Idris Elba is about to turn around and look at that explosion. Faux pas!

Jeff is still writing notes on the Culture Blues Emmy Liveblog War Room Dry Erase Board (a sample: Glee = stupid), when Jeremiah returns from his screening of Takers. Jeremiah is wearing a three piece suit and is considerably sweatier than normal.

Jeff:  So I’m like why even bother doing any real content this week, right Intern? Nobody feels like writing! We’ll just keep posting our IM conversations. And these rubes that read our stupid site will be all like oh super funny such a fresh format blah blah blah.

Jeff makes an IM chime noise.

Jeff:  Oh hi, Jeremiah! What’s with the suit?

Jeremiah:  As a majority owner of Takers, I figured I should dress up for the screening. I’m a businessman.

Jeff:  That’s right! How was the movie? Are you going to lose everything?

Jeremiah:  Let me tell ya, buddy, the next few days are going to be a real roller coaster.

Jeff:  Uh oh!

Jeremiah:  Takers is something of a slapdash effort but it’s got enough style that I definitely think there is an audience for it, and that audience just might be the kind of people who’d want to go see a movie starring T.I., Chris Brown, Stringer Bell and the white guy from the Fast & the Furious movies.

I prefer to be known as the guy who had sex with Jessica Alba in Into the Blue, pre-preggers.

Jeff:  I prefer to think of him as the white guy from She’s All That.

Jeremiah:  Of course you would.

Jeff:  So Takers is pretty much like Fast & the Furious but with less cars and more rappers, right?

Jeremiah:  No, it’s much less fun than that, although that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I was expecting breezy, frivolous fun along the lines of Ocean’s Eleven, but Heat would actually be a more apt comparison in terms of tone and subject matter. Maybe the February release date that slid to August for vague reasons can help explain that.

Jeff:  I don’t think Chris Brown beating the shit out of Rihanna is really that vague of a reason.

Jeremiah:  Oh, right. I forgot about that. Are we still mad about that? That was back in February '09.

Jeff:  No way. The statute of limitations on pounding a girl’s face in like some kind of inhuman monster is only six months, dude. It’s ok, Chris Brown! We forgot! You can be in movies again now!

Jeremiah:  Chris Brown’s definitely not the only reason the release was delayed, though. I think there may have been some heavy focus group-mandated editing. This seems like a movie that was patched together. The script being credited to two separate pairs of writers is obviously a bad sign. The first half or so is somewhat entertaining but a little dry as they spend considerable time setting up characters and the job. Then the heist and the lengthy fallout are exciting and tense even though things get ridiculous and damn near silly at times. I think the foundation they laid early on pays dividends in the end though. Oh and then there’s a melodramatic and sort of superfluous subplot which is only good for one dramatic scene from Idris Elba. It's kind of a mess.

Jeff:  Idris Elba is awesome! Except when he does that stupid British accent of his, like in that Guy Ritchie Kabala movie.

Jeremiah:   He’s actually British, idiot.

Jeff:  Get out!

Jeremiah:  Anyway, there are also the leaps of logic that I might have actually noticed during the movie if I wasn’t mostly entertained. That’s pretty standard for action movies.

Jeff:  So the action is good?

Jeremiah:  It's ok. The action scenes could have been iconic in more capable hands. I think the filmmakers realized their limitations though and instead just cribbed from other movies. In the end, it’s mostly done well enough that what could have been shaky camera disasters turn into appropriately frenetic adrenaline pumpers that actually hit some good notes and are memorable in their own right.

Jeff:  Hold on! Isn’t this rated PG-13? How much adrenaline can it pump without arterial blood geysers?

Jeremiah:  Takers pushes the Dark Knight experiment one step further by proving that you can shoot however many people you want, whoever you want and wherever you want and still get a PG-13 as long as you don’t show any blood. But for god’s sake, don’t show a woman’s nipple or *gasp* a penis.

Jeff:  I bet the focus groups made them take all the penis out.

Jeremiah:  Probably. But they left half of Paul Walker's butt in.

"That's a death sentence, youngblood."

Jeff:  Any standout performance?

Jeremiah:  Maybe not standout, but T.I. seems to be having the time of his life. He has a stiff, almost robotic way of moving and talking that mixes with his Southern drawl to create something off putting, which is very effective for the role. I don’t know if he’s capable of great acting, but he certainly held my attention here.

Jeff:  Good for T.I.! Closing thoughts?

