Thanks for the review, Val (and the reminder of your nickname in your siggy ). I am hesitant still, but I might give it a try.

My only question is if it has can possibly be reconciled to the books, at least in terms of believing that the books' Canon was *not* dumped completely.

What do you think, Val, everyone else?

Happy New Year, all!

I bid you all adieu.

Well, the fact that there's a romance subplot means they've thrown most of Doyle's characterization of Holmes right out the window. The canonical Holmes only ever showed interest in one woman and that was more of an admiration of her than falling head over heels in love.

I watched the trailer for Sherlock Holmes way back when it first came out and knew I wouldn't be able to find any enjoyment in it, considering what they did to the character. Thus I'm going to give it a pass. I suspect that I'd probably like it were I not a fan of the books, because it does have that silly fun summer movie look to it.

I think if my pet bird and her babies were being threatened I would fight to save her too.

I agree. I don't think the whole part about saving the bird was intended to push the "go green; save the environment" message on us. That element was there because at some point Mr. Fredricksen had to decide between saving something dear to him that really wasn't important (his house) or being unselfish and saving something that really needed saving (the bird). It's easy to pull and twist any sort of message out of movies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the writers of the movie intended. I mean, can't people make a simple movie about saving an animal without someone saying they're trying to force us to "go green?" Besides, movies have had plots about saving animals years before this whole "going green" thing was popular. Just a few examples are Bambi, Lassie, and Charlotte's Web and I'm sure others could come up with a more impressive list.

I'll always be a,
NL101

I agree. I don't think the whole part about saving the bird was intended to push the "go green; save the environment" message on us. That element was there because at some point Mr. Fredricksen had to decide between saving something dear to him that really wasn't important (his house) or being unselfish and saving something that really needed saving (the bird). It's easy to pull and twist any sort of message out of movies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what the writers of the movie intended. I mean, can't people make a simple movie about saving an animal without someone saying they're trying to force us to "go green?" Besides, movies have had plots about saving animals years before this whole "going green" thing was popular. Just a few examples are Bambi, Lassie, and Charlotte's Web and I'm sure others could come up with a more impressive list.

I'll always be a,
NL101

Fair enough. But in this case it seemed pretty obvious, in my opinion.
Of course, they always make the animals semi-human (like showing emotion and understanding of things no animal could), which really makes it all pointless cause now you have animals crying to get back to their babies when in reality some animals eat their own young. It's a vicious, unpretty world out there in the animal kingdom, but according to Hollywood it's all lovey dovey until those evil humans come. Ok now I'll shut up for real.

Actually, movies like Avatar demonstrate some of the truths that belie your point General. Though I do agree that one can't help but take away a Respect for Nature from such films. But "Going Green" is a POSITIVE value for a film to promote, and a step up from the usual shallow values that most Hollywood films advocate .

The fact is, emotions are NOT solely human attributes. Many animals have highly developed and fairly sophisticated emotions. When one of our dogs died the week before this Christmas, our other dogs clearly mourned his parting. They are only now beginning to act like their usual cheerful selves.

Many animals in Nature are indeed Highly Protective of their young and will attack any that come near them. Some animals often have hightened perceptions of the emotions of others, often perceiving deception in other humans before even their oblivious "owners" do.

One of the things I particularly appreciated in Avatar was showing humans (or rather, Na Vi) in mutual cooperation and respect for each other. I fail to see how this is a Negative.

GB

*puts on shiny mod hat*

Please keep from getting into politics here, guys. Such discussions of "going green" etc. can drift into that area so please be careful.

*takes off shiny mod hat*

While I agree animals have emotions and we need to protect them (as part of our duty given by God to care for His creation), it gets rather annoying when environmentalists (as well meaning as they might be) shove the "Going Green" stuff down our throats and call us evil for eating meat and mining for oil in Alaska.

I'm all for caring for God's creation, but there's always a point when men can go overboard (with anything, not just the environment).

