AVATAR vs. SHERLOCK HOLMES – Is it elementary my dear Watson?
There’s only so many days I can use the snow as my excuse for not seeing Avatar, and I know I need to get my ass in gear soon before the advent of the New Year will make any kind of review obsolete. That’s if it isn’t already too late.
If nothing else, my Top Ten List of 2009 will be redundant without a mention of such a widely acclaimed movie with a $300 million budget from James Cameron, right?
I should see it for that reason alone, even if “the must see” factor couldn’t persuade me to hand over my hard-earned money for another Harry Potter borefest, this year’s Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich spectacles and the ludcricous looking Twilight: New Moon.
Realisation smacked me harder than that iron that hit Marv in Home Alone (odd reference I know, but I’ve been in a Christmas movie marathon mood this week) yesterday and I think I should probably share this with you guys.
During a festive, slightly merry conversation with one of my closest friends, who by the way is dying to see the movie, the truth behind my Avatar avoidence became clear. When he mentioned his surprise that the biggest film buff he knows, the guy who is usually so enthusastic about seeing just about anything, is not at all interested (at worst) or (at best), has HUGE trepidiations about seeing such a well received blockbuster, my only answer I could muster was that I was afraid of the movie.
It’s true readers, and it’s probably been evident in every write-up of Avatar that I’ve put together this year. I am terrified of seeing Avatar.
[youtube cRdxXPV9GNQ]
Truth is, I’m not particularly one who gets excited about alien movies and there has to be a big humane entry point for me to dig any fantasy/sci-fi spectacle. Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, or Ellen Ripley in Alien – even though the latter is more of a horror movie in actuality. The alien inconsequential, and ALMOST, a MacGuffin – if you really think about it.
I honestly think that I’m terrified of Avatar, really. I’m terrified that after 90 minutes, I will become rigor mortis. I will want to leave the theatre out of shear boredom. It’s stupid I know, and I will probably geek out as soon as I lay my opens upon it, but even with the kind of reviews I was previously convinced would make me see it, I can’t pull myself round to make the trip. I worry too about the deeper complications about not liking Avatar.
Will it mean I’m not down with where the future of film is heading? Will it mean I’m a cultural non-entity and out of touch? Am I just not cool if I don’t like it and irrelevant, untrustworthy and binnable as a film critic? These deeper underlying questions keep me awake at night.
I think I can forsee what’s going to happen tonight when I brave it out to the cinema. I get out of my car. I walk to the box office booth where the spotty, tired looking clerk gives me a vague look of recognition. I will see the black board behind him with bright, white letters.
AVATAR (161 minutes)
SHERLOCK HOLMES (128 minutes)
“Two tickets for the Sherlock Holmes movie please”. It will happen, no matter how much I try and convince myself to see Avatar. Am I a failure?
And do I not learn from my own mistakes? Jeez. I really don’t know what to do.
Here’s what the critics are saying for Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, out today…
A.O. Scott of the New York Times…
Of course intelligence has never ranked high among either Mr. Ritchie’s interests or his attributes as a filmmaker. His primary desire, most successfully realized early in his directing career, in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch,” has always been to be cool: to make cool movies about cool guys with cool stuff. Yes, “Sherlock Holmes” is kind of cool. But that’s not really a compliment.
The visual style — a smoky, greasy, steam-punk rendering of Victorian London, full of soot and guts and bad teeth and period clothes — shows some undeniable flair. And so do the kinetic chases and scrapes that lead us through the city, as Holmes and his pal Watson (Jude Law) scramble to unravel a conspiracy so diabolical that it fails to be interesting. Best of all is the banter between Mr. Downey and Mr. Law, who is looser and more mischievous than he’s allowed himself to be in quite some time. The mustache suits him.
The new, modernized Holmes/Watson relationship is brought up in just about every review of the picture and it’s become a fascinating talking point.
Empire’s William Thomas calls it a Butch/Sundance dynamic, Kenneth Turan in The L.A. Times calls them “The Odd Couple”;
As opposed to the bumbler of previous film versions, Watson’s been made into a handsome man of action, but he’s also been placed in a relationship with Holmes that feels too much like “The Odd Couple.” With their connection damaged by Watson’s decision to move out and get married, the two men bicker almost ceaselessly over who left the stove on and who should be wearing what.