Jeremiah:  I really like the movie that Takers could have been. Only flashes of that movie made it to theaters though, and we’re left with a very inconsistent movie that barely keeps its head above water. It seems many pictures couldn’t even manage that this summer, so it’s got that going for it.

Jeff:  Are you telling me we’re not going to get rich off Takers?

Jeremiah:  Probably not.

See that, Jason? Over there, it's a point in the future, where I disappoint all our fans.

Jeff:  Argh! A 36 inch inseam! What am I? A giant?

Jeff notices Jeremiah retrieving a lighter from his desk.

Jeff:  Oh hey! How was The Exterminators?

Jeremiah pauses to collect his thoughts.

Jeff:  Uh oh!

Jeremiah:  As a silly 2010 action movie that occasionally pokes fun at silly action movies and is occasionally way too serious for its own good, it's serviceable. It's worth seeing.

Jeff:  Excellent review!

Jeremiah:  I'm not done. As an all star action epic or a love letter to some bygone era, it's a failure and a little bit of a betrayal.

Jeff:  Ha! You've been betrayed! Just like The Exterminators.

Jeremiah:  That actually doesn't happen in the movie.

Jeff:  Then how were you betrayed?

Jeremiah:  Three letters. C-G-I.

Jeff:  Ugh.

At this point Jeff makes a fart noise with his mouth. Jeff and Jeremiah laugh for about 10 seconds.

Jeremiah:  Exactly.

Jeff:  I know right!

More laughter.

Jeff:  Seriously though - CGI? How much?

Jeremiah:  For an action movie in 2010, it's not bad at all. This isn't the A-Team we're talking about. Nobody flies a tank. But they clearly used computer magic to spice up some shots, to add blood, etc.

Jeff:  I thought this was supposed to be a real movie with real tough guys doing real fighting. I remember reading some crap about how they did all these stunts and everyone in the cast had to get STONECOLD STUNNER’D at least once.

Jeremiah:  That was a lie and a marketing ploy. Who are the ad wizards who came up...

Jeff:  That's enough of that. So it sucked, huh? This stinks, I was so excited. They should have made the movie with my cast. Do any of these guys perform? Who shines?

Jeremiah:  Eric Roberts. He's the bad guy. His absurd villainy is straight out of a B movie, which is good because the whole thing is closer to a low budget B movie tribute than a proper action movie tribute. He reminded me of Zagon from Above the Law, a personal favorite of mine. Also Bruce Willis totally owns in his one scene. In fact, the whole scene with Willis, Arnie and Sly is pretty great. It brought a big geek smile to my face and then it turned out to actually be funny and really well done.

Jeff:  Faint praise if you ask me. What about Dolph?

Jeremiah:  He's some sort of weird, burnt out, socially awkward, maladjusted, overgrown, petulant man-baby. Honestly, it's weird and a bit unsettling.

Huffing and puffing!

Jeff:  How's Stallone? Terrible? I bet he’s terrible.

Jeremiah:  He does decent with some winks at the audience, but, and I feel bad saying this, he just isn't up to it anymore. Watching him run would be funny except that it's tragic. He's all soft spoken tough guy dialogue and trying to make his face look human. In that way, it's a lot like watching a Steven Seagal movie.

Jeff:  Does Statham wear capri pants?

Jeremiah:  No, and there was a perfect opportunity for it. They missed out.

Jeff:  Sounds like one big missed opportunity to me. Is there any standout fight scene or action sequence?

Jeremiah:  Not really, which is one of the big problems. Jet Li and Dolph go at it, that's decent. Statham and Li mess up a ton of guys at the end in many very cool ways. But it's just them plowing through faceless soldiers. It's good, but it's no game changer. The whole point of getting this kind of cast together is to have the big names battle it out, even if they're on the same team. You just throw in the "misunderstanding" fight early on. Comic books understand this. Martial arts movies too. I'm not sure why Stallone doesn't.

Jeff:  I don’t think I’ve gotten across just how DEPRESSED it makes me that The Expendables doesn’t live up to its potential. As an action fan, what am I supposed to do now?

Jeremiah:  As an action fan, you should eventually see The Expendables. Despite how haphazard it is, there is something legitimately cool about seeing all these guys in one movie and the novelty alone is worth it. You should hold out until it's at a second run theater though. Or pull some Movie Madness. In the meantime, everybody get back to work on that dream team action movie screenplay you've got tucked away. Someone's got to right this ship (and then blow it up).