To get back on topic: I've heard mixed reviews about Sherlock Holmes, but seeing as I've never read the books I think I'll be interested in seeing it.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

Yes, even the Na'Vi in Avatar eat meat , as do I. But they pay Respect to the Life taken. And the Minerals underneath the Na'Vi's habitat aren't of any benefit to Dead People, Dead Habitats or Dead Planets , any more than it would be in our own world.

And it's only fair, as others (now including yourself) have expressed their views about what they don't like about the "Green Message" in Avatar, for the rest of us to provide some (respectful ) balance.

EDIT: A friend of mine saw Sherlock Holmes and loved Downey and Jude Law in their respective roles. But he had mixed feelings about the Superhero Action Movie take on the whole story. As much as he enjoyed the action sequences, he thought Holmes as Action Hero was out of character.

GB

I finally got around to seeing The Blind Side,
I simply loved the movie. had I known it was this good I'd have seen it sooner. A definite must see.

Sandra Bullock was terrific in the role,
and the story- being based on a true story: WOW!

To do what that lady did for this person,
unknown to her, didn't know his history- nothing.
It's great what she did, I can't even put in proper words so I won't try.

I loved it!

Yes, even the Na'Vi in Avatar eat meat , as do I. But they pay Respect to the Life taken. And the Minerals underneath the Na'Vi's habitat aren't of any benefit to Dead People, Dead Habitats or Dead Planets , any more than it would be in our own world.

And it's only fair, as others (now including yourself) have expressed their views about what they don't like about the "Green Message" in Avatar, for the rest of us to provide some (respectful ) balance.

EDIT: A friend of mine saw Sherlock Holmes and loved Downey and Jude Law in their respective roles. But he had mixed feelings about the Superhero Action Movie take on the whole story. As much as he enjoyed the action sequences, he thought Holmes as Action Hero was out of character.

GB

Oh I wasn't talking about Avatar specifically. I was talking about the whole "Going Green" movement in general. I don't think UP had a "Going Green" message and from what I've heard of Avatar I think that they are, like others have said, like the Native Americans who ate meat but thanked the creature for giving up its life for them. I might not agree with that reasoning, but I think it's kind of them and don't condemn them at all for it. (Although they really should be giving thanks to God for giving them the fish, bear, deer, etc. but I'll leave that for the CRaP thread. )

Sorry for the confusion. Heh.

Yeah, I think Holmes boxing and Watson kicking in doors and such is Out of Character for them, but it still looks like a fun movie that I might like to see on a dull day.

P.S."Brooklyn!"

I saw Avatar in 3D yesterday and...I was really unimpressed. I walked out almost wanting to write Cameron a letter asking for my money back

This was my first 3D film and it turns out I don't like it. This film claims to be filmed in the same manner the human eye sees, but the separate layers of 3D were obvious and distracting. It reminds me of a pop up book, which I'm pretty sure isn't how we see. The CGI is definitely excellent, but I can't see 3D as anything more than a gimmick.
The plot I think everyone admits isn't great, but it was worse than I expected, and the acting was just cringe inducing sometimes.
The creature design also annoyed me, the 'horses' they ride are more or less horses that they made look weird and added an extra pair of legs to that do nothing at all, which made for a clunky, ridiculous looking run. I could swear I also heard the sound effect for a shod horse being used for these at one point, which makes no sense.

It went on for too long, I think if it had been shorter I wouldn't have been so annoyed at having to sit through so much of it.

Sherlock Holmes: Hm. As I really liked the "classic" Holmes character, I'm not sure I would appreciate the "new" one.
Haven't seen it though, so I don't know. Did anyone think Holmes had a bit of an ego problem? Because I read a few reviews which hinted at it.