AICN’s Capone calls Sherlock Holmes…
SHERLOCK HOLMES is Guy Ritchie’s superhero movie, with Holmes (Robert Downey Jr. absolutely devours Arthur Conan Doyle’s creation) as a version of Batman that uses his brains as his primary weapon (followed closely with some fairly formidable fists). It also seems to help that both Holmes and Batman are mentally unstable creatures. And not that the plot of the film isn’t impressive on a mass-destruction scope, but it’s almost secondary compared to watching Holmes and his heterosexual life partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law, in what might be his best work to date) outfit and outfight their enemies and those who appear to be friends but are actually just more enemies. I also love how the plot fully embraces the time period and place. The idea of a device that can wirelessly trigger a bomb nearly confounds our heroes. The final battle takes place on an in-progress bridge construction of a structure that usually acts as nothing but background in other London-set films.
Roger Ebert and Todd McCarthy both liked it the less they related to it as a Sherlock Holmes picture but Drew McWeeney, who should know having played Moriarty for 12 years over at AICN, said it was more familiar to the pulp action roots of Holmes than you might immediately realise.
Michael Phillips, calls it a “drag” to see Holmes Watson turn “into a couple of garden-variety thugs”. His is the biggest pan of the movie online closely followed by Kirk Honeycutt at The Hollywood Reporter.
44 Comments
What makes you untrustworthy, irrelevant, and binnable is a film critic is the fact that you’ve put off seeing one of the biggest films of the year for 2 weeks now and this is the best excuse you can come up with. And that’s not even taking into account all the juvenile premature conclusions you often jump to with nothing but a trailer or teaser poster to base your assumptions on.
Sherlock lame will be your typical redundant over laden CG action movie. Oh and with a modern sensibility. That will totally take you out of the era it’s supposed to be taking place in.
Good Lord, Matt! You asked so I’m telling you. You won’t be bored 90 minutes into Avatar and you’re being ridiculous. Go now, see it on the biggest 3D screen you can find, then come right back here and tell me you’ve done it. Sheesh!
I love your excuse. You should indulge it for all it is worth.
The only reason I hope you give in and go is so you can confirm your initial intuition and nail this sucker to the wall.
You will be bored. Fear it. Smell it. Be it.
If you need a ‘humane’ entry point, then Netyiri is your girl. she’s the best thing in it.
Yes the film is a simplistic mash-up of Cameron’s filmography and, typically for him, an abridged theatrical edit of a longer, superior film. But I was captivated from start to finish, and can’t wait to see it again – and I haven’t felt that way at the cinema in YEARS.
Hey Matt, I haven’t seen Avatar yet either and i dont think i’m gonna bother, dont really fancy anothe film about Sherlock fucking Holmes either! infact come to that Ridley Scott can stick his new Robin Hood film up his arse when it come out as well!..oh dear, i’m full of Christmas cheer!
I agree with Francis.
How can you call yourself a film critic and not even bother to see the most anticipated film of the year.
You’re an IDIOT! And your excuses are lame!
So predictable.
Speaking for myself only, not for Matt: This film deserves to be shot down by people who have not seen it. It’s practically a moral necessity to trash it without seeing it. That’s what Cameron deserves in this case.
Don’t any of you hate being “set up” for the kill? With Avatar, the fix is in: peaceful tribe somehow possessing certain tech vs evil imperialist capitalist genocidal Americans. Execute formulaic plot. Cue the eye candy. Usher in the cross-race love story. Good guys win. Home run.
Disgusting.
John Donohue
If fans rejected every “predictable” movie where the “good guys win,” movies would become predictable, only backwards! They would only make movies where the good guys lose, and that would also be predictable, only also depressing!!
As it is, in some movies, the good guys lose, but they win a lot too–my point though, is that if not for the movies where the good guys win, the ones where the good guys lose would be the predictable ones! Those movies NEED movies like Avatar to reinforce the stereotype that movies have happy endings in order to set up audiences for the twist–namely, that the good guys lose.
