Sherlock Holmes

We PPVed the new "Sherlock Holmes" over the weekend. I had high hopes for it since I'd heard good reviews and the cast was solid. Downey, Law, and McAdams usually do solid work. I also figured it would be pretty tough to botch Sherlock Holmes.
I was mostly satisfied. The cast does a decent job with a lame story. Holmes and Watson are like an old married couple. They constantly bicker, but you believe the genuine affection between them. Downey is well cast as the hard living, egocentric, difficult Holmes. Law's stoic and tight laced war hero Watson is a good counter to Holmes. McAdams is OK, but doesn't have the chops to equal Downey or Law.
The plot is the real weakness of the movie. The secret society conspiring to take over the world is tired. I also never believed that the bad guys had the gravitas to fool Holmes. The hinting at Holmes' real enemy lurking in the shadows felt like a set up for a sequel instead of a key plot point.
The retooling of Holmes as an action hero worked well for me. In fact, I felt that the retooled Holmes was better for the big screen than the more Victorian Holmes. The action Holmes made the movie more of an escapist flick.
Overall, "Sherlock Holmes" was well worth the six bucks it cost to PPV. It may well have been worth full price if I'd had a rough week at work.

Iron Man 2

H and I finally saw Iron Man 2. We had read the reviews, but hoped that they were just the typical stuffy reviewer tripe.
It wasn't. The movie is a mess. The creators attempted to cram way too many story lines and too many characters into a single movie. There are, if I counted right, five story lines vying for attention. There is an attempt to work them all together, but it never pans out. The net effect is that most of the story lines seem tossed in for no good reason except to further Marvel's need to push its other movie properties. The extra bits burry the bits that made Iron Man a good movie.
The whole Shield story line feels bolted on to pimp for Thor, Capt. America, and the Avengers. While Scarlet is nice to look at, her character serves no purpose worthy of the amount of screen time she gets. Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury is underwhelming. Pulling this fluff would free up needed time to make the rest of the movie better.
I never bought the Stark is dying story line either. It feels like a gimmick to explain the need for the new atom and the behavior that allows Rhodie to steel War Hammer.
The flaws do not get in the way of the movie being a fun romp. Downey and Paltrow are excellent together. In fact, the best parts of the movie involve Stark and Potts. Micky Rourke is fantastic as the baddie. The effects and action sequences rock - literally. The movie is very loud.
I left the movie feeling hopeful for the third movie. The lard piled on by Marvel couldn't destroy the strength of the franchise and by the time the third film comes out Marvel won't need to pimp other movies.

Alice in 3D

H and I were looking for a good movie to see that was playing at a reasonable time. We found that there is a dearth of decent films out there that we both wanted to see. (I can always be convinced to see a crappy action/horror flick.) The choice came down to Iron Man or Alice in Wonderland.
I leaned toward Iron Man, but only because I knew the explosions and robots bashing each other would provide mind numbing escape if nothing else. In the end, the decision came down to showtimes. Alice in Wonderland was playing at a better time.
I went into the film with low expectations. I'd read very mixed reviews. Most of them felt that there was too much flash and antics and not enough story. The harshest reviews called it a Tim Burrton movie without a heart.
I was pleasantly surprised. It was visually chaotic and the characters were over the top, but it is Wonderland after all. Johnny Depp and Helena B. Carter were in full crazy mode. They took the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen to the edge of over the top, but managed to keep from toppling over. The rest of the cast played the parts just as well.
The story is what it is. It follows closely to the original except now Alice is on the brink of adulthood. She must reclaim her inner strength and learn to trust her imagination.
The visuals are lush and make any weakness in the story fade away. I'm not sure if the 3D enhanced the viewing experience, but it certainly didn't hurt it. I'm sure that the movie is just as immersive and lush on a flat screen. It may not be so good on a small screen however.

