Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Zodiac Killer

As I previously mentioned, this week was a bit of a cheat. I’ve already seen Zodiac and was pretty sure I would like Sherlock Holmes. But then again I had not watched “Zodiac” with a reviewer mindset and I had not actually watched “Sherlock Holmes” yet, so it’s fair. With all that being said, I must admit I still have not finished Lawrence of Arabia or had time to watch “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” (which is just as long as its name). I still have both movies from the library, so I should have them for next week. I will say that I have thoroughly enjoyed the first half of “Lawrence…” and I have seen “Assassination…,” but once again not with a reviewer mindset. Since I only watched two movies this week and enjoyed them both, I will write (and recommend) an extended review for both.

Zodiac – (5 Stars)

There is something that draws people into true crime stories. Turn on the news and you will probably find out about someone who committed some crime. More often than not you will also be “treated” to the details as well. But if the general public wasn’t interested in them, they wouldn’t be on television. I guess it is just human nature to be curious about the happenings of those around us. What crime really gets our attention better than that of a mysterious serial killer? “Zodiac” tells just that kind of story, that of the infamous Zodiac killer, who had California buzzing in the late 60’s and early 70’s. But where many true crime movies have failed, “Zodiac” succeeds in making the movie interesting and engaging, without being voyeuristic.

 “Zodiac” is a thoroughly fascinating, visually stunning movie. David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directs a great ensemble cast in this distinct three act crime procedural. The first distinct act of the movie follows the initial crimes of the Zodiac killer and his lust for attention, sending letters and ciphers to newspapers. We are introduced to the various law enforcement agents who will be investigating, as well as the hotshot newspaper writer (Robert Downey Jr.). On the outside looking in is Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist at the paper. The second act of the movie explores the criminal investigation into the Zodiac killer and the third, and final, act follows Graysmith as he sets about writing a book about the identity of the killer and his own investigation that leads him to do so.

 The movie stands out in all the little things it does right. The movie is about a serial killer, but the murders are never shown in an overly graphic way. The murders are shown, but aren’t the focal point of the movie. The characters are all extremely interesting, especially when you think about the fact that they are real people. Some of the relationships between the characters are fictionalized, but this is used more as a way to bridge the narrative. Finally, the pacing of the movie is just right. The movie covers a long period of time, which can sometimes doom a movie to being more of a montage, but “Zodiac” never misses a beat while it moves throughout the life of the investigation. It is this combination of skillful direction, on target acting, and attention to detail that makes “Zodiac” a cut above the rest when it comes to true crime dramas, and many other movies. (Netflix) (157 minutes - Rated R for Some strong killings, language, drug material and brief sexual images - 2007)

Sherlock Holmes – (4 ½ Stars)

Sherlock Holmes has the distinction of being the most portrayed character in film. Despite this fact, a lot of people have probably not seen a Sherlock Holmes movie but still have various preconceptions as to how he should be portrayed. Enter Guy Ritchie’s aptly titled “Sherlock Holmes.” Advertised as a new spin on an old character, Ritchie enlists Robert Downey Jr. to take on the mantle of the World’s Greatest Detective. Along for the ride is Jude Law as Watson, the straight man to Holmes’ eccentricities. While the case Holmes’ works could have been better, the atmosphere, characters, and intricacies of the film more than make up for it.

            
One of the biggest fears I had going into watching the movie was that they would “modernize” Holmes and Watson. The trailer only exacerbated this with its quick cuts, fast music, and pithy remarks. Once I was able to sit down and watch the movie, my fears quickly subsided. Downey plays Holmes with a fantastic wit and energy with Law’s Watson playing off him perfectly. Many envision Watson as the fat, bumbling sidekick to Holmes’ stiff, intellectual detective. However, as evidenced in the source material, Watson was a trained, fit army doctor and Holmes definitely something of an eccentric. The movie does have a bit of a “modern” feel to it in little touches here or there, but not to the extent portrayed by the trailers.

            
Sherlock Holmes’ latest case pits him against an aristocrat who delves into the mystical arts in his quest to unite and strengthen London under his power. The case itself is probably the weakest aspect of the movie. In the end the character story as a whole is satisfying, and the mystery is wrapped up well. This take on Sherlock Holmes is not for everyone, but most will probably at least enjoy it as a very good action/mystery. (Netflix) (128 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material - 2009)

Don't forget to get your opinion heard in this month's poll and check out the previous post about changes to the blog.