Anyways, if predictability in movies is “disgusting”, you must be “disgusted” by every single kate hudson romantic comedy… would you tell her that her movies are “disgusting” to her face? Probably not–people are generally more civil when they can see the person they are attacking–which is a central theme of Avatar. I am guessing that if you were having lunch with Kate Hudson, you would be very polite and maybe even say that you enjoy her romantic comedies, despite the fact that they are often quite predictable. You should consider this before you post a very extreme anti-avatar opinion on the basis of a formulaic plot and a predictable happy ending.
You didn’t understand my point. The “Predictable” statement referred to the above post(s) excoriating Matt or anyone for criticising a film without seeing it. I am in support of trashing Avatar without going to see it. I speak only for myself, not Matt.
You also did not understand my other point. I am already prejudiced against every film where the fix is in against American capitalism. Do I see the faults of our current system? You bet. However, when the heavy hand of the Progressives basically bludgeons the viewer with its propaganda to the tune of 1/2 Billion Dollars, I say it is disgusting.
So, the good guys always winning/losing is not my complaint of predictablity; it’s ‘the peaceful tribe with powerbooks’ as good guys I am ranting about.
you are right I misunderstood a bit. That makes more sense.
Personally, political propaganda or stuff being too liberal doesn’t generally distract me from enjoying other aspects of the movie. But I can understand how that would bug people who have stronger feelings about it…
It is a shrink you need to see not a movie, dud.
are you referring to John Donohue or to Ben?
If you’re referring to me, you are right, I’m totally loco!
or were you referring to the blog author??
hey ben i would not mind if “blank” was telling me to see a shrink!
BTW re-reading, i was somewhat unclear so the confusion is in my camp.
Anyway….normally liberal prop. etc I can look past. For instance, that film “The American President.” I just think Cameron is too far on the nose and presuming we all share his viewpoint somewhat too smugly.
Again, John Donahue, if you haven’t seen it, you have no right to trash it, regardless of how convinced you are that it’s message will bug you. It just can’t be done.
Yes I do have a right to trash it without seeing it. This is a free country with free speech.
I used to sit thru hideous films just so I could state that “I saw them” in order justify arguing about them. To wit: “The Passion of the Christ”, “Little Children”, “The Departed” etc.
I won’t inflict things like that on myself anymore.
Fair enough, don’t see films that don’t interest you. You just can’t argue about them, it doesn’t work that way. Unless of course you want to look like an ignorant fucktard, in which case, congratulations.
I don’t see why excluding this particular viewpoint is so critical–a diversity of views makes it more interesting and u don’t even need to see a film to have an opinion of how the film is presented in the media, ads, interviews, etc. I feel that u can validly critique donohugh by saying the movie is different than his perception, but saying he has no right to speak is an odd and ineffective tactic.
Your fears would be well founded. I just saw it tonight.
The visuals ARE stunning and worth seeing but you’re not missing anything for walking out after 90 minutes. This film without a well known director and his use of cutting edge technology wouldn’t even make a blip on the charts regardless of budget.
If you’re not going JUST to see it in 3D, wait for it on cable.
“but saying he has no right to speak is an odd and ineffective tactic.”
I’m saying that he has no right to argue the merits of a film that he has not seen. Sure, criticise the presentation in the media all you want, but if you haven’t seen the finished product, your opinion ultimately has a very flimsy foundation.
The real culprit here is Matt, who thinks he’s a film critic yet clings onto these petty prejudices. A legitimate critic will watch anything and everything, and can formulate valid arguments as to the pros and cons of any work, regardless how banal the work is or may appear. Donohue just sounds like an uneducated douchebag.
Matt IS going to see it, he is just snowed in right now (see the first line of his blog).
The funny thing about arguing against his opinion for lack of foundation is that he isn’t saying anything inaccurate. The movie does indeed have liberal undertones. They may not be exactly as Donohugh feared they would be back when he hadn’t seen the movie, but we haven’t even engaged in that argument because we’ve been so hung up on the “he hasnt seen it-so shut up” issue.
It seems silly to set “you need to see it” as the minimum and ONLY foundation for having an opinion. Someone with a major in physical science who saw the movie on a whim and knows nothing else about it, in your opinion, would have a superior foundation than a person with a masters in philosophy, politics and economics and have read every press release pertaining to avatar and watched all the scenes released on the internet.