The Blind Side: Wow. Excellent movie. On the spur of the moment, Dad brought most of our family to see it.
Negatives:
Started out a bit slow, but once I got pulled in and the story picked up a tad, I started to really enjoy it.
Language. On a scale of 1-10, it was rated a 4 for language--probably part of what gave it it's PG-13 rating. It was scattered here and there, which definitely didn't ruin it. (And I know not all Christians hold to certain standards, but--most of the time the people swearing were the Christians. Um--yeah. ) Just kind of--*shrug* Hm. Wish they had kept it a little cleaner. I don't know what John Lee Hancock has done, but one of my friends mentioned that they were surprised with how well he actually did portray the Christians.
Didn't really appreciate the fact that Sandra Bullock's character was the lead of the family. Just seemed a bit feminist. Her personality was funny, and could be used for good ways. But her husband in the movie seemed to be portrayed as kind of the follower, doing whatever she wanted all the time.

Positives:
Acting: Best acting for a "Christian" movie that I've probably seen yet. I really enjoyed SJ's character, along with, well, almost everyone else.
Cinematography: I don't remember being breathtaken by any of the shots--but I don't usually pay really, really close attention to that. I did notice that they really got close to some of the people's faces. Not necessarily bad, but sometimes it's just like, "Whoa! Back up a little, camera!" But yeah. I do remember some shots that I liked quite a bit.
Soundtrack: Ok, I'm really bad at the soundtrack part. I notice it if I pay close attention. But normally the soundtrack just fits right in, and I don't pay much attention.
Character development: I, for one, really got into the story. It's not like there was this huge plotline, huge goal, or big game that they had to win. It was just--a story. It flowed. It continued. And although it wasn't going by leaps and bounds, or wasn't soaring to some great height, I really enjoyed it. This was a movie that made me laugh and cry, though-I'm emotional. (I was surprised at my Mom, who doesn't cry much during movies I don't think. She was crying most of the way through this one)

So. Now that I'm almost through rambling...
I'd recommend it. And it's probably one of my favorite movies.

*I was surprised to find out later that Tim McGraw played Sean Sr.

I've read so many mixed reviews about poor Holmes. In my opinion, it was a great movie. RDJ did a fantastic job portraying Holmes. I'm used to the stiff-smart sleuth portrayal of Holmes with the pipe and the deerstalker cap, and bumbling old Watson tagging along behind. Jude Law definitely did not fit my image of Watson to begin with but I was surprised at how well I liked him in the end too.

I haven't read many of Doyle's stories (one or two short ones in high school) so I don't know the full extent of the characters but I cheated by reading wiki articles. Are those at all accurate? I've read or heard a lot of scoff because Holmes does martial arts or is involved in boxing, but apparently...the original Holmes was familiar with both? I guess what I'm wondering is: what deviation from the original stories is there that fans dislike? I can't seem to see much difference.

As for the "romance", I didn't really buy it either. Holmes never seemed very interested in reciprocating Irene's romantic feelings. It was more of a flirtation/admiration (or manipulation, on her part) situation than a romance.

I saw the movie Cranford a few weeks ago, & I loved it! I love Jane Austen stuff, & it was a lot like it but more funny stuff. It was an adorable movie...

I am most definitely not seeing Sherlock Holmes- I don't like complete change of characters like that. I hope to watch The Blind Side though, and also The Young Victoria.

This was my first 3D film and it turns out I don't like it. This film claims to be filmed in the same manner the human eye sees, but the separate layers of 3D were obvious and distracting. It reminds me of a pop up book, which I'm pretty sure isn't how we see. The CGI is definitely excellent, but I can't see 3D as anything more than a gimmick.

I couldn't agree more, Shantih! We saw A Christmas Carol in 3D and I really didn't care for it. As you say, the various "layers" were distracting and I basically just did my best to ignore them.

Plus I think 3D just induces filmmakers to include even MORE pointless action/chase scenes in their movies, just to take advantage of the technology... and at the expense of tight plotting and characterization. There was an incredibly long, pointless, boring chase scene in A Christmas Carol and the only explanation I can think of is that they put it in there for the 3D appeal

I'm not planning on seeing Sherlock Holmes either. Besides the utter travesty of calling that character Holmes, the previews looked a bit trashy. No thanks.