Sherlock Holmes [DVD]

--Crew--
Guy Ritchie...Director

--Cast--
Robert Downey, Jr as Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law as Dr. John Watson
Mark Strong as Lord Henry Blackwood
Rachel McAdams as  Irene Adler


--Review--

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) absorbs his environment. He makes notes of the smallest details. He is a detective, taking in clues that most of us wouldn't consider. He is also a skilled fighter. He can deflect attacks and calculate the number of movements necessary to defeat his opponent. To Holmes, life is a game, abundant with mystery and waiting for someone to solve it.

Downey plays Holmes with a lot of character quirks. Holmes is constantly looking around himself, eying things from the corner of his eyes. He's speaks quickly and almost always seem to be in over his head. He is curious about the criminal mind and likes a good chase. He also likes alcohol and anything that keeps him from being sober. Conan Doyle would be proud.

Dr. Watson is here too, played by a mustached Jude Law, acts as Holmes' foil. Watson is humored by Holmes, they are friends reliable to each other. Where Holmes might execute subtly, Watson is abrupt and straight to the point. Their personalities compliments each other the way real friends do. They like each other.

Holmes is on task to stop the resurrected Lord Henry Blackwood (Mark Strong) from a plot to take over the British government. There are several twists in the story and the expectations of the audience will be played with. In the backdrop of an industrial London, can magic really exist?

The plot isn't as interesting as the characters. There is a clear villain in Blackwood but the real joy of watching the picture is for Downey's amazing performance. The plot is serviceable but the picture straddles the line of an origin story with teasers for a true “Sherlock Holmes” picture. The elements for a sequel is well placed throughout the picture. Sherlock Holmes is waiting for a real nemesis.

Holmes' love interest Irene Addler is played by Rachel McAdams who is far too young for the role. When Holmes and Addler are in scenes together their age difference isn't noticeable. But it's difficult to ignore McAdams age when the rest of a cast consist of people in their forties. McAdams does well as Addler, but she doesn't feel necessary. She feels like a miscast actress for a character that shouldn't be part of the story at all. She doesn't detract from the picture but she doesn't add to it either. Are my comments for Addler or McAdams? I will let you decide.

“Sherlock Holmes” is a movie worth seeing. It isn't filled with the best of things but plays out very well. It's an action film with mystery elements. Downey and director Guy Ritchie play with the preconceived ideas of Holmes and does away with them. It's Sherlock Holmes reinvented for a modern film audience.

It's good. It's brief and I'd like to see more.

Up in the Air [DVD]

--Crew--

Jason Reitman...Director

--Cast--

George Clooney as Ryan Bingham

Vera Farminga as Alex Goran

Anna Kendrick as Natalie Kenner

Jason Bateman as Craig Gregory

--Review--
Ryan Bingham's [George Clooney] job is to fire people he doesn't work with. He's brought into various companies to fire their employees and to absolve managers of their own responsibility in firing an employee. The concept is unique and allows Bingham an emotional distance from the people he fires. It doesn't effect Bingham because he doesn't know them. At least that's the premise.

Eventually Bingham runs into Alex Goran [Vera Farminga] at a hotel bar. The two connect on a level and begin a relationship. It's a complex, risk-less relationship. Just the way both parties like it. Both are working for giant near anonymous corporations that forces the pair to travel throughout the nation. The vast distance between them are both emotional and physical.

Bingham's world is turned upside down when the new hire at his company, Natalie Keener [Anna Kendrick] proposes a shift from personal firings to firings done over the web. It would be more cost effective not to fly employees across the nation to fire. The reasoning by Keener is highly logical and near emotionless. Keener's proposal goes into conflict with Bingham who finds the web firings cold and impersonal. Not to mention Bingham's entire career will take a dynamic shift from personal communication to an impersonal digital one. Firing someone isn't about simply letting them go. To Bingham there's a logic to firing someone in person, it's personal, it's comforting and more than anything-human.

We come to find Bingham and Keener traveling the country firing people together. Keener begins to realize the emotional involvement in firing an individual. Bingham slowly becomes a mentor and even a father figure to Keener.

There's a lot happening in "Up in the Air." The film looks at age, relationships and the meaning of goals. Is it enough to want something? What do people fall back on where there's a crisis? After all the miles traveled by our characters, it's not about the distance that makes them better people, it's their relationships. Their involvement and appreciation of others is the key to understanding the film.