When Jeff and Jeremiah returned from a “super secret” advance screening of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World at the “critic’s club,” they were both pretty excited. When I made the mistake of asking who was going to write the review, they both yelled “Not it!” and then started to complain that “internet moguls” shouldn’t have to write reviews. When I reminded them they were the only ones to have seen the film, they told me to grab a pen and get ready to record some more “gems of genius” because the situation was about to get “critical.” I’m serious. They used that pun.

Jeff:  Oh man, I don't want to come off as gushing, but I'm pretty sure Scott Pilgrim is the best movie of the summer. A lot of people are going to be like whoa man what about Inception? That movie like opened my mind, bro. I need to see Inception like ten more times to figure out everything that was happening and shit. Well, to those people, I'd like to say pffffffttttttt.

Jeremiah:  What is it with the internet generation's inexorable desire to "rank" things. Who cares?

Jeff:   So curmudgeonly already. Why do you hate the internet so much? I guess you don't pick a "Video of the Month" for your monthly Ludacris tribute column, huh hypocrite?

Jeremiah looks hurt.

Jeremiah:  That’s outside the purview of this conversation. Look, we're lucky just to have two movies that original and satisfying in one summer at this point. Why do you have to force a comparison?

Scott Pilgrim is loaded with wacky special effects

Jeff:  Just accept it. It's been going on since the baby boomers decided to rank the World Wars. Still can't believe they underrated the Axis like that!

Jeremiah:  Ugh, anyway, Scott Pilgrim is funny, it has some great, visually dazzling action sequences and it’s actually pretty touching in a mostly not-groan-inducing way. Style and substance meld into a cohesive package. That's what summertime movie making is all about!

Jeff:  I'm glad you used the term groan-inducing, because there was a lot of potential for that with Scott Pilgrim. Have you ever read the graphic novels?

Jeremiah:  There are Scott Pilgrim books? Oh god. Is that why words kept popping up on the screen? How original.

At this point Jeremiah winked at me to indicate sarcasm, and then nudged me with his elbow to indicate something else. I’m not sure what.

Jeff:  I’ve never read the comics either, but my impression is that they’re emo and dorky. Really popular with the hipsters. And all the characters have really big eyes. So yeah, I was expecting a lot of aww man the nice guy never gets the girl crap, which would’ve been groan-inducing. Also, the Michael Cera quotient is high and I'm still not really sure how I feel about him.

Typically hipster-ish

Jeremiah:  Cera may reach "self parody" status quicker than any other actor ever. It's going to be like A-Rod hitting 600 homers.

Jeff:  Except instead of steroids Cera takes some kind of estrogen cocktail that keeps him thin, hairless, and adorable.

Jeremiah:  He provides a lot of laughs in this. I don’t know about all these people saying Scott Pilgrim is a bit of a different character for him. That's pretty bold. The differences are slight. In the end, no one should be rooting against Cera except for Jason Schwartzman superfans (me). Cool Ethan rules!

Jeff:  You’re right, it isn’t that far outside of Cera’s wheelhouse. But he’s at his best when he can play the hangdog everyboy and still manage to be super smug. That’s the Scott Pilgrim character. Sure we root for him, but he’s also a bit of a douchebag. It works really well. And that Edgar Wright fellow sure is innovative.

Jeremiah:  Nice segue. Scott Pilgrim is definitely a new kind of filmmaking. I think at a certain point that starts to work against it though. The incongruous edits are good for laughs at first, but they're so prevalent you start to expect them. And the movie moves at such a breakneck pace I found myself wanting to spend more time with the characters, which were the funniest part for me. I don't want to play armchair director here, but I think the more is more approach catches up with Scott Pilgrim in the end.

Jeff:  MORE IS MORE!

Jeff throws a coffee cup he was holding a moment ago. At me.

Jeremiah:  Calm down.

You're still a super man to us

Jeff:  But it is. I don’t think Scott Pilgrim would work as well as it does if Wright hadn’t gone completely balls out. Every frame is colorful and alive – it’s exciting. The whole film is relentlessly over-the-top and yet it still manages to feel sincere. Also, before I forget, Brandon Routh totally steals the show. Even if you hate video games, and comic books, and Michael Cera, and fun in general, you should still probably go see Scott Pilgrim just for Brandon Routh.

Jeremiah:  Agreed. Routh is awesome in this. Too bad his other comic book venture didn’t work out. You mentioned people who hate video games. Man, I hate those people. Video games are the best. I just wish they had referenced even more games. Where was Streets of Rage (preferably 2)? What about Road Rash? And Tecmo Bowl?