Movies for this week:

Lawrence of Arabia (for real this time)

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire

Alvin & The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel (Maybe)

What would you like to see on this site?

Something I always enjoy when I visit a site is a poll. No matter what website I am on when I see a poll I answer it. To me it is a way of getting input from the people that visit and (hopefully) enjoy the site. When the poll is asking for ideas/contributions to the site it's even better. Well, I'm not sure if anyone else shares in my zeal for all things tabulatory (I think I just made that word up), but I know people like to share their opinion. I've included a poll to the right of this post that asks for your input on changing/expanding/improving the site. If you select the "Other" choice, I'd ask that you comment below this post. Feel free to comment on any of the other choices as well. You can choose more than one option.

Everybody’s Four Blind Goats

Finally caught up on missed reviews. All of these movies were watched this past week. I didn't have time to finish watching "Lawrence of Arabia," so I will review it this week. Next week's movies are a bit of a cheat (and also a slow week in terms of DVDs in from the library). I'm almost positive I will thoroughly enjoy "Sherlock Holmes" (I've seen clips of it) and I have already watched "Zodiac" and 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford" before. However, for the sake of people who haven't seen them, I am officially reviewing them. Enough about next week, here is this week:

The Men Who Stare At Goats – (2 ½ Stars) - Based on a true story of a very strange division of the military focused on harnessing the “hidden” talents of soldiers. Ewan McGregor plays the straight-man journalist to George Clooney’s “Jedi.” While the movie was funny in parts, by its drug-induced conclusion it is more ridiculous than anything else. (Netflix) (93 minutes - Rated R for Language, some drug content and brief nudity - 2009)

Everybody's Fine – (3 ½  Stars) – After his wife passes, Frank Goode (Robert De Niro) tries to reconnect with his grown children by traveling cross-country to visit each one. De Niro does a fantastic job as the distant father being kept in the dark by his kids regarding how they are doing. The supporting cast is also top notch (Sam Rockwell, Kate Beckinsale, Drew Barrymore). Has the feel of an “indie journey” movie. (Side Note: I couldn’t resist thinking that besides being “fine,” they were also all “Goode.”) (Netflix) (99 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Thematic elements and brief strong language - 2009)

Four Christmases – (1 ½ Stars) – If you have seen any comedy that revolves around a dysfunctional family, you have in essence seen “Four Christmases.” The movie is predictable and chock full of almost every comedy cliché known to man. That’s not to say that there aren’t parts that were amusing. Even at just under an hour and a half, I felt like my time could have been better spent. (Netflix) (88 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Some sexual humor and language - 2008)

*The Blind Side – (4 Stars) –

I have a love-hate relationship with inspirational sports movies. Being a sports fan, I enjoy watching great (usually true) stories that include the sport(s) I love. I am also partial to great stories of redemption or struggle. The problem I usually have is how these stories can be handled. Usually they are opportunistic, sappy, or downright cheesy. However, “The Blind Side” manages to take an inspiring story and tell it in a way that isn’t any of these things.

Another thing to note about the movie is Sandra Bullock’s performance. I haven’t seen all of the other movies that included the “Best Actress” nominees, but Bullock does a fantastic job. Her character is different than any of her previous roles, and I think this is why she does so well with it.


“The Blind Side,” while it gets close to falling into the same traps as most sports movies, manages to stay “in-bounds” enough to make it stand out. One word of caution is that this movie is PG-13 due mainly in part to the background of Michael Oher, the player the movie is based on. (Netflix) (126 minutes - Rated PG-13 for One scene involving brief violence, drug and sexual references - 2009)

Movies For This Week:

Sherlock Holmes

Lawrence of Arabia

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Zodiac

The Brother’s Fantastic Sister’s Law-Abiding District Doctor

This week I have decided to institute a small change in the format by adding an expanded review for what I will dub my “Must See” pick of the week. I’ve denoted the movie* and attached a longer, more in depth review. Once again, I found a movie^ that I had previously forgotten to review, so it is included as well.