At one of Bingham's presentation on the meaning of baggage, Bingham equates that relationships are the great burden of our lives. It's the weight of relationships that will force the shoulder straps of a back pack into our bodies. It's those binding relationships that tie you down, that may even harm you. Bingham is correct in a way. Relationships are perilous adventures but they can also be highly rewarding. The film wonders about our sense of isolation and our sense of acceptance. How do we fit into a world that seem to eclipse us and not accompany us?

There is a scene in "Up in the Air" that appears to have Bingham conversing with a near ethereal father figure. It could be God, or it could just be a missing paternal figure not present in his life. When Bingham is able to finally converse with this man, Bingham is at a lost for words. It's as if he's finally reaching adulthood and looking back at the various aspects of his life. There's a lot that has happened to him. There's just too much to talk about. Bingham's highly engaging speeches on the dangers of relationships and baggage are displaced. He's changed and in his altered state he begins to understand a new way of existence. What he use to think isn't what he thinks now.

"Up in the Air" is so charming and delightful it's hard not to recommend the film to everyone. The film deals with age, romance and the obscure thoughts that transcend all the hours of the day. It's about our expectations and the idle thoughts that goes with them. Can we overcome our fears and emotional tremors, our elite fragile egos? "Up in the Air" believes that together we might be able to and I do too.

Iron Man 2

--Crew--
Jon Favreau...Director

--Cast--
Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark
Don Cheadle as James Rhodes
Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts
Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko
Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer

--Review--

“Iron Man 2” isn’t about saving the world, or saving the people Tony Stark loves. The film is about the duplication of the technology found in the Iron Man suit. It’s a film about gadgets and not about the human condition.

This is perfectly fine since “Iron Man 2” can be considered an action film. But aside from a race to assemble high tech gear, there isn’t much happening in “Iron Man 2.”

For a film fascinated by gadgets and high tech equipment, the film’s pacing fails to deliver. It’s slow like a drama but has none of the depth. The pace is absurdly disrupted by too many characters speaking too many lines at too slow a pace. The terrific action sequences are too far spread out to keep the pacing exhilarating.

Robert Downey Jr. returns as Tony Stark. Tony Stark came out to the world as Iron Man at the end of the previous picture. Why wouldn’t he? Being a hero with vast media attention is a modern allure.

For an egomaniac such as Tony Stark, confessing to the world of his dual identity is simply stroking his ego. His cocksure manner has him gleefully running about the entire film. He is funny and flirtatious. But he seems to have digressed a little from his growth from the original “Iron Man” picture. Stark’s charisma doesn’t win over any other characters in the film.

A lot of people dislike Stark. Don Cheadle has replaced Terrance Howard as James Rhodes. “Rhodey” doesn’t get increased screen time over his original “Iron Man” incarnation. He is there, but seems to be non-supportive of Stark. Rhodey and Stark don’t seem to be friends but mild enemies.

Everyone scolds Tony Stark. Mickey Rourke is in the film as Ivan Vanko, and hates Tony Stark too. Though he appears intimidating, he really isn’t developed well enough to present a great danger.

For the other villain we have Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. He’s like Tony Stark in many ways. Hammer is an arms dealer seeking to imprint his legacy on the future of modern warfare. He runs his own corporation. Yet, Hammer isn’t imposing, he stumbles and is easily outwitted by Stark. Thus, making Hammer an unrewarding antagonist. It’s hard to believe that Hammer will ever be able to outwit Stark. It’s not a surprise when he doesn’t. He hates Tony Stark as well.

The premise of the picture doesn’t give “Iron Man 2” the intensity it needs to make the villains and heroes feel like something larger is at stake. Instead all of the dialogue descends into witty exchanges between all the various characters. Every character is always trying to verbally joust at another one. It’s a funny flick and perhaps that’s a reason the film can’t be taken seriously. With no real conflict and characters uninvolved in a deeper moral issues, “Iron Man 2” becomes a lightweight picture filled with only humor and visual effects.

There are too many characters in “Iron Man 2” that do not directly contribute to the overall story. A film with an ensemble cast is harder to direct and juggle screen time with. The film doesn’t seem to understand the purpose of some characters and everyone seems nearly interchangeable in the plot.

The film’s director Jon Favreau appears as Tony Stark’s driver Happy Hogan. This time Favreau’s Hogan has longer screen time than in the previous “Iron Man.” He gets to throw a couple of punches. But there are no subplots involving his character. Hogan isn’t interesting or humorous. Hogan’s inclusion is a disservice to cinema and the script.

