I just got back from Holmes. I had a lot of fun and really enjoyed it. I'm not super picky about movies but it was very enjoyable. I liked the Holmes/Watson relationship. As ita said, Holmes was clearly crazy about Watson. What I couldn't get over was how much it reminded me of House/Wilson. I mean, I know House is based on Holmes, but House never really pinged me as Holmes. But this Holmes really made me think of House.

Hubby wondered why they didn't do the cocaine. Considering there was a disclaimer in the credits how nothing in the movie was to the profit of the tobacco industry, I don't think they could get away with cocaine in a PG-13 movie.

Also back from Sherlock Holmes (my mom had to see it), but thought it was soulless. Not *terrible*, just nothing particularly good there for me.

Saw "Up In the Air". Thought it very funny, very sharp. Wittily observed. The dialog avoided being wittier than what the characters would actually say, but within that limit was often witty as well. This is not a soft-edge feel good comedy. But a very very good dark come. Minor quibbles: there is one sub-plot twist you will see coming very early in the film (but plenty of surprises that are not signaled). I highly recommend it.

Holmes also comes from a time when drug use was unregulated by law, but the film skates around his interest in mind-altering substances. "It's hard to do that kind of thing and get a PG rating," Ritchie laughs. "I think it would be hard to sell a hero who injects cocaine. But the whole idea with Holmes is that he's game to try anything in order to deduce what he needs to deduce. We've tried to capture the spirit of that."

[link]

In The Sign of the Four Holmes was described as a terrific boxer who could have gone pro. So the thought of a punchy + thinky Holmes doesn't bother me. I'll be seeing the movie sometime tomorrow, and I'm really looking forward to it.

Not that anyone's officially come out and said it, but I think the real reason behind the cocaine-free Holmes is that RDJ is a much better actor when he's not high.

My main issue with the movie was that there was really no mystery for Holmes to solve - he (and the audience) pretty much works everything out that he needs to in the first ten minutes and the rest of the film is one long chase scene.

I found Up In The Air ultimately disappointing because Vera Farmiga's character is set up early on as a perfect counterpart to Clooney, but the fact that she GOES TO THE FUCKING WEDDING WITH HIM means that she's actually either incredibly stupid or deliberately being cruel. I don't have a problem with her hiding her real life from him - I *do* have a problem with taking a perfectly good strong female character and turning her into (depending on your reading) either a moron or a bitch just so that your male lead can learn something about himself. FEH.

I still liked Up In The Air despite Jessica's complaint, even though I was thinking the same thing.

there was really no mystery for Holmes to solve

I don't know, I didn't work out how the bad guy was seeming to work his mojo - I thought using that as the mystery was akin to the Hound of the Baskervilles. Been a while since I read that, though

I watched There Will Be Blood the other night. I'm really confused as to why this movie is on the best of the decade lists. It just seemed really long, slow and there didn't seem to be much character development at all.

At the end of the 2 hours and 40 minutes, I just felt like I'd wasted 2 hours and 40 minutes.