I had been intending to do a recap of the things that I’d done in 2009 including all the bits I never got round to blogging about, but unsurprisingly I was too busy playing games to do it and now, heading into the fourth week of 2010 it seems a little late to drag up the old stuff when there’s so much new coming along.
Between the snow falling at Christmas and the recent horrendous weather that has left me feeling depressed and hibernatory, Mrs H3 and I went to see Sherlock Holmes starring Robert Downey Jr. Now I’ve never really enjoyed a Guy Ritchie film before, in fact I’m not entirely sure that I’ve ever seen one as they’re really not my cup of tea, but the combination of classic detective and sexy actor had me intrigued enough to go. And I loved it. I can honestly say that it’s one of the few films that I’ve seen in the last year that I would happily return to the cinema to watch again and again. Robert Downey Jr is excellent as a grimy sort of Holmes, who might not be awfully canon, but sure makes for good entertainment and because of the subject matter Ritchie wasn’t able to put too much of his gangster stuff into it, but did still bring the fights and explosions. A visual feast (and not just RDJ), exciting and with a half decent story too. I’d definitely recommend it.
On the other hand I’m still not feeling the love for Avatar. I don’t know why, because in every way it should be my perfect film. Sci-fi/fantasy, with beautiful animation (even though it has a dodgy storyline) and the critics and just about everyone I know who has seen it, have universally enjoyed it. But for some reason it still doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest except as a vague feeling that if I don’t see it at the cinema I’ll have missed out on something. However, this feeling isn’t strong enough to actually get me to the cinema.
There are plenty of films coming along that I do want to see in 2010. Of course there’s the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (expect a countdown ticker to appear as soon as the Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet produce one), although that of course isn’t until November. Before then the big release is Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland in March, starring the usual Burton crew and also an adaptation of The Lovely Bones, which I think is out shortly, based on a book I very much enjoyed reading. There seem to be plenty of remakes in the works like Clash of the Titans, which I’m sure will be visually stunning given the abilities of CGI these days, but I suspect that they will lack something in the storytelling as so many of those films do.
Also released shortly is a Hollywood version of Edge of Darkness, which older people may remember as a brilliant UK television series from the 1980s. Sadly this new version stars Mel Gibson, an actor in whom I have lost a lot of faith over the years and early reports don’t sound promising as for starters the ending has been changed. There is still a temptation to see the film, although I think buying the box set of the original series and re-watching that is probably the better bet.
Anyway, this week I’ve seen two films on television, both of which I’m sure were feted by the critics. One of these was a completely brilliant and surprisingly delightful gem of a film, the other was depressing, violent and relentlessly downbeat apart from the contrived ‘happy’ ending. It has left me wondering what it is that makes film critics label a film as ‘feelgood’. I am of course referring to the film which has been dubbed ‘the feelgood film of the decade’, Slumdog Millionaire. As I’m sure everyone knows by now, this happy little tale actually has more in the way of violence and torture than happiness – so how can it be ‘feelgood’? The film left me thoroughly depressed and wishing that I hadn’t wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life on it.
However, the film that I think should take Slumdog’s title is Akeelah and the Bee. I originally watched it purely because there was nothing else on the television at the time and I couldn’t be bothered to dig out a DVD and because it seemed vaguely interesting. This is a gem of a film and I was surprised at how involved I became with the characters and the story and whilst the ending is somewhat bland and obvious (much like Slumdog Millionaire) it left me with a happy little glow that lasted for the rest of the day – and in my life that’s a great thing.
On the other hand I’m still not feeling the love for Avatar. I don’t know why, because in every way it should be my perfect film. Sci-fi/fantasy, with beautiful animation (even though it has a dodgy storyline) and the critics and just about everyone I know who has seen it, have universally enjoyed it. But for some reason it still doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest except as a vague feeling that if I don’t see it at the cinema I’ll have missed out on something. However, this feeling isn’t strong enough to actually get me to the cinema.
There are plenty of films coming along that I do want to see in 2010. Of course there’s the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (expect a countdown ticker to appear as soon as the Leaky Cauldron or Mugglenet produce one), although that of course isn’t until November. Before then the big release is Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland in March, starring the usual Burton crew and also an adaptation of The Lovely Bones, which I think is out shortly, based on a book I very much enjoyed reading. There seem to be plenty of remakes in the works like Clash of the Titans, which I’m sure will be visually stunning given the abilities of CGI these days, but I suspect that they will lack something in the storytelling as so many of those films do.
Also released shortly is a Hollywood version of Edge of Darkness, which older people may remember as a brilliant UK television series from the 1980s. Sadly this new version stars Mel Gibson, an actor in whom I have lost a lot of faith over the years and early reports don’t sound promising as for starters the ending has been changed. There is still a temptation to see the film, although I think buying the box set of the original series and re-watching that is probably the better bet.
Anyway, this week I’ve seen two films on television, both of which I’m sure were feted by the critics. One of these was a completely brilliant and surprisingly delightful gem of a film, the other was depressing, violent and relentlessly downbeat apart from the contrived ‘happy’ ending. It has left me wondering what it is that makes film critics label a film as ‘feelgood’. I am of course referring to the film which has been dubbed ‘the feelgood film of the decade’, Slumdog Millionaire. As I’m sure everyone knows by now, this happy little tale actually has more in the way of violence and torture than happiness – so how can it be ‘feelgood’? The film left me thoroughly depressed and wishing that I hadn’t wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life on it.
However, the film that I think should take Slumdog’s title is Akeelah and the Bee. I originally watched it purely because there was nothing else on the television at the time and I couldn’t be bothered to dig out a DVD and because it seemed vaguely interesting. This is a gem of a film and I was surprised at how involved I became with the characters and the story and whilst the ending is somewhat bland and obvious (much like Slumdog Millionaire) it left me with a happy little glow that lasted for the rest of the day – and in my life that’s a great thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment