Ditto on the 3-D bit. I feel I am too confined with those glasses on, plus, as has been said, it's an added gimmick, as well as costing more. A few shots were somewhat cool with that feature, but I really do prefer without.

But to my surprise and great pleasure, when I took my parents to see A Christmas Carol a couple of days ago, the ticket-seller said, with apologies "Sorry, ACC is not in 3-D anymore." Well, hurrah and woot! I enjoyed it that much more, plus saved a few dollars. Aside from taking a nap of sorts through that long, useless, and chase sequence (and a few less major scenes that could have easily been left out and not missed one iota), otherwise I reveled in the many direct quotes from Dickens' beloved tale and found the festive score and story moved me yet once again.

I will not be seeing Sherlock Holmes. It looks like his character is debased far too much from Conan Doyle's beloved detective, and the story, itself, too silly and action-oriented to do any justice to the original tales.

I still haven't seen Avatar in 3D. I'll probably do it this week.

Where The Wild Things Are. If you had trouble understanding who the beasts were and what they represent, my interpretation may help.

I think you all are being a bit judgemental on Sherlock Holmes. Its getting really good reviews, and lots of my friends and other people I know have said its really good.

I think they're being judgmental because they liked and prefer the actual Sherlock Holmes stories to the actionified version currently playing at the cinema.

Funnily enough, a lot of critics who normally give short shrift to these kinds of Superhero Style remakes of Traditional dramas, are giving this film fairly high marks. They do roll their literary eyes a bit at the "Actionifying" ( great word). But beyond that, they think the portrayals of Holmes and Watson are truer to the book versions than one might initially think.

So I am looking forward to getting my Comic Book Geek on, and my Literary Geek on simultaneously when I get a chance to see Sherlock Holmes . Seriously, no matter the trappings, it's Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr., and what many critics (the snooty "Art-film" ones ) seem to think is a smart script. So it can't be that bad.

GB

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.

That was my reaction too...those awful previews...but a friend whose literary tastes I respect very highly said she saw the movie and was pleasantly surprised, that the previews are misleading and the characters are actually closer to the book, rather than the stiff characters that BBC productions have popularized--that Holmes is actually eccentric and interesting and Watson is not block-headed and portly for once. I might see it if the time and cash come my way.^^

Indeed Kotwcs, nearly every literary film critic--who holds a candle for the original material--I've read, has made exactly the same point. Including my friend.

The Bumbling Watson is NOT canonical, nor is the version of Holmes as a Stiff Crusty Square ("eccentric" is a kind way of putting it ). My friend's main complaint was on philosophical grounds--that Holmes (despite his ability to Box and practice certain Martial Arts) was more the Man of Ideas and left most of the Man of Action stuff to Watson (except when it was absolutely necessary to defend himself).

Otherwise, in many respects, fans of Doyle seem to think that the portrayals of Holmes and Watson in this film are more True-to-the-Book than many other film versions. Which is why I'm itching to see this if I can afford to .

GB

I'm probably going with my brother to see Sherlock Holmes this afternoon, although I'm considering bailing on him and going to see The Princess and the Frog with my parents and sister instead. I was 100% set against seeing it, but two friends of mine who have read all of Conan Doyle's writings (I've only read A Study in Scarlet and some of the short stories ) saw it and really liked it—although they had a few objections, they seemed to think they were fairly minor. I'm going to try to take my snooty Art-House hat off for this one.

Of course, my brother also tried to goad me into seeing Avatar with him instead.

My brother: We could go see Avatar again. ("Again" for him, not for me.)
Me: I'm sorry, I watched the trailer for that again today, and it still looks silly to me.
My brother: The trailer's not in Real 3D!
Me: It doesn't matter.

My dad then joined in on the argument, and we both tried to convince him that Real 3D doesn't make the story or characters any better, but he's just hopeless and wouldn't be convinced.

I really want to see Sherlock Holmes. If I do end up seeing it, I'm going to voluntarily forget the books ever existed. Otherwise they'd probably have to carry me out raving on a stretcher.