Law Abiding Citizen – (2 Stars) – After he loses his family, and the legal system fails him, a crafty engineer (Gerard Butler) decides to exact his own revenge on the killers, the legal system and the entire city. Butler chews up the scenery as the psychopathic avenger, while Jamie Foxx plays the unlikeable lawyer protagonist. Lack of believability and apathetic characters make this strictly a “popcorn movie.” (Netflix) (109 minutes - Rated R for Strong bloody brutal violence and torture, a scene of rape, and pervasive language - 2009)

The Brothers Bloom – (4 ½ Stars) – Two eccentric confidence men target an affluent recluse as their final score. The Brother’s Bloom is a wonderfully inventive con movie full of beautiful scenery and rich characters that keep you interested and invested all the way through to its conclusion. (This was the close runner-up for “Must See” Pick). (Netflix) (113 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Violence, some sensuality and brief strong language - 2008)

Doctor Zhivago – (4 Stars) – David Lean’s cinematic epic about a Doctor/Poet caught up in the Bolshevik Revolution.  Omar Sharif’s emotionally portrays Zhivago as an individual, a beacon of hope, in the harsh reality of a communist Russia. The movie also stands out in its beautiful landscapes and breathtaking cinematography.(Netflix - currently unavailable) (197 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Mature themes - 1965)

^District 9 – (3 ½ Stars) – 20 years ago an alien ship comes to a stop over Johannesburg, South Africa. On board is a race of malnourished, insect-like aliens. Now, the stranded extraterrestrials are forced to live in slum-like conditions and are seemingly not allowed to leave. The movie starts out very strongly with an intriguing premise but slowly devolves into a decent, but ordinary, action movie. The main character remains unsympathetic until the very end, and the dialogue also leaves something to be desired.(Netflix) (112 minutes - Rated R for Bloody violence and pervasive language - 2009)

My Sister’s Keeper – (2 Stars) – Anna (Abigail Breslin) was born as a “designer baby” to help combat her sister Kate’s leukemia. But as she grows older, Anna begins to have second thoughts about giving herself over to the painful procedures that help prolong her sister’s life. What could be an interesting movie that tackles relevant moral questions is reduced to a run-of-the-mill family drama that, from what I gather, is not faithful to its source material. The movie is full of unnecessary voice-overs, painfully drawn out “dramatic” moments, forced emotion, and a ridiculous amount of “inaudible dialogue.” (Netflix) (110 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Mature thematic content, some disturbing images, sensuality, language and brief teen drinking - 2009)

*Fantastic Mr. Fox  – (4 ½ Stars) –

Fantastic Mr. Fox is not your typical “family movie” in much the same way that Wes Anderson isn’t your typical director, or Roald Dahl your typical author. These quirks are what make everything work so well. The movie fits in well with the rest of Anderson’s filmography, utilizing the typical dry humor and dysfunctional family unit. It also stays very true to the heart of Dahl’s literary works.  However, Dahl and Anderson are not for everyone.

                The movie, in some cases, has been advertised as another of the yearly crop of animated (although to be fair, it’s actually stop-motion) movies that come out every summer much to the delight of kids and the dismay of parents. Despite these perceptions, (Roald Dahl is the author, after all, of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory) most children will more than likely not be as entertained by this movie. In general, the parents will in all likelihood find more they enjoy. Like the book it is based on, Fantastic Mr. Fox is for older children. That’s not to say that it contains content objectionable to young children, but rather most of what happens would probably go over their head. The movie just doesn’t have the prevalent silliness of most family movies that draws the younger crowd in.

If you are a fan of Roald Dahl or Wes Anderson, you will enjoy this movie. It is the cohesion of Dahl’s source material and Anderson’s witty filmmaking that really drives Mr. Fox to be exactly as its title denotes: fantastic. However, if you are looking for some light, family fluff…this is not it.(Netflix) (87 minutes - Rated PG for Action, smoking, and slang humor - 2009)

Movies For Next Week:

The Men Who Stare At Goats

Everybody's Fine

The Blind Side

Lawrence of Arabia

Zodiac

Where the Lying Capitalist Wild Box Things Happen - March 30th

I actually meant to post this last night, but completely forgot. This week's* batch was not quite as good as last week, but it could lead you to read some better books.

*some of these were watched earlier in the month, but I forgot to review them.

