Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
film review: Sherlock Holmes
So I went to see Sherlock in theatres, and I came into the theatre with many preconceptions and ideas. Those preconceived notions were in addition to the fact that I'd been fighting a nasty common cold for a few days previous. After leaving the theatre I found that I couldn't wholly hate nor love the film. In my eyes the film achieved neither status, and I will explain to some degree why.I may as well start with why I disliked the film:
However my opinion of R.D.Jr. does pertain to his appropriateness for the role. Firstly, and in the most shallow vein, he is not English. Secondly, his fame overshadows the brilliance of the character himself and I feel as if people will be saying something like "Robert Downey Junior was such a bad ass Sherlock Holmes, he's a LEGENDARY actor because of it," as they exit the theatre. (On the topic of ego and merit: I have not seen Iron Man but, in my snobbery, I can assume that his acting in that film is by no means comparable to his role as Sherlock.)
Secondly I don't remember as much violence reading the stories and I don't like how the excess in fight scenes were injected to make the film a "blockbuster." (Also I do not appreciate the propensity to label a film a "blockbuster" before it has even been released!)
On the good side of the things the visuals and aesthetic of the film were very well done. They stayed within being historically accurate in terms of how London looked, and how Londoners looked and dressed. Aside from looking beautifully dark and gloomy.
The plot line was well done and just as well done was the focus on Sherlock cleverness and genial nature. (Ignoring that fact that he is being played by the arrogant R.D.Jr.) I could have done with more disguises from him though.
So to sum up: Robert Downey Jr was a horrible choice for the roll and should have been replaced by an English actor who would probably have been just as if not more sexy; the film looks damn good and the plot is highly clever.
I don't think Sherlock Holmes should be a character for the blockbuster genre. He is meant to be a character who is stealthy and somewhat of a recluse, one who doesn't always want to be centre of attention. I always found him to be the antithesis to all those characters of the Victorian era who with their dramatic lives demanded mass attention and fame, but Sherlock is not one of those.... the Holmes of this film was.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
frightened and fearful for the future of (mainstream) film
So in recent weeks the trend towards 3D movie viewing experiences has slowly been gaining ground. Like fifty years earlier, 3D is becoming a marketing ploy, it's effectiveness this time around has yet to be decided (apart from the millions of tickets sold for Avatar). It is admittedly exciting that film is taking this step (and applying these new technologies) but at the same time there are equally as many drawbacks. Film seems to becoming more spectacle, and less art. [Art being defined as not only something that possesses beauty but that also inspires a great amount of thought and consideration, etc etc etc.]ERRRMMM Tin Tin in 3D???... dear lord...
Apart from 3D film there is the increasing popularity of films based on novels, musicals, pieces of art (basically anything that has already been created and appreciated as skillful and beautiful art). The downside of this is that it can often reveal a certain amount of laziness or lack of creativity by producers and writers. It seems that the success of a novel is assumed to equate to the success of its film counterpart. Sure there are still a great deal of films that are essentially started "from scratch," but I've noticed more and more that films have some other non-filmic work that they are based on.
I feel that relying on a previously created, and adulated, work not only shows a lack of inventiveness (for most cases, but not all) but also shows the decline in appreciation for these great novels and plays themselves. Literature holds so many unique qualities that film cannot replicate, no matter how advanced film "technology" becomes. There are parts and aspects of a written novel that are eternal (as least as long as printed novels remain somewhat popular, and the abominable Kindle stays in the periphery of the world of literature and non-fiction) and the bounds of the imagination far surpass the bounds of film.
Adaptations can be done extremely well (Watchmen (controversially), A Single Man, etc.) and I do acknowledge that there have been great films made from great novels. The film version's success is also largely dictated by the audiences appreciation (such as the LOTR trilogy). Sadly, film (mainstream) is as much a money gaining venture as anything else in this capitalist world.
This trend may be due to the increased boredom of the audience as they have become more and more used to and easily recognize the tropes used in film since the 1940s and earlier. This, however, should push film executives to hire writers with a little more a spark and a quirkiness in their style. Taking risks is important (i.e. not risks within the cartoon world, i.e. Toy Story to UP). The studios still seem to have a fair amount of money (though I know the amount of people heading out to theatres is declining rapidly) to be able to take these risks.
From what I've heard and seen Avatar is visually stunning and highly involving (thanks to the glasses) but its plot is eerily similar to Pocahontas. Film does not and will not evolve if plot becomes glued to usual structures and tropes. Of course the movie is visually stunning but, believe it or not, people do go to the movies for intriguing plot twists and shockers, more than they do to see something pretty.
My closing point is that film is an extremely important cultural medium, but it is one that should mainly exist independently of the worlds of literature and theatre. Of course these three all fall under the umbrella of "the arts," but we certainly do not want them to become each other (slapdash novels based on films, horrible theatre adaptations of films, etc) unless it is a smooth transition that does not eliminate important aspects that audiences might end up complaining about later on.
Of course all of this cultural "intermarriage" could just be the natural progression and growth of film, literature, theatre, television, etc. If this is the case, then this argument is essentially unimportant and useless, but you can't say I didn't try!
(I am also indirectly stating the desire for independent film to gain ground, and I am highly confident that it will.)
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
the deepest depths of human desperation
I have nothing against the world of cosplay (sp?) and anime conventions, but boy do they attract bizarre people...
Monday, January 4, 2010
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
forget backstabbing...
Man walks into diner with 5-inch knife in his chest, calls for ambulance, then orders coffee
A 52-year-old man complained only about the cold weather before walking into a diner with a five-inch knife sticking out of his chest. The unnamed man called a Warren 911 operator on Sunday night to ask that an ambulance be sent to Bray's, an eatery in neighboring Hazel Park. He said he had been stabbed during a robbery attempt half a mile away, then walked to the restaurant and called 911 from a pay phone.On a recording of the call, the man gives a vague description of his attacker before saying, "I'm gonna sit down at Bray's 'cause they got a chair and it's cold out here."
Restaurant employee George Mirdita told The Detroit News the man calmly ordered coffee.
Police said Tuesday that the man is recovering.
(Source)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)









