Three hours of 3D was pretty rough on my eyes, but I'm glad I went for it anyway. It doesn't do much for the live-action talky parts of the film, but the action bits are AMAZING, and the final battle (i.e., the last 45 minutes of the film) takes incredible advantage of the depth of field.

That said, I wish someone would come up with a way to do 3D that allows for some head movement. The way it works now, tilting your head to stretch your neck muscles puts the movie out of focus so you really have to spend the entire three hours looking straight ahead at the screen.

So, Sherlock Holmes.

Credits roll, I turn to The Boy.

Me: "Some gay porn? Less gay."
Him: "Okay, I'll give you this one."
Me: "They were an old married couple!"
Him: "What do you think the 'barter system' was for borrowing clothes?"

Sherlock Holmes was good fun! I agree with ita re: still thinky with the punchy. I liked that aspect. It was more Holmesy than I expected.

Have not seen Holmes, but informal reviews from various people seem to be "pretty good". It definitely is on my list. One negative remark just begs to be shared though:

I’m all for suspension of disbelief, but my disbelief was hanging on by its fingernails wondering what it would hit when it dropped.

"What do you think the 'barter system' was for borrowing clothes?"

Indeed . . .

And I liked Watson walking into their rooms at the end and just sighing in resignation instead of the reaction he could have had.

Just got back from Avatar. Did not like. I mean, the special effects were cool and the planet was pretty, but that was the extent of the good for me. Maybe it was the obvious plot (that was given away in a preview), maybe it was the Dancing with Wolves quality to it... dunno.

Miriam thought it would have been a much better movie if they had just ended it once the three people (Sully, Ripley, Other Guy) were in prison, where they'd be the rest of their lives, while the genocide continued....

She did admit that ending might be too dark for a Hollywood blockbuster.

Saw Sherlock Holmes this weekend. That was quite fun. Agree that the plot wasn't all that and in parts the dialogue was hard to understand, but I loved Holmes/Watson.

Also finally saw Inglourious Basterds. It was okay. I didn't love it or hate it. Certainly low man on the Tarantino totem pole though. I did love seeing Mélanie Laurent in such a big role. That girl is belle, belle, belle.

I got Vol. 1 & 2 of "Icons of Screwball Comedy" on DVD for Christmas and watched an awesome screwball I had never seen: If Only You Could Cook with Jean Arthur and Herbert Marshall. i don't know why this one isn't better known.

Just got back from seeing Sherlock Holmes. Speaking as someone who used to sit with the books open on my lap while watching the Grenada Television productions, I found it morbid and creepifying that the big bad looked like the lovechild of Jeremy Brett and the guy who played the Sentinal . I enjoyed the movie as a whole. Clearly this is a slightly different universe than Brett's Holmes. Just as clearly, this Holmes and Watson are only slightly less married than House and Wilson.

this Holmes and Watson are only slightly less married than House and Wilson.

True, true. The arguments over who owned the dog were good.

Someone on WX pointed me to the Ebert lukewarm review, saying she didn't understand part of it. I thought she meant the bit where Holmes trashed his rooms, which didn't stick with me.

No, she meant the gay bit. I'm not sure how that could get past anyone.

We had what seemed like interminable trailers. Looking positive: Inception and Iron Man 2. Looking missable: everything else. The Tina Fey/Steve Carrell date movie looked kinda funny, but not necessarily ninety minutes worth. The Michael Cera movie looked like torture. I'm not sure he'll ever do anything that appeals to me on first look at this rate. Two movies look like I'm supposed to go for them based on rep/genre--one about witches whose title escapes me, and Wolfman. Neither were very clear about what might happen in them, though.