Jeff:   I also really liked the part where Cera plays the Final Fantasy theme on the guitar, that was--

Jeremiah:  And Gain Ground! How could they forget about Gain Ground?!?

This led to a discussion about whether Gain Ground deserved to be referenced in the film, which got pretty heated and in turn led to them reminiscing about the Sega Genesis Collection on PS2 which led to them digging up their copy, making me hook up the Playstation and them trying once again, in vain, to beat Golden Axe “the old fashioned way,” whatever that means. Scott Pilgrim opens this Friday.

What up, freakshow.

The quality of the New York Times has been dwindling for years now, and I often find myself unimpressed or mildly annoyed with the lackluster content. But Manohla Dargis' roaring review of Splice did me in. "Pleasurably shivery," it reads, adding it "delivers for the horror movie fan who has grown weary of being suckered by films that promise new frights only to deliver the same old buckets of gore and guts."

And with that, folks, I am afraid I can never read the New York Times again.

Anyone who was subjected to Splice after reading the Times review as I did, and believed Dargis, who called the movie "intelligent," probably feels the same kind of betrayal that I feel. You lied to us, Dargis. I lost two hours of my life because of you.

Splice is the story of two scientists who combine human and animal DNA to form Dren, a hybrid that quickly goes from infant to deadly, destructive monster. The most irritating parts of the film can all be traced to the leading characters, Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), who are so dim-witted and flat that to suggest that they could be groundbreaking scientists is insulting to the audience. We are meant to be in awe of their intelligence and sexiness. A ridiculous, fancy awards ceremony posits them as rock stars receiving more acclaim than Justin Bieber in a Middle School cafeteria. They intercourse with each other and then listen to jazz and do sciencey things. They're on the cover of Wired. But after watching them bumble around the lab in pajama pants, completely oblivious to the consequences of their outlandish actions, it is impossible to take them, or the movie seriously. They think one of the hybrids is dead after -- get this -- poking it, but not so fast! It's still alive! I hate it when that happens (I didn't go to Scientist School, but isn't there a more calculated way to determine if a species is alive?). Of course they both have to have sex with Dren, which, by the way, is sort of Elsa's offspring, since she used her own DNA to create it. Clive and Elsa are then either raped or murdered by Dren. And as if director Vincenzo Natali hadn't already resorted to enough cheap tricks, Dren kills a cat.

Then there is the dancing scene. We start noticing Dren is not a girl, not yet a woman, and she actually starts to slow dance with Clive, coming onto him in a way that I think is supposed to make us aware of her humanity. This is one of the many moments rich with opportunity to explore hot button topics like bioethics, corporate science, and humanity and technology, but instead Natali focuses on torture, rape, murder, and lots of sex to the point that it all seems funnier than Plan 9 From Outer Space. Instead of being provoked, I actually said aloud, "Oh no they didn't!" and wanted to leave the theater. But unfortunately they did. And unfortunately, I did not leave the theater.

And the New York Times loved this.

Times reviewers forget that their articles are a service. People read movie reviews to determine if they want to see a movie, not to bask in the talents of renowned writers such as Manohla Dargis, or to revel in diarrheic sentences like, "The Cronenberg influence here is evident in Mr. Natali’s interest in the body and birth and in an initially subdued, near-narcoleptic atmosphere that helps build a nice sense of foreboding." Anyway, these days, if people want good writing, they should know by now not to pick up the New York Times. It's like going to see Cirque du Soleil and expecting to get your socks knocked off, only to be subjected to watching the performers masturbate for two hours. Which would have probably been more enjoyable than watching Splice. NYT, that's it. We're done.

Dorks rejoice! Kind of.

When I watch a movie based on a comic book, especially one that I enjoy, the snobby part of my brain and the dorky part are often at war.  There are movies that I want to just relax and enjoy, but can’t bring myself to.  There are also adaptations that I want to hate, but their sweet explosions and familiar characters break down my cynicism.  This is one case where both parts of my mind are in agreement.  Iron Man 2 was slightly disappointing, but if you disregard my expectations what you are left with is a pretty solid summer popcorn flick.