Watchmen

I went to see "Watchmen" last night at the IMAX in Reading. It was worth the extra dollar to see this film on the gigantic screen. The special effects, which are good, have more punch in IMAX.
The movie itself was good, but not great. It stayed pretty faithful to the original graphic novel. Most of the changes were just to cut the length down and smooth out the story line. Of course the movie still rolls in at just shy of 3 hours, the movie is still long and could be made shorter. The love scene in Archie is needlessly drawn out. Silk Specter looks good in the buff, but it doesn't help the story at all. There are a few other spots where things could have been cut down a bit more. Maybe it could have shaved 5-10 minutes off the run time. It didn't feel overly long however.
The one major difference between the novel and the movie is how Ozymandias tricks the world into peace. While I think the story works either way, I don't see the point of the change. If there is a bigger point to be made, the ending doesn't really make that clear. The alien meme achieves the same effect as making Jon the baddy. The world would still unite to combat a new, powerful, common enemy. If the ending was turned so that humanity saw the error of relying on a single man for their safety, perhaps the altered ending makes more sense. Dan's comment to Spector at the end confuses things even more. Perhaps, I'm missing the irony in it all. Perhaps, the director wants to drill home the question "Who watches the Watchmen?"
I think the real point is not about watching anybody. It is about Rorschach's joke.
I'm not sure how people who are not Watchmen fans will like the film. It is beautiful to look at, the action is well done, and the story is good. It is a little depressing and dark. Few of the characters (OK none of the characters) are likable. (I'll admit to a grudging soft spot for Rorschach. He is the closest thing to a real hero in the story.)
Watchmen fans will likely enjoy the movie even if they don't love the movie. I'm sure a few will decry the ending, but they are little better than the characters in the story.
If you like action movies and don't have anything to do for a few hours, there are worse ways to spend your money.

The Dark Knight

The movie is as awesome as everyone says it is. Unlike most comic book spin-offs, it does not give up on having ideas. The story line is solid and does not rely on great special effects and fight scenes.
In many ways, it is the accompanying cast that make the movie. Ledger's Joker, Olodman's Gordon, and Eckhart's Dent overshadow the Knight. This is both good and bad. It makes the movie more watchable. However, it does make it a little harder for the audience to feel the struggle going on inside Wayne.
The only real concern was the Batman voice.....

Iron Man

Another excellent Marvel adaptation. Downey is excellent as Tony Stark. The CGI is fantastic.

Cloverfield

The first big movie of the year turned out to be a very small movie. J.J. Abrams took the monster movie genre and turned it on its head.
When I hear monster movie, I think lots of special effects, big creatures, explosions, and an epic battle for the safety of the city. Even the pitiful Godzilla flick with Matthew Brodrick stuck to form. The monster shows up and wreaks havoc. The army comes in and does battle with the monster. A group of scientist work feverishly to understand the monster and find its weakness. In the end, the monster is destroyed (or driven back into dormancy). The world continues as normal. Everything about these movies are big. The monster is a major character. The plot is centered on the fight against the movie. Everything in the movie happens because of the monster.
In Cloverfield, the monster is the catalyst for the action. The monster does show up and wreak havoc. The army does do battle with the monster. However, the monster is not a major character. The plot does not center on the fight against the monster. Nobody is focused on understanding the monster or finding its weakness. The monster and the fight against the monster are simply plot pieces. They create the situations the characters react to, but they are not explored.
So, Cloverfield is not a monster movie. It is just an action movie. The story is told Blair Witch style. We see the action unfold on a handheld video camera. We watch as a group of friends try to cope with a horrific situation. They race through the city in an attempt to rescue a friend and then escape the city. They face death, the military, run ins with the monster, collapsing buildings, and a deadline before the city is destroyed.
While the action kept me on the edge of my seat, I cannot say I loved the movie. The characters were thin and their central motivation was not compelling. I didn't believe that the main character and the girl they rush to rescue are that in love. The movie does not do the work to make it believable. The supporting characters are more believable.
Cloverfield is a good movie. It puts an interesting twist on the monster movie genre. However, the story falls short of greatness.

Bourne Ultimatum

I finally saw the final installment of the Bourne Trilogy and it lived up to my expectations. A smart thrill ride. I didn't find it as compelling as Supremacy, but it was still heads and tails above most films of its genre.
The story was a little convoluted with all the zipping around Europe hoping to find "the source." I also found Bourne's character less compelling in this installment. He was too flat.
While it did a great job of wrapping up most of the questions about Bourne, the movie left one gapping question open: what is the relationship between Nikki and Bourne? It is odd that she shows up in all three movies because she is a very minor player in the plot. They could have left her character out after the first movie. The plot device bringing her into the second movie was plausible, but not great. The device used to bring her into this installment was lame. Add that to the comment "with you it was hard" and the obvious disappointment she displays at separating from Bourne and the look on her face when she sees Bourne kill Deft. There is a relationship of some kind there. Nikki clearly has/had feelings for Bourne/Webb.
While I don't really want to see this franchise keep churning out sequels, I would like to know what that relationship was. Maybe they could make a chick flick called Romancing the Bourne or the Bourne Tryst....

Bourne

So it's a thriller series and not "serious" cinema. The Bourne movies are good fun and far smarter than the Bond flicks. The scene is Ultimatum where Bourne confesses to the girl - heartbreaking. Damon makes an excellent good guy turned bad guy searching for his soul.
Only question I have is why waste Julia Styles in such a minor role?