Up in the Air and the Chipettes

Jason Reitman directed Juno, and if you didn't know that before you saw Up in the Air, you'd have a sneaky suspicion after the second or third familiar face.

I'm exaggerating a bit. On second thoughts, I can only remember two actors who were in both Juno and Up in the Air. However, those two are Jason Bateman, who played Mark Loring, and J. K. Simmons who played Juno's father, which made it that much more jarring when they popped up here (as Clooney's character's boss and a random extra named Bob, respectively).

You'll notice that I said 'Clooney's character' and not (googles) Ryan Bingham, and that's the other problem with casting famous actors.

Well, technically it's the same problem. It's that much harder to fully enter a state of suspended disbelief.

Anyway, moving on to the actual film. Honestly, I expected it to be far more of a romantic comedy kind of thing. This was before I knew who directed it, incidentally - it's generally not something I look up beforehand. That's why I'm recording director's names on my stats page, so I can see if there are any accidental patterns.

So, yes. It looks like it should be a romantic comedy, but that's not entirely the case.

Ryan Bingham (Clooney, who looks much younger clean-shaven) is in the job of firing people. Other companies hire him and his coworkers to do their dirty work for them. Honestly, I find that that automatically makes the film more interesting. It's a little harder to find a character in that line of work sympathetic, although Clooney does quite a good job of remaining likeable. Reitman's on record as saying that Clooney's charm is the reason he was cast, as the film wouldn't have worked otherwise. I'm inclined to agree.



Ryan Bingham has no ties, and he speaks at seminars teaching other people how to cut loose from their own. His goal in life is to reach ten million frequent flier miles, so it certainly helps that his job requires him to fly all over the country. But then, a young ambitious coworker (played by Anna Kendrick, who also looks rather familiar, although a glance at her imdb page doesn't pinpoint why) comes up with a way to completely revise how his job works, and he's threatened with being grounded. Arguing that she doesn't fully understand the job, his boss tells him to teach her, and Bingham is forced to take her along.

...yes, the film does delve into "your way of life is wrong and lonely, let's teach you about family". Bingham is happily childfree and relationship-free (incidentally, Clooney is childfree too, so there's another bonus to the entirely purposeful casting), but, despite being happy, he's obviously wrong to feel this way. Don't you know that the only way to be happy is to surround yourself with people you care about and support? No? You obviously haven't seen enough films.

There's nothing really bad about this viewpoint, I guess - I just hate the way it's forced down everyone's throat, constantly, as being the only right way to live.

Incidentally, the film never really does answer the question of "what's the point?". Unless you want to count "because everything's better with someone else there", that is.

I do like the non-traditional way the Ryan and Alex's relationship unfolds. Not at the beginning, Scrooge McDuck and Goldie did the whole "too alike" thing years ago, and much better at that. No, the ending. It was unexpected, it was new (as much as anything can be), and it was interesting. To be honest, I spent the last half an hour or so of the film (I don't know exactly how long, I lost track of time) praying that it wouldn't be traditional, that it would be something new, that Ryan wouldn't end up renouncing his entire personality with a "one year on" clip of him and a pregnant wife. I may have seen too many romantic comedies, because I was sure that was how it was all going to go down. But, I was wrong. Yay!

That said, many other aspects of the ending - such as Natalie's arc - were very traditional and predictable. But I didn't mind, since they'd managed to surprise me a little with the ending, and not sell out the character quite as far as I'd feared.



I saw Alvin and the Chipmunks - the Squeakquel too, the other day. Really, it's not worth its own post, so I'm shoving it in here.

Now, I liked the first movie. I saw it when it came out, it was fun, it was entertaining, I spent weeks youtubing up Witch Doctor.

This one, however...well, the songs weren't as good for a start. It requires an even bigger suspension of disbelief, since everybody now seems not to bat an eyelid at the existence of not one, but two sets of singing chipmunk siblings. And it seems to be all set-up and no plot. In short, despite the length, it doesn't feel like a movie. It feels like the pilot episode of a new TV series.

A bit 'meh', really. Although I am very disturbed by the blatant sexualisation of small furry animals. I'm sure that's illegal.

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes is iconic, that can't be denied. Since his first publication back in 1887, there have been four novels and fifty-six stories by his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and countless other works featuring the character. He is Doyle's most famous work, to the extent that Doyle began to resent and then hate his character, eventually pushing him off the Reichenbach Falls, with a cry of "at last, I've killed the brute!". Holmes, however, wouldn't stay down, and public outcry brought him back for another twenty-five years and a 'peaceful' retirement to the countryside.

Basil Rathbone was, arguably, the most iconic of Holmes' portrayers. He appeared in fourteen films between 1939 and 1946, all starring opposite Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. He gave us the deerstalker hat, the cape, and, if I recall correctly, the specific kind of pipe Holmes liked to smoke. It's possible that this is where the line "Elementary, my dear Watson!" first appeared - it's certainly not in any of Doyle's original works.

I first read the Sherlock Holmes stories when I was about twelve-years-old. I'm fairly sure that I've read all of Doyle's original stories, although I haven't picked up any of them in two or three years.