Robert Downey Jr. reprises his role as hard drinking Tony Stark, and hard hitting superhero Iron Man.  Downey stamps his self destructive charm all over this role.  His performance is definitely the best part of this movie.   Suprisingly enough, very little time is spent behind the mask.  He is a different breed of hero, and Downey never lets the audience forget it.  Unlike most movies of its ilk, this one doesn’t explore the duality of the character so much.  Stark doesn’t hide behind a mask and brood about responsibility like most heroes; he embraces the celebrity status of his job and defends an entire nation almost single-handedly with a smile on his face.  But thanks to the steps he has to take to keep his suit going, he is also dying.  Ivan Vanko (played by a sinister Mickey Rourke) means to ensure he dies a lot quicker.  Ivan has his own version of the Iron Man suit, except with kickass lightning arms.  Sam Rockwell also presents problems for our hero as bumbling inventor Justin Hammer, who enlists the help of Vanko to show up Stark and create better technology.  But here’s the thing, the threat never feels grave enough.  Rourke has fun with his role as a crazy physicist, but eventually this franchise is going to need to get more out of its villains.  Most of the momentum in this movie is lost when we spend what seems like forever on Stark trying to invent an element that will power the suit and not slowly kill him.  I did care for a while, but eventually I couldn’t help but think: “okay, enough”.

The final act of Iron Man 2 salvages this with a flurry of action sequences that take advantage of the film’s budget.  And this goes without saying, but sweet mother of God Scarlett Johansson is sexy as S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Natasha Romanoff.  And badass too.  Her fight scene late in the movie is one if the highlights of the entire film, and shows off a pretty slick mix of special effects and choreography.  Here’s to hoping her inevitable turn as Black Widow will finally bring us a villain to give Iron Man a run for his money.  Don Cheadle's talent seems wasted as Lt. James Rhodes, but he contributes to the dramatic climax nicely.  Shit blows up in spectacular fashion, but does enough shit blow up?  I don’t mind a lot of talking in these movies, I tend to think characterization is what can put films like this over the top, but there just weren’t enough “holy crap” moments.

Samuel L Jackson’s cameo as Nick Fury, and the Avengers tie-ins (the Captain America teaser made me excited in the pants area) have me pretty stoked for the future of dork cinema.  But it can’t save the fact that there was just something missing from this movie.  Maybe this was just territory the franchise needed to explore in order to pave the way for better days.  Regardless, the source material is strong enough and Downey is charismatic enough, to make this a must see for comic book or action movie fans.

Shit.

Our intern caught up with "Kelly" outside of an industry-only screening in New York City.

CB: What movie did you just see?

Kelly: I just saw The Back-up Plan with Jennifer Lopez. And Angie Tempura. And Cesar Milan the Dog Whisperer.

CB: What's it-

Kelly: And the black guy from Law & Order regular version.

CB: Anthony Anderson?

Kelly: I don't know.

CB: What's it about?

Kelly: Well it starts with Lopez's character getting artificial inseminated. Then she does a sort of bowlegged, duck walk out of the doctor's office to keep the semen inside her. Like this...

At this point, she demonstrates the duck walk.

CB: Doesn't seem very scientific.

Kelly: No.

CB: What else happens?

Kelly: She meets this guy. They whine a lot and then they do it in his cheese cellar, which isn’t even a cheese cellar. It’s a fucking barn. Then, she vomits in a garbage can and tells him she's pregnant, and he gets mad and she runs away.

CB: Semen duck walks, post-coital vomit. This sounds pretty graphic for a rom-com.

Kelly: They try to be gross like Knocked Up with the blood and the barf and the poop and the other poop but it doesn't work at all. It's not funny. It's gross. Not once did anyone genuinely laugh.

CB: That's pretty lousy. So, not worth your time?

Kelly: Well, it was fun for a while, when everyone in the theater was making fun of it. But then it got so bad that it brought everyone down. On the way out, I heard a pregnant woman say, "I hated that movie because I'm afraid that's what everyone thinks I'm like."

CB: So, J. Lo makes pregnancy unappealing?

Kelly: Yes! Apparently being pregnant is disgusting. It makes you manic and when you're J. Lo it makes you even more annoying, which is true to life because she had twins. And it makes you have matted, wet hair constantly.

CB: Was there anything good about The Back-up Plan?

Kelly: No. [thinks] Oh! There's a Boston Terrier who has to have a trailer because he's crippled. He was the best part of the movie. Everybody loved Nutsy. But I think there was a scene where they used a paper cutout instead of the dog. I think the dog quit.

The Back-up Plan is vomiting all over theaters nationwide today.