I went to see Avatar with my dad and brother. It was in 3D, but it wasn't distracting or anything. Just an amazing, breathtaking movie with all sorts of things and ideas you've seen before but done in new (to me) ways. Only thing I didn't like:

Spoiler

(well, besides all the dying and the Home Tree being cut down and burned ) that one bad guy, the directer one, not the army one, didn't get enough of a comeuppance in my opinion. They should have marooned him in the jungle to fend for himself. That would serve him right.

That's funny Mar Girl. My friend and I said exactly the same thing after seeing Avatar .

GB

I've seen several movies over the past few weeks, the first one being The Princess and The Frog. It was so sweet! The beautiful animation, the huge musical numbers, the love story, it all brought me back to my childhood, when I would spend hours watching movies like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Little Mermaid. If there was one thing I didn't like, it was the voodoo, which made both me and my sister squirm. However, all in all I felt it the movie was very well done.

Another one I had the privelege of seeing was The Young Victoria. I thought it was remarkable. The historical details were accurate, the costumes were lavish, and the acting(especially by Emily Blunt as the title role) was spectacular. There were a few, um, uncomfortable scenes that probably earned the movie its PG rating. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, though, and actually, not knowing much about Victoria beforehand, got a good hostory lesson.

I also saw Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel. It was very cute, though it won't win any awards. It was a good way to spend an afternoon, and I would recommend it to families.

Perhaps the best movie I have seen in theaters lately is The Blind Side. I didn't expect it to be all that good, but I(and my family) were absolutely blown away! Sandra Bullock was fabulous, and her Golden Globe nom is well-earned. Over the course fo the movie, I laughed, cried, and goodness knows what else. Even my Mom said it was spectacular, and now she's telling everyone she knows to go and see it. There is a bad words, and some questionable scenes, but they are mostly incidental and not just in there to make it PG-13.

Also hoping to see Invictus soon...

I saw Avatar in 3D last night. I'm not convinced that 3D really adds much to the experience. There were several moments that took full advantage of the technology but most of the time it didn't do anything for me. I've got to say, for all the hype surrounding it, it was only quite good (and that's almost purely because of the impressive visuals). The imaginative fauna and flora were very cool (though I'm not sure why most animals needed an extra pair of limbs and the horse/zebra-like creatures didn't animate so well in a full gallop). The Na'vi were nicely animated and I enjoyed the ending battle and the strangeness of Pandora. The world was nicely realised. The story was beyond bland. It's not even that it has been done countless times, it's that no new perspective was brought to the story. The acting wasn't terrible but nor was it memorable. Sigoury Weaver didn't even make much of an impression. The music was decent at times but most of the time forgettable. Character development wasn't present, except for perhaps Jake and his Na'vi lover (she was probably the most interesting of the lot). I know people don't go to a James Cameron movie to expect quality dialogue and character depth BUT nor should we be happy with something so clichéd and for lack of a better word, 'soulless'.
I don't need great dialogue to enjoy a movie, I don't need great character development, nor much of a story to enjoy a movie but I need more than just pretty visuals. I'm giving Avatar a 7/10.

Saw Leap Year last night with my mom! I think we both liked it more then we'd expected. I wasn't too sure what I'd think of it since a lot of the reviews were saying it was pretty awful/even more cliche then usual/bad acting etc. Not at all...Amy Adams was absolutly charming, even as a high-strung career woman. The scenery shots of Ireland were fantastic and the whole movie just had this lovely feel. Of course it was all a cliche and you know how it's going to end, but I don't think you can watch a chick-flick (or practicly any movie) now and not. To me, if the characters are engaging enough then the fact that it's all been told before doesn't matter, and it definetly didn't matter here. It was also quite clean and to my surprise

...The Na'vi were nicely animated and I enjoyed the ending battle and the strangeness of Pandora. The world was nicely realised. The story was beyond bland...

That's nicely summarized. I saw Avatar again today, primarily to enjoy the Pandora and space visuals. The world, especially with all the bioluminesence at night, was very cool. Now if there were just some more character and plot development.

I heard that Alivin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakle was silly and poorly made. has anyone seen it that thinks otherwise?