Critical Film Condition

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

It’s funny how it happens, when alternativo directors like Guy Ritchie get their big-budget projects, they get tame all of a sudden. Not that it’s a bad thing. When I first heard Ritchie was doing Sherlock Holmes, I though to myself that doing Holmes in “Snatch” style was a bad, bad idea. And, to my surprise, Ritchie picked the right elements that made his crazy movies so much fun, left the sarcastic, over-the-top, multi-plotting craziness aside and picked the best elements of modern action movies, mixing them into an enjoyable mix of entertainment product that has his personal flair at the same time and, more importantly, is very faithful to the Conan Doyle stories.

First, the shenanigans. It is noticeable that Ritchie used his extra budget on some toys, most notably the frequent presence of high-speed shots are notable because, as is expected, they don’t look like Bekmambetov (“Wanted”) or Wachowsky (“The Matrix”) high-speed shots, but rather like Guy Ritchie shots. And the wow-factor is really present in all these shots, explosions, etc. because they have a really raw feeling to them. Ritchie proves in this movie that he is capable of handling said budgets without problems and knows how to make things look really cool with a heavy visual effects team under his command. We knew he had it in him to make smaller efforts look cool, but handling bigger budgets is a whole different ball-game.

But with Sherlock Holmes, the story is a factor that shouldn’t be put aside for action and martial-arts sequences, because, well, he’s Sherlock friggin’ Holmes. And as much as the people who were watching with me, who didn’t know as much about the character as I did (his vices, his characteristics and, more importantly, how Doyle solved the mysteries), they were enjoying themselves all the same. For me, though, this was a visualization of a non-existing Doyle novel that was fun simply because it added elements to the world of Sherlock Holmes without ever disrespecting it. The most important aspect, mainly because most stories were narrated by Watson, is that the screenwriters managed to give Watson a stronger personality, taken out of his input in the classic stories. Watson is reluctant to follow Holmes in his endeavors, wants to get married and be normal. They love and hate each other at the same time, and while the fact that Watson felt a lot like Murtaugh in the Lethal Weapon movies, I just happen to love the Murtaugh character so much that this didn’t bother me at all. Sherlock Holmes becomes, among other things, and mystery being the most relevant of them, a 19th century buddy-cop action-comedy with a despicable villain who was invented for the movie, but an ubervillain from the Doyle classics that promises to spice up the inevitable sequels.

In the end, “Sherlock Holmes” is a very enjoyable movie that is not unforgettable in any way, but delivers two hours of fun for those who read every single novel, or those who just hear the name Sherlock Holmes once or twice in their lives.

Popularity: 1%

Sue me, but even though I work with movies I don’t rush to the theater to see a Spike Jonze movie. It’s a question of taste, and his style is not compatible with what I love, which is a good thing, because I evaluate his films like movies, and not the work of a genius… Like some people.

With that said, “Where the Wild Things Are” is brilliant! Jonze was born to adapt Maurice Sendak’s book and his unique visual style is exactly what the story needed to transport the book’s feel to the audience. Although I liked “Being John Malkovic” and “Adaptation” I don’t like them as much as other people because I do like to have a little color and a little more movement in my movies. “Where the Wild Things Are” uses his washed out colors, patient story and character development as tools for the public to really feel Max’s anger, allowing for everybody to be transported to his world. Karen Orzolek’s score rounds it up with perfection for this feel-good trip, and listening to it even after the movie is over is just delightful.

And while the movie does justice to what I understand the novel to be about, its effect on me as an adult was what made me like it so much. The fact that it was marketed in greater part for adults to take their kids and not the other way around (also because the book was released in a time where most parents of today were children) made all the more sense when I felt transported into those angry moments in my childhood where I though my parents didn’t love me anymore because they had to be adults for a short while. What’s more, the fact that the Wild Things are parallels to Max’s personality or subconscious images of those close to him is astonishingly clear and fun to watch. Carol is really sweet and fun to hang out with, but his lack of responsibility is troublesome for the rest of his family, and in a sense this is what the story is all about… That plus the fact that he is voiced by Tony Soprano (James Gandolfini) only helps in achieving a feeling of mischief, charisma and compassion from what is my favorite character in the movie.

But like many movies of its kind, “Where the Wild Things Are” is much more about the feeling rather than the product in itself, and that is a little difficult to put into words. Among other good movies by Spike Jonze, this one stands out because it is so compatible with his vision that it becomes just an awesome joy to watch. It’s not overly long, it doesn’t have that many moments of brilliance, but it becomes one of the few examples of an experience where the whole is much better than its parts.

Popularity: 1%

I just LOVE watching movies that get bashed by critics and, as a shameful consequence, by audiences, for two reasons: the hype is low AND I hope to understand something nobody else didn’t. “All About Steve” isn’t one of those movies. It isn’t nearly as bad as the media made it out to be, but it isn’t much more than a Sunday afternoon slapstick romedy, but it never aims to be either.

Sandra Bullock is getting bashed for it, but this is just the result of the movie being released the same year as “The Blind Side”, which is supposed to be the best role of her career. Bradley Cooper wouldn’t have bothered about it either, but his recent run of good roles and the impending release of “The A-Team” and the huge success of “The Hangover” made him noticeable enough to be bashed by this as well… People take life way too seriously.

If the story were relevant, it would be about a girl (Bullock) stalking a news camera-man (Cooper) along the road and, well… Girl meets boy, boy doesn’t want girl, girl doesn’t quite get it because she’s a supersmart talking encyclopedia freak. It’s neat and sometimes even unexpected.

Supporting the cast is Thomas Haden Church, who seems to be having loads of fun, which brought me to thinking: it seems that everyone is having fun. Bullock looks incredibly stupid, as does Cooper, and I kept asking myself if both didn’t owe a studio-head a movie in their contracts, and that might still be the case… But nonetheless, I always got the feeling that it was a relaxed shoot where everyone was just going nuts with their characters, and this may be the reason that I didn’t end up hating “All About Steve”… It was just fun for everybody.

Popularity: 1%