I feel we should be less concerned with arguing against the foundations of the points and concerns people are voicing and instead engage with the points themselves. For instance, is the film too liberal? Will Matt like it when he sees it? and those sorts of questions
P.S. also, i looked at the matt review to see what was making francis so angry, and he wasn’t voicing “juvenile premature conclusions” as francis called them, he was voicing his concerns.
I feel it is deeply unfair to label Matt’s post as “conclusions”–you are setting him up to look dumb, and prejudiced. He is merely voicing his trepidations–his worries. People don’t “jump” to worries, they just worry!
We shouldn’t call him clinging to prejudices when he hasn’t said he’s not going to see it, he just hasn’t had a good chance yet.
PPS I have been so hung up with the whole foundations issue and the politics issue, I haven’t even had a chance to give my opinion of avatar!!!
I have seen a bunch of James Cameron movies, and I am noticing a pattern. If Michael Bay is the “Family Guy” of action films, James Cameron is the “South Park”–What I mean is, rather than having tons of explosions loosely tied together with Bernie Mac and scenes of bizarre humor (like Family Guy has funny tangents all over the place that aren’t really tied in any way to the story), James Cameron takes care to tell stories and to tie everything deliberately into his context.
That having been said, Cameron never seems afraid to be silly, out-there, sappy, etc. The huge backlash of parodies and mockery in the years following Titanic seem earned, in large part, by the unabashed silliness of the love story. But if you can get past all the parodies, the Jack/Rose love story is adequately absorbing and entertaining and, as I was saying, it ties the history of titanic into the human element of the tragedy.
Similarly, in the case of Avatar, we have an often silly fantasy plot with something to say about politics and environmentalism, and any of those messages, when dissected, can be argued, on both sides, till the cows come home—So, to me, bashing James Cameron’s take on environmentalism or politics seems a bit unimportant, because tons of people have arguable opinions. The boldest statement of Avatar is that James Cameron can take all these silly Pocahontas cliches and craft a movie that is clearly technically brilliant and action packed and, at the same time, every technical innovation or action scene is used directly in service of his silly, occasionally funny part. (In case you don’t know what i found funny about the movie, MINOR SPOILER AHEAD–i like how the navi bring up death so casually, such as “my father is talking about whether or not to kill you” or “you will know which dinosaur chooses you because it will try to kill you” etc. END OF SPOILERS
Long rambling story short, I feel that I am willing to look past and my entertainment is not hampered by silly sci-fi stories that cameron makes up and by his dubious and arguable political and environmental messages because I am such a fan of the way he takes his silly stories, be them fantasies or sappy love stories or both, and commits to them and weaves everything that happens in the movie into elevating that silly story into the realm of the epic.
Speaking of silly stories, has anyone seen terminator 2? Talk about silly stories, how many different times can we retell a story about killer robots sent…FROM THE FUTURE???? still, that movie turned out pretty well, or so lots of people say.
“Someone with a major in physical science who saw the movie on a whim and knows nothing else about it, in your opinion, would have a superior foundation than a person with a masters in philosophy, politics and economics and have read every press release pertaining to avatar and watched all the scenes released on the internet.”
In arguing the quality of the movie, yes! In being entitled to formulate a legitimate opinion of the final product, yes. Sure, Donahue and Matt aren’t too far off the mark with their assumptions of the films politics. But they haven’t seen it, so their opinions are void. Sure, you can be worried that an overly hyped film will let you down (although if your ‘fears’ are actually putting you off seeing the film, you certainly need to man the fuck up), but my point is that as a film critic, Matt is just wasting everyone’s time writing inane articles about these fears, when he could instead just watch the fucking film and write something noteworthy about it. And again, if I and my friends managed to brave the UK snow and see the film already, I see no reason why Matt shouldn’t. Except for the fact that he’s a hack and is destroying the credibility of what was once a charming, engaging, and earnest website.
My opinion is not void. I am making statements based on: 1) interviews with Cameron; synopsis of plot; 15-minute HBO ‘about’ special; spoiler reviews.
I don’t care about the effects. I care about the theme and plot. All of the above resources are saying the same thing, especially James Cameron. I can smell a Progressive Politically Correct setup. That does not get my $15.00 and hours.
Just for the record, I will not be replying to the foul-mouthed person all riled up here.
