Box and catching up on some movies that I have not been able to see yet.  To make this even more fun, I will be blogging my reviews and thoughts about the films.  Today's Installment: Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows.


I have been a fan of Sherlock Holmes since elementary school, when I first discovered the books at the library.  I probably was the only middle schooler in South Florida that was proud to own nearly one hundred year old detective stories.  I'm not sure why I was so into the books.  My love of reading has been a lifelong trait.  I really enjoyed The Hardy Boys books, so maybe this was just a natural progression from that.  I can honestly say that I have read every single (official) Holmes story and novel.  I wouldn't call myself an expert that knows every last detail (like the people that wrote the Wikipedia page).  But I think if you read over fifty different works about a character, you have a good understanding of it.

I feel like I have some fairly reasonable ground to stand on in a discussion of Holmes.  My knowledge isn't based on a stereotype perpetuated by random references.  So, how do I feel about the modern takes on this classic and beloved detective?  Here's my general opinion: I like them.  Now, I find it ridiculous that the people in charge of making movies are so unoriginal that they have to constantly reboot and rework and sequel current stuff.  I wish that there was more original stuff out there.  One of the reasons I like Christopher Nolan is that, while he is having tremendous success with reworking a classic character in Batman, he also creates original movies that are exceptional.  However, this is just the way that the movie landscape is now.  In light of that, I would rather see something based on Sherlock Holmes than other dumb stuff. 


I don't have a problem putting a modern twist on an old character.  To expect a filmmaker to stick religiously to a source work is a bit ridiculous.  First of all, infinite retelling of a story would be a bit boring.  It begins to feel like a high school production at that point.  How many times can you see Romeo and Juliet done the same way?  (Oh yeah, I'm also a huge Shakespeare fan.)  Second, I have enjoyed seeing classic stories moved into different eras.  It shows how they lasted for so long by the fact they can hold up in different settings.  Conversely, I also like it when comic companies DC and Marvel have moved their comic book characters into different worlds in their "What If..." and "Elseworlds" series.  Superman landing in Communist Russia?  The infant Kal-El being found by Thomas and Martha Wayne?  Batman as a medieval knight?  Good stuff.  Third, I like to see what others bring to the stories - what they appreciate is not always what I do.  It helps a fan to see even more about their character.


My basic hope is that the creative director will at least stay somewhat true to the essence of the character.  Move them around.  Change their dialog or their costumes.  Emphasize different character traits.  But at least stay true.  Take Batman, for example.  The thing about comic books is that they always have different writers, so characters evolve over time.  Batman has taken on a much darker tone in the last thirty years.  Catwoman has moved from straight up villain to anti-hero to hero to villain.  So it is little surprise the movies have taken different approaches.  Tim Burton's films were wonderful.  (I know some people disagree.  I don't care.)  Nolan has taken a completely different approach - trying to ground the superhero saga into reality, as much as that is possible.  Of course, if you were a purist you SHOULD hate Nolan's efforts.  But a true Batman purist can't hate Nolan's work because they only serve to enhance the overall Batman mythos.  Burton, Nolan, the comic writers all try to stay true to the essence of the character.  This is why Joel Schumacher's atrocities were SO offensive.  They completely abandoned all of what made Batman what he is.  He revisited and tweaked it to the point that it wasn't even the same universe.  


So, when it comes to Sherlock Holmes, I can handle the different approaches.  And what we have right now are two VERY different takes.  On one hand, you have Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr. presenting their movie version.  On the other, you have Stephen Moffatt and Benedict Cumberbatch offering their television take.  (Then there is CBS' upcoming Sherlock-in-New-York with a female Watson series which I will reserve judging until I see it.  As ridiculous as it sounds.  But I won't judge it yet.  Or at least I'll try.)  There really could not be two different ways to address this character than what is currently out there.  The movie version leaves Holmes in the late 1800s, but emphasizes his physical prowess in weaving an action tale.  The television show moves Holmes and company into present day London, while trying to keep true to the Holmes we know (just if he had a cell phone and access to a computer).  The surprising thing is that both of them are very good and enjoyable.  And both respect the character, while providing a welcome (and needed) modern update.

The very fact that Sherlock Holmes is pictured in the movie poster holding a gun and smirking instead of holding a pipe and thinking shows what kind of movie to expect.  This is not going to be the traditional Holmes, bent over a desk and demonstrating all sorts of anti-social tendencies.  Instead he is a lovable rogue who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty.  Guy Ritchie decided to tap into some of the lesser known characteristics of Sherlock Holmes - the disguises, the ability to fight, his attraction to Irene Adler.  Instead of being fringe elements, these are played up more.  In the books, Holmes could fight.  He had knowledge of martial arts and bare knuckle fighting and was a strong person.  But these were never distinguishing elements of his life - more of surprising facts that proved useful on occasion.  He could have a wit about him and was very sarcastic, especially for the era in which he lived.  However, there is a massive leap between that and RDJ.  To me, it seems like Downey plays Holmes as a Victorian Tony Stark.  He is smarter than everyone, does what he wants, but has developed this strong desire to see good - partly for the good of others, partly because it is a way to make himself feel superior.  He has an abrasive nature, but not in the way of the classic Holmes.  Its a likable unlikeability, if that makes any sense.


The biggest problem I have with the Holmes movies is that they really eliminate the mystery aspect.  We are not drawn into this story, trying to figure out what is going on along with everyone else.  Yes, there is some element of intrigue and some neat tricks in the reveal.  But that was more apparent in the first movie, where I was seriously wondering how in the world the villain was alive when he was supposed to be dead.  In Game of Shadows, we know the bad guy from the outset.  He isn't hiding it at all.  And there isn't really a big mystery of what is going on.  He's orchestrating explosions.  So what?  He's pushing Europe towards war.  So what?  I never was sitting there confused.  When they did any kind of big reveal, it was almost like, "Oh, was I supposed to be wondering about that?"  Any level of suspense came from how Holmes was going to stop the guy, like how any superhero will stop any villain.  There are some scenes where Ritchie will show Holmes figuring out something before the others, but it more often than not is in the midst of a fight - how can he effectively vanquish his foes by guessing their moves.