Those three paragraphs do have a purpose - I went to see Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes earlier. Starring Robert Downey Jr as the titular character and Jude Law as Watson, the film features an entirely new story, rather than, like most Holmes films, being an adaptation of one of Doyle's works.

The film avoids most of the canon created by other film adaptations, and seems to have gone back to the original stories. It includes many things referenced, such as Holmes' experiments with chemistry, his shooting the initials 'V.R.' into a wall, and his skill as an amateur boxer. These things weren't often used as plot points in the stories, or frequently mentioned, but they did exist there. The violin playing is in there too, although the cocaine abuse is sadly missing.

Holmes' personality has changed, too. This take on the character is slightly more emotional, and seems more impulsive than Doyle's Holmes. Doyle's character was always asexual, while this one has a romantic history with Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams.



Irene Adler does appear in the original stories, and, yes, she is one of the only people to ever outsmart Holmes. However, they were never romantically involved...at least, not in Doyle's version. And she wasn't a master criminal, either.

That's the thing about this adaptation. It goes back to Doyle's original Holmes stories, and gives them a twist. Think of it as an alternate dimension version. The characters are basically similar, but there's no way the plot could fit into the original canon, despite the references, and the similar exposition near the end.

Once you get over the canon issues, it is a pretty good film. The action sequences are good, and it doesn't feel like it's over two hours long. I got really into it. The mystery doesn't quite have the same feel to it as a traditional Holmes' mystery, although it does use many of the same elements - there are clues that you can pick up throughout the film, for instance, but not quite enough, not as many as there would be if the film were meant to be a detective film. Instead, it's an action film, and not a bad one.

Interestingly, a trailer for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was shown before the film. I do want to see that film, but, aside from that, I think you could quite fairly call this film "Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes". Anyway;

None of the characters look quite right, but I'll forgive that, since I'm basing that idea on other adaptations, and it's hardly fair to criticise Downey for not resembling Rathbone. Downey does look a little too old for the part, especially playing opposite McAdams and Law. However, a quick look at their wiki pages shows that he's only about fifteen years older than the former and seven years older than the latter - not a huge jump.

At one point, it did bother me that McAdams needs rescuing or saving every so often. The whole point of her character is that Holmes respects her as an equal, not as a damsel in distress. Then I noticed that Watson and Holmes need help or saving just as many times as she does - it's just more noticeable to me when it's a woman chained up, apparently.

The film plays around with time and camera angles a lot. Holmes will plan out a sequence of events in slow-motion, and then perform then more quickly. Or, at times, a scene will flashback to show us something we missed the first time. It's quite effective.

Another technique Ritchie utilizes is to play with the sound when the characters are temporarily deafened. There's muffled or slow-motion speech, ringing noises...it works very well as a way of bringing the audience into the action.

A couple of scenes mention Professor Moriarty, possibly just as a nod to the original stories, but, probably, given the current atmosphere, a nod towards a sequel. Personally, I feel that the film stands well on its own, but I suspect a sequel may well be released should it do well - and I feel it will.

One thing really bugs me though - who paid for and organised Lord Blackwood's funeral, and why did they not need their permission to go opening his coffin?

On a final note, it feels really weird to hear someone address someone as 'Sherlock' completely seriously, because it's their name.

On another final note, I have never in my life been so tempted to scream out "stop, drop and roll!" in a cinema. Watch it, you'll know the bit I mean.

Updates

So, I checked up on Glee. The new episodes will be shown on E4 on Mondays, if I recall correctly, then the following Sunday on Channel 4. After that, they'll be uploaded to 4oD, where I'll be watching them, since I work Monday and Sunday nights.

Being Human, on the other hand, will be up on the BBC iPlayer immediately, and the first episode of the second series is up now.

I'm ashamed to say that I've yet to use my shiny Unlimited Card. Admittedly, I don't have it yet, but I could use the code on the email they sent me if I really wanted to. To be quite honest, I don't fancy going out in the snow unless I have to. I'm sure I'll make up for it once my bus pass kicks in, on the 1st of February. I'm really looking forward to Disney's latest, The Princess and the Frog. That's out on the 5th of February in the UK, and you can see the official trailer here. I grew up on Disney films, and I much prefer the traditional style to Pixars.

Perhaps unusually, I have no interest in Avatar. I'll watch it on DVD. I feel happier about having to sit still for over two hours if I have control of the pause button.

TV Shows!

I don't usually watch programs on TV. I prefer to rent the DVDs, and watch every single episode in one long marathon. It's been a while since I've felt the anticipation of waiting for a new episode every week.

The last time was with the repeats of the first series of Being Human on BBC1. I'd missed the first showing on BBC3 (in my bedroom I can only get the five main channels - I'm thinking of getting Sky Plus in here soon, if I can afford it), so it was pure luck that I spotted the description. I don't recall exactly what it said, but the show's about a werewolf, a vampire and a ghost sharing a house. How can that possibly fail to be interesting?