Ben, you brushed up against one element that might make me attend. The love story. I am long on record in support of the love story in Titanic as the element that built word of mouth and return viewing. That damn Cameron has his finger on the interplay of hearts at risk, somehow. I excused the anti-industrial tone of Titanic — he got a pass from me. I simply feel he dialed the Pocahontas syndrome WAY up for Avatar, so I am saying ‘no thanks.’
http://jrdonohue.com/commentary/titanic.html
Just a movie, sir. And if you don’t like it, you don’t like it.
Life goes on.
Indeed! people take this shit far too serious, you dudes need to chillaxe.
That’s like formulating an in-depth opinion of a photograph or a painting without ever laying eyes on it, based simply on second hand accounts of the colours used. It’s like actively and vehemently detesting another human being without actually meeting them in person. It doesn’t and cannot fly.
You can hear all you want about a film and decide it’s just not for you, but at the end of the day film is visual storytelling. Regardless of theme or plot, a story well told is a story well told. It’s not something you can understand through second hand sources, you just have to watch it yourself.
Francis….
“The real culprit here is Matt, who thinks he’s a film critic yet clings onto these petty prejudices. A legitimate critic will watch anything and everything”
I will watch anything and everything that is put in front of me. It would have been different if I was living in London, I would have seen the movie by now as per our press pass from a week before it’s theatrical release worldwide.
It’s just different when you have to pay to see something. Then I gotta go by if I want to see something badly enough that I wanna pay money to see it and with Avatar I’m not so sure.
an opinion regarding a movie’s premise won’t really be void for lack of foundation for not having seen the movie unless it can be shown that his understanding of the premise is in some way flawed.
Ben…You can only understand a movie’s premise to a limited extent without having seen how it is executed.
Matt…I understand that, and I would probably be slightly sympathetic if it was a lesser film, or something massively obscure. But for someone running a film site to avoid one of the year’s most expensive, technologically advanced, well reviewed, hyped, tent-pole pictures is just pathetic, snow or no snow. You have a duty to yourself, your website, and to your readers to actually make the effort.
I kind of agree with Francis in that your readers probably expect it. And in a case like Avatar, that is being called “game changing” (which is debatable)it’d be nice to see it, if not for yourself for the readers who like to search the web for many opinions on Avatar.
I understand your ‘fears’ Matt, but it is far more interesting to read an actual piece about Avatar.
Just to see Neytiri is worth the ticket. Stop being cheap MATT!!! I bet you are still a virgin since you don’t even want to spend money to take a chick out.
You’re a film critic. If you don’t see this film. I will fucking kill you. You barely deserve to live right now.
Hilarioius. Rollin are you screen testing for one of the parts in the next episode, one of the tough guy killers for the AmericanWhiteCaptailistOpressors?
Personally, I’d like to be a tree in the sequall
Nice spelling Donohue. Go back to school.
I don’t feel it’s fair to imply people have inadequate schooling just cuz they haven’t spell-checked. It is yet a further distraction from the substance of the debate–it’s fallacious to infer that one’s arguments are in any way flawed because their spelling is inferior.
Thatz right.
I went to progresive hole language scholls like lefties like Camereon favors and was taught to guess at spelling and itdid not have anytyhing to do with my opinions and if anyone said it did they were fashicsts.
All kidding aside that was the worst edited post I have ever written in my life. My apologies to this forum.
You, my friend are an idiot. AVATAR is the most absoloutely amazing film ever made.
AVATAR is one of the amazing LOOKING films of all time but given it’s lifted its whole plot from DANCES WITH WOLVES via POCAHONTAS it cannot be taken seriously as a proper film. The plot’s full of more holes than a sieve and it’s far, far too long!
As a big James Cameron fan I was very disappointed with it.
Hi guys,I am from Bulgaria so I don’t speak english very good.
Look guys i have seen both movies Sherlock Holmes and Avatar and i can honestly say that Sherlock Holmes is better.Avatar is all made by computer,i mean comeone this is not a movie this is…i don’t know some kind of scam,it’s lame.Plus Sherlock Holmes is for grownups,little children won’t understand the logic in this movie,but Avatar,now that children understand,that’s why Avatar is more famous,but really guys think for a second and you will understand why Sherlock Holmes is the movie of the year.