I am not sure if this is a problem with Ritchie's Holmes or an indictment of movies in general.  It is pretty rare to have a good mystery any more in movies, where the viewer is kept in the dark and figuring things out with the hero.  Sure, movies have twists in them.  But the detective genre has almost been completely banished to television at this point.  One of the last movies I saw that really held me the whole time and kept me in the dark - not due to confusion but due to forcing me to use my mind - was the first Mission: Impossible movie.  Of course, a lot of people railed against that movie, saying it was too hard to figure out - which is exactly why I liked it.  It is almost like we have abandoned the detective today - it is too easy with technology to do what these people used to work hard to do.  Batman used to be known as The Detective.  How often do you see that element any more?  That is how I feel about Downey's Holmes.  The detective element is played down in favor of action.  He unravels things with action first, gimmicks second, and mind third.

That is really what makes the BBC version of Sherlock so riveting to me.  It really is a throwback to the original Holmes books.  It even takes those original stories and revamps them into modern situations.  Benedict Cumberbatch plays Sherlock as the cerebral detective.  He knows more than everyone else and he is more perceptive than everyone else.  He believes everyone should see this and yield to his superior nature.  So he is actually befuddled by the fact that people are offended by him.  He doesn't shrug it off, it is a confusing reality to him.  He reminds me of an elementary aged child who thinks you should be able to say anything you think without consequence.  He can be truly awful to people - social skills are not as important as learning or solving the mystery.  And his desire to solve the mystery is more out of fascination.  If it strikes his fancy, he will jump at it.  Otherwise, no matter how important the crime is, Holmes sees it as a waste of time.  He has loyal friends, but he doesn't always see the reason for them.  That is changing over time.  However it is still painful to see him run roughshod over the local morgue worker, as she is standing there infatuated with him.  


The show revels in the mystery.  It sets the stage to where the viewer is completely in the dark as to the solution.  There have beens six ninety minute episodes thus far and I haven't guessed the solution in the first hour of any of them.  The intrigue is one thing to love, but the show is also humorous and well acted.  Cumberbatch is great.  I think he is a star on the rise.  Last year he started in two Oscar nominated movies along with the show (War Horse, Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy).  He is currently filming the Star Trek sequel and will be the voice of the dragon in The Hobbit.  It really is only a matter of time before he hits it very big.  I think of him joining Michael Fassbender and Tom Hiddleton in the brainy darker leading man category.  And speaking of The Hobbit, Martin Freeman, who will be starring as Bilbo Baggins in that film, does an amazing job as Dr Watson.  He is exasperated with Holmes, but at the same time enthralled by him.  He comes alive during the mysteries, all the while complaining of how he is being dragged into it.  I think he is the perfect Watson for this version of Holmes.  (Being perfectly fair, I think Jude Law does a great job with Watson in the movies.  He is also the perfect version for Downey's Holmes.)  In addition, Holmes' brother Mycroft is brilliant.  He matches his brother's wits.  And he is just as cold when it comes to people, but as a government official thinking of the higher good of country.  I also like the police officers, especially Lestrade.  They are like any modern police procedural team if they had a weirdo overstepping his bounds.  


One thing that is a little different in the show is that the supernatural element is almost non existant.  It is so grounded in the modern scientific world that the thought of something otherworldly being the culprit hardly enters the mind.  The only episode that even ventured there was "Hound of the Baskervilles."  If you read the books, many of them had elements of the supernatural hanging over them.  It could be that in that era, that was a more common first guess.  But I think it also was that some of the mysteries were so hard to fathom that the ludicrous became logical.  The first Holmes movie did a good job of harkening back to those stories.  The whole secret society and executed men coming back to life angle really felt like a Arthur Conan Doyle story.  


The last comparison I will make is in the area of how the two properties address Professor Moriarty.  This is the villain to end all villains.  He can match Holmes' intellect.  And he is evil to the core.  It is hard to portray that without resorting to cartoonish depths.  One offering properly did that; one failed.  Surprisingly, the one that was successful was Ritchie's movie.  His Moriarty was brilliant and respected.  But he hid an evil viciousness and a criminal empire.  The people in power didn't know he was a criminal since he hid things so well.  The one problem I had was that he was portrayed very quickly as the baddie.  We didn't have to wonder who was actually Moriarty or anything.  But the role itself was more in line with the arch villain we know.  The television show, on the other hand, did a good job hiding his identity.  We were completely caught off guard when we realized who Moriarty was.  But the excitement ended there.  I hated every minute he was on screen until the last episode.  The character was so over the top.  Obviously he was mentally unstable, but he acted like a complete loon.  It was almost that he was modeled after Heath Ledger's Joker instead of a plotting and manipulating genius.  He was just full on nutso.  I never liked the character, which is unfortunate for someone of that stature in a story.


Overall, I did enjoy Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows.  It was a fun action flick.  Robert Downey Jr is at the point where he is playing various versions of his show biz persona in just about every film - kind of like how Alec Baldwin has merged into his Jack Donnaghy character from 30 Rock.  If you like Downey, you will like Sherlock Holmes.  (You will also like Iron Man.)  But if you like Sherlock Holmes, you will love the television show Sherlock.  That was a puzzler.  Next up on the BluRay train?  Mission:Impossible: Ghost Protocol.