Being Human is slightly more dramatic than you might expect just from that description, but it also has a hilarious kind of gallows humour, and really likeable characters. The three leads are played by Lenora Critchlow, who played Sugar in Sugar Rush, Aiden Turner, who appears in The Tudors and Desperate Romantics, and Russell Tovey, who starred in The History Boys. I'm very much looking forward to the second series, which starts on BBC3 this Sunday, the 10th, at 9:30pm. I'm hoping they put it up on the iPlayer right away, since I'll be at work then.



Another show I'm going to miss is Glee, which starts this Monday at 9pm on E4. The pilot's already up on 4oD, so I'm praying the other episodes go up too. It reminded me of nothing so much as a cross between High School Musical and Teachers, only much better than either. I am enthralled.

You can see a trailer here.

Good Times Are Here Again

I have another Unlimited Card. The price has gone up a bit - it's now £13.50 a month, with an extra £1.30 charge for 3D films - but, getting back into my old habits should mean that, once again, they'll be losing out on this deal.

When you get an Unlimited card, you're contracted to keep it for a year. You can choose to pay monthly (£13.50, as I said), or annually (£162). To save you doing the maths yourself, I'll just point out that 162/12 = 13.5. There's no difference in price, however you pay.

This may not be the best time to get a card - I'm just catching the tale end of the Christmas releases, and summer isn't for a while - but it's now that I feel like watching films. Two or three a month and it will easily pay for itself, and I love the freedom of just popping in on my way past, and seeing if there's anything on.

You can apply for an Unlimited card here, if I've caught your interest.

Because I like statistics, I'm going to keep track of what I use it for in the table below. I may put each month in a separate post, I may not. We'll see.

'Number' is just to keep track of how many I see, 'Name' is the name of the film, 'rating' is the (BBFC) classification, 'date watched' and 'directed by' speaks for itself (one would hope), and 'price' is the price I would have paid without the card.

January

Number	Name of Film	Rating	Date Watched	Directed by;	Price
1	Sherlock Holmes	12A	13/1/2010	Guy Ritchie	£6.10
2	Alvin and the Chipmunks: the Squeakquel	U	21/1/2010	Betty Thomas	£4.30
3	Up in the Air	15	27/1/2010	Jason Reitman	£4.30
4	Edge of Darkness	15	31/10/2010	Martin Campbell	£6.50

..so, I'm £7.70 up. Score.

17 Again and Sherlock Holmes

17 Again is about as cliched as you might expect. And I still loved it.

17 Again is about a man who, having given up his chance at a scholarship in a sudden decision to run after his (just revealed to be) pregnant girlfriend, in what is, incidentally, an extremely well-played and directed scene, then holds it over her head for the next twenty years.

Seriously though, that scene's great. It assumes that the audience has seen the trailer, and so doesn't fuck about spelling out things we already know. It just jumps right in there, and it's just so clean and edgy...

In some ways, that scene could have been the end of another kind of film - and this is what happens after happy-ever-after. 37-year-old Mike O'Donnel, as played by Matthew Perry, is disappointed and miserable in his life, and he blames his wife for that. It's no wonder she's divorcing him.

His transformation back into a teenager is one of the most cliched things I've ever seen (complete with the wise old janitor), but the first meeting with his ex-best friend was funny, original and a bit insane (there was an axe and some lightsabers. It was awesome).

So far, I've only seen Zac Efron as Troy Bolton, the basketball-playing male lead of High School Musical. This role is, in some ways quite a departure from Disney. He says "douche" for a start. And his hair isn't stupid (at least, not until it gets slicked down again). Matthew Perry, I'm more familiar with as Chandler Bing.

Alright, I'll be honest here. I started writing this review about six months ago (maybe longer - how long has this film been out?), and I'd gotten as far as what's written above...and then I stopped. For no apparent reason.

I did get 17 Again on DVD for my birthday. The film could be described as, in many ways, bits of awesome interspered with plot. This is not a bad thing. That isn't to say that it isn't sweet and touching (it is). Just that light sabers, swords, basketballs and the word 'pwned' makes everything better. Everything.

Incidentally, I might be going to see Sherlock Holmes in a few weeks - it depends if Mattie gets his act together or not. You can view the trailer for it here.

I'm intrigued. I like the things they've included, like the boxing - canonically, Holmes is quite a good amateur boxer - and references to violin-playing at 3am. It's clear that someone involved has read the originals, and that's a start. I can live with the steampunk victorian streets, too. They're very shiny. There seems to be quite a lot of action in this, and while Holmes was quite fit, I seem to recall that he was rarely involved in direct fights. More often he was running away.

This brings me to Irene Adler. Although I do love Rachel McAdams, as I recall, Adler was a woman Holmes deeply respected because, yes, she did get the better of him. They certainly never kissed. Holmes was asexual. If they had to include a love story, why not Watson's? I found the description of how he met and married his first wife quite romantic, personally.

Speaking of Watson, Jude Law doesn't look like him. I realise that I may well be thinking of film portrayals of Watson, rather than the actual canon, so I'll let that one go. I'm also willing to give Robert Downey Jr a chance. The man is a fine actor, and he has much of the voice and manner of Holmes 'right' to my mind, even though I always pictured him as being rather thinner and better shaved.

I wonder if they're going to include the cocaine abuse, the shooting practice at the walls of their flat, or that time Holmes decided to beat up a corpse?