The Invention of Lying - (1 Star) - Ricky Gervais co-writes, co-directs, and stars in a movie about a place where lying has not been discovered. It's surprising how unfunny it is when people only tell the truth (and apparently whatever is in their mind at the time). Even with a very good supporting cast, this movie is just disappointing. (Netflix) (99 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Language including some sexual material and a drug reference - 2009)

Love Happens - (3  Stars) - Aaron Eckhart shines as a self-help guru who doesn't seem to take his own advice about coping with loss. Quirky, but a bit slow paced at times. Not by any means a great movie, but one that was better than expected.(Netflix) (109 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Some language including sexual references - 2009)

The Box - (2 1/2 Stars) - A morality tale of sorts that revolves around a couples' choice of whether or not to push a button that will grant them $1M dollars, but kill a person that they do not know. The movie has a creepy, foreboding atmosphere to it that fizzles as the movie drags on and meanders to its convoluted ending. The movie complicates a wonderfully simplistic short story (Button, Button) by Richard Matheson.(Netflix) (115 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images - 2009)

Where The Wild Things Are - (3 Stars) - Based on the picture book by Maurice Sendak, the movie is spot on when it comes to the feel of the story. Everything visually about this movie is fantastic, however there really isn't enough substance in the source material to warrant a full length movie. Most kids will probably find it boring, as will a lot of adults.(Netflix) (94 minutes - Rated PG for Mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language - 2009)

Capitalism: A Love Story - (2 Stars) - The biggest problem with this movie is simply that Michael Moore is not that likable of a person. The movie brings up some interesting/unsettling information, but because of Moore's gimmicky delivery, you are left questioning the authenticity of it. Moore should take a page out of the affable Morgan Spurlock's book.(Netflix) (127 minutes - Rated R for Some language - 2009)


Movies For This Week:
Law Abiding Citizen
The Brothers Bloom
Doctor Zhivago

...All the rest - March 22

The Time Traveler's Wife - (3 Stars) -  A librarian (Eric Bana) inexplicably time travels, much to the chagrin of his lover (Rachel McAdams). A surprisingly charming movie as long as you don't give yourself a headache over-thinking the time travel mechanics involved and focus more on the character story. (Netflix) (107 Minutes - Rated PG-13 for Thematic elements, brief disturbing images, nudity and sexuality - 2009)

The Boys Are Back - (4 Stars) - A great performance by Clive Owen as a man who must raise his young son by himself after the untimely passing of his wife. A very good movie with fantastic cinematography (filmed in Australia).(Netflix) (104 Minutes - Rated PG-13 for Some sexual language and thematic elements - 2009)

Fido - (4 1/2 Stars) - The classic story of a boy and his dog -- if in fact that dog is actually a zombie. The movie is full of great tongue-in-cheek zombie humor. It bends some of the 'zombie rules,' but never in a way that damages the story.(Netflix) (92 Minutes - Rated R for Zombie-related violence - 2006)

Funny People - (4 Stars) - A comedian (Adam Sandler) who is diagnosed with a terminal disease hires a younger, struggling comedian (Seth Rogen) to be his assistant and sets about making things right in his life. Judd Apatow delivers another drama/comedy about the important things in life. A warning, despite it's redeeming qualities, some may find it too vulgar for their tastes.(Netflix) (146 minutes - Rated R for Language and crude sexual humor throughout and sexuality - 2009)

Marley & Me - (4 1/2 Stars) - Genuinely funny and an all around enjoyable movie, especially for those who have ever owned a dog, but definitely not limited to those that have. Even through all of its zaniness, it never seems cheesy or contrived.(Netflix) (110 minutes - Rated PG for Thematic material, some suggestive content and language - 2008)

(500) Days of Summer - (4 Stars) - As the movie states, "this is a story about boy meets girl...not a love story." Great performances by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel highlight this unique, quirky movie. The movie really shines in its presentation and in all of the little details throughout.(Netflix) (95 minutes - Rated PG-13 for Sexual material and language - 2009)

The Informant! - (4 Stars) - Matt Damon gives a fantastic performance in this dramatized version of the true events surrounding the highest ranking whistle-blower in American business history. A very well-written movie that is both funny and intriguing. Along the same lines as "Shattered Glass," although quite a bit 'goofier.' (Netflix) (108 minutes - Rated R for Language - 2009)


Movies for this week (subject to change due to time/lapse in interest):
Where The Wild Things Are
Capitalism: A Love Story
New York, I Love You

New Format for Reviews

Finding myself watching movies and not keeping up on full-scale reviews, I decided that maybe a change is in order. I have enjoyed writing reviews, but finding the time for full reviews has been difficult. So, I have decided to review every movie I watch, including movies that may be older, but in a shorter, twitter-like format. I will also select some movies to write an expanded review as I see fit. Some movies only need a few lines to get the point across whereas others are serviced better by a complete review. I will post my previous week's watchings on Mondays, starting today. I hope this will make the reviews a quick way for people to decide whether or not to watch.