DANCES WITH HOLMES

[defrog]

I’ve been to the movies again, yes.

Avatar

Most of you have already seen this, and a lot of the attention has been focused either on the cutting-edge 3D technology or the fact that the basic story idea has been done a hundred times, from Dancing With Wolves to FernGully: The Last Starfighter Rainforest. Luckily, I’ve never actually seen either of those films, or the other films that Avatar’s been getting compared to, so that’s not really an issue for me.

In terms of the technology, of course James Cameron didn’t invent 3D or digital characters – but he uses both well. Now that 3D looks decent (even if it still gives me a headache), it’s refreshing to see a 3D movie that uses it as an immersion technique, not a device to throw objects at you. A friend of mine at CineGeek reckons that Cameron has raised the technology bar to the point that Avatar is to CGI and 3D what Star Wars was to special effects. While that doesn’t necessarily mean the Cameron is the new George Lucas, he may be the closest thing we have.

So all up, it’s good to have Cameron back.

Oh, and the film’s pretty good, too. Admittedly the story’s simplistic and predictable, and the corporate/military villains as one-dimensional as they come, but so was Star Wars, come to that.

Also, Cameron has never really been all that subtle about delineating good vs evil, let alone his viewpoints – which is why conservatives everywhere are probably already bitching about Cameron brainwashing children to hug trees, worship pagan goddesses and have sex with aliens. There is no higher recommendation, really.

Sherlock Holmes

bedsitter23  has already posted something on how this “reinvention” of Holmes isn’t as radical as it looks if you’ve read some of the stories. I would agree – in fact, apart from the ultraviolence, it’s probably the most accurate portrayal of Holmes ever captured on film: an obsessive social misfit who takes cases to keep his brain occupied because he can’t really do anything else and he'll go mad otherwise. All that’s really missing is Holmes’ drug habit.

Little wonder that Robert Downey Jr is getting rave reviews for it.

The actual story is okay, with Holmes pitted against a Crowley/Jack The Ripper-type character with apparent magical powers. Some of the explanations are a little too predictable even without the clues (which is as well since Guy Ritchie plays the clues too close to the vest to really get into the spirit of letting the audience try to keep up with Holmes’ deductions). And few films have more obviously been put together in the hopes of starting a new Hollywood franchise.

Still, it’s never boring, and as Hollywood reinventions go, it’s better than it has any right to be.

Anything but elementary,

This is dF

Comments

[gvdub.livejournal.com]

I just saw this today. I agree that this is the first time that Holmes and Watson have been portrayed as anywhere near their ages in the books, and it captures Doyle's claims of Holmes' natural athleticism and hand-to-hand skills in a way that hasn't previously been done.

My only problem was that, by introducing Mary Morstan the way they did, they would have to do some serious backtracking if they ever wanted to do any sort of adaptation of Sign of Four. That, though, is nitpicking.

I'd actually love to see Ritchie do a version of A Study in Scarlet, which has never really been done (of course, the Church of Latter-Day Saints might get upset if they stuck to the original text).

[def-fr0g-42.livejournal.com]

Good points, but I get the feeling from this film that they're not really going to be adapting too many actual Holmes plotlines – not faithfully, anyway. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.