The action sequences of the film are quite wonderful. There are lots of explosions in the film. Yet, the action sequences are awkwardly spaced throughout the picture. It’s an action film without an exact understanding of where to place the action sequences. It takes nearly twenty minutes into the film before we get our first taste of action.

“Iron Man 2” doesn’t have much of a plot. There are no vast conspiracies, no underlying themes involving freedom, security and militarism. “Iron Man 2” is devoid of a deeper meaning. It’s a story populated by attractive people preening about and flirting with each other incessantly under the boom of fire crackers.

We’re meant to be enchanted by it all. The special effects, the heavy banter about neutrons and protons. There isn’t any humanity in “Iron Man 2.”

Simply having actors portray characters isn’t enough. The characters must undergo a process of transformation.

None of the characters change, making “Iron Man 2” seem like a mere dress rehearsal rather than a real “Iron Man” sequel.

Nightmare on Elm Street

Clever, suspenseful and powerful, none of these things describes the “Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot film. Many familiar elements remain such as Freddy Krueger's fedora and hand claw. Yet, there is a casualty in the new film and that casualty is the reason for this film's existence.

Freddy Krueger part-time homeless man, full-time non-corporeal terror of the children on Elm Street haunts a handful of teens. He pushes them, teases them and sometimes tortures the audience with his films. Jackie Earle Haley plays the part of the titular villain. Haley is very good.

As the non-ethereal Krueger, Haley performs with a hint of frailty. He is pitiful, mildly sympathetic until a semi-dramatic plot twist ruptures this image completely. As evil Freddy Krueger bent on dealing terror throughout Elm Street, Haley does the best he can with the dialogue given.

He says all of lines like he means them, but half way through realizes his lines are just filler. He seems to be wondering why he is talking at all. Why do villains explain any of their actions? It makes the villains seem reasonable and even negotiable. Don't do it.

The film makers also decided that Haley's Krueger voice needed a boost in bass. Audience members will clearly know Krueger is in town when the theater's seats start to rumble. Haley's augmented voice is not subtle. It's irritating, his voice is too loud. If a person dies only to come back as a ghost and for some inane reason posses a deeper voice, people will start asking questions. People with brains.

The first clue that Freddy Krueger is back isn't the nightmares, it's his ridiculous voice.

The plot differs from the original 1984 film. The setting is different, helping to represent the new state of the world. Audience's will know that this is an entirely new take on the Nightmare series because the male characters of the film wear just as much make up as the female characters. Expect heavy use of both computer imagery and mascara on the male actors.

Why do the male characters of the picture wear mascara? Are they trying to protect themselves from Freddy Krueger or are they dressing up for him? No one knows and I don't care.

Yes, there are parts of “Nightmare on Elm Street” that can be liked. The visual effects are wonderful. Freddy Krueger's face is a mixture of make-up and computer imagery. Film makers have gone ahead and made Krueger appear ghastly through the details of visible muscle and tendons. He looks more like a zombie than a demon from hell.

Rooney Mara plays Nancy Holbrook, the protagonist for the picture, Mara is a very believable actress. When she expresses fear or concern, audience's will forget that those expressions are for the film's script. I genuinely found Mara to be charismatic and cheered her on in her fight against Freddy Krueger. Her victory over Freddy can only be meaningful if she is a likable character. But even as the main protagonist of the film, Mara's Holbrook cannot escape the script. Virtually the only thing audiences find out about Mara's Holbrook is that her character is artistic.

There's some blood colored syrup throughout the picture. It wouldn't be a slasher or horror film without it. Most of the scenes involving Krueger aren't particularly gory. But, a few scenes will haunt the memories of film goers, the first and last scene of the picture are the most disturbing. Cover your eyes.

The horror industry has found many new friends from “Saw” to “The Fourth Kind.” “Nightmare on Elm Street” responds to these films with a whimper. It's a picture displaced by time and unapologetic affection for the original source material.

There isn't a point in recalling the greatness of the original “Nightmare on Elm Street” films or revisiting the Freddy Krueger character. Simply walk down to the local video store and rent the original pictures, that way multiple films can be watched at the same cost as a ticket to the theater.

The “Nightmare on Elm Street” reboot is akin to rewriting Jane Austen's classic “Pride and Prejudice” but set in a contemporary time period with the same characters, motivations and releasing that atrocity to the public. If you're saying that would be pointless and cruel, you're right.