After viewing, over the past year or two, almost every new film in a screening room or on DVD, for free, it's a weird sensation to plunk down $9 (for a senior ticket) two days in a row, in or-
der to attend new films with friends whom I don't get to see all that often. The effect is salutary, how
-ever, because it puts one in touch with how fortunate he is to be able to see so many new films at absolute-
ly no charge.
One of my colleagues in the online-critic trade tells me that she always considers first in her recommendation whether or not the film in question is worth $12 of her reader's hard-
earned cash. Using this criterion, she mentioned a film such as G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra as being more worthy of recommendation that a small foreign film like Karin Albou's The Wedding Song -- which we both happened to see at the same screening -- or Sally Potter's Rage, where we met over an upcoming interview with the director. While this may indicate a vast difference between the audiences that she and I are serving, her idea about the necessity of parting with $12 is worth considering. (I actually found G.I. Joe bearable -- barely -- and certainly better than the latest Transformers drivel.)
plaining to each other? This is such basic screenwriting (even some first-time scribes tend to understand the principle) that it surprises me Mr. Cameron does not.
ey. But really: how dumb and/or avaricious have we all become?
|The day prior to viewing Avatar, we'd trekked off through the snow to see SHERLOCK HOLMES, another not-inexpensive piece of mainstream, holiday entertain-|
ment. And while I can make no claim for anything other than having had a fairly good time (the movie gets a little slow/been-there-
done-that midway along), I at least stayed through the end credits and can declare myself not ripped off too badly.
As opposed to Avatar, that features good actors -- Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Lang -- doing obvious shtick, Sherlock offers Robert Downey Jr. (below, right), Jude Law (below left), Mark Strong, Rachel McAdams (shown further below, right) and Kelly Reilly (shown further below, left), all appearing to enjoy each other's company and bouncing off the silly story with talent and glee. The plot is serviceable and weird enough to merit attention, and the special effects are often quite special. There's no 3-D, but none is needed.