First, what does work: Leonardo DiCaprio as tenacious and damaged US Marshall Teddy Daniels delivers a nuanced, believable performance. He's on screen for nearly every second of this movie, so he pretty much has to. The biggest compliment I can pay DiCaprio is that he’s consistently able to make me forget I’m watching a global superstar as he totally immerses himself in his character. DiCaprio is surrounded by a stellar supporting cast in Mark Ruffalo (as the plucky sidekick) and Ben Kingsley (as doctor Sigmund Creepster), as well as a cavalcade of strong actors filling out Shutter Island's roster of mental defectives (most notably Elias Koteas, who is only scarier when playing Casey Jones).

Scorsese's vision of this Lovecraftian nightmare is beautifully realized. The stylized jump cuts that seemed heavy-handed and jarring in The Departed here lend to the film's dangerous atmosphere. And the dream sequences, while at times verging on too David Lynch circa Twin Peaks, showcase a range beyond Scorsese's usual drab grit. Basically, it all looks very pretty.

So what doesn't work? Maybe if Shutter Island had been released 10 years ago it might have been mind-blowing, or at least mind-tweaking. Instead, Scorsese's entrant in the cinematic twist-athon comes too late, with jaded moviegoers or, frankly, total idiots nonetheless versed in the recent works of Shymalan and Fincher, capable of spotting the pay-off early on (say, after watching the trailer). Actually, I became somewhat invested in rooting against the obvious, so at least Shutter Island never totally lost my interest.

While Shutter Island plods toward its inevitable conclusion, its thrills begin to suffer from the law of diminishing returns. When the curtain is at last pulled back, DiCaprio and company offer the formulaic proceedings a measure of undeserving gravity. It's a testament to the cast that they are able to wring some legitimate feeling from a conclusion so relentlessly played. Worth seeing, but ultimately disappointing.

One of the Sherlock Holmes stories I remember reading the most growing up is "The Red-Headed League." In it, Holmes deduces in under five minutes that thieves are tunneling under a bank in order to rob it.

How did he come to such a conclusion? He tapped the pavement in front of the bank and noticed the ground was hollow and that the antagonist had dirty trousers.

Such was the spirit and ingenuity of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original writings. The logical conclusions based on simple observations are largely what have provided Holmes with his lasting power over the past 100 years.

Much of that is lost in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson.

In this movie, Holmes and Watson are charged with apprehending serial killer Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) before he can murder a sixth person. Apparently, Blackwood was part of some sort of cult with strange magical rituals. Ultimately, Blackwood's goal is to destroy Parliament and take over England and, eventually, the world.

To be sure, there are elements of the original Holmes' powers of deduction throughout. When Holmes meets Watson's fiancé, Mary Morstan, he quickly sizes her up and deduces that she was once engaged to another man. In one of the many action sequences throughout the film, Holmes plays out how to quickly defeat an opponent by observing weaknesses throughout his body.

But for the most part, the spirit of the original stories is nowhere to be found.

In investigating Blackwood, Holmes runs across a lab inhabited by one of his henchmen and analyzes a crime scene with one of the murder victims. At the conclusion of the story, the viewer is given an explanation of how these correlate with each other, but the explanation is such that a second (or even third) viewing of the visual clues still wouldn't mean anything to the viewer without the help at the end.

Put simply - the clues aren't intuitive and don't give the sort of "Ah ha!" moments that Sir Conan Doyle provided in his writings. And that is the chief shortcoming of the movie. Without the logical deductions of the original stories, it ends up just being a run of the mill action movie with a weak plot, and the action is fairly commonplace compared to similar blockbuster films (namely, Avatar). This winter, there are many better options in the theaters.

Few movies offer as satisfying a movie-going experience as Avatar, James Cameron's highly anticipated followup to Titanic. Avatar excels on all fronts from the technical and visual achievements to the engrossing storyline that taps each viewer on a spiritual and emotional level.

Avatar is set in the year 2154 when humans have completely tapped Earth's natural resources and have raced to the stars to find replenishment. As it turns out, several light years away, the planet Pandora is ripe for strip mining of a precious metal. The only thing that stands in the way is the indigenous Na'vi. To fully understand them, humans have created cloneds of the 12-foot blue-skinned natives and control them as "avatars."

Enter our hero, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) who starts as a paraplegic war veteran. He's thrust into the Na'vi world because an avatar was created for his now-deceased twin brother and the avatars are genetically matched to their users.

At first, Jake clumsily stamps his way around the lush planet getting into trouble until he is rescued by the honorable and brave Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Much of the movie is spent developing Jake and the viewer's understanding of the Na'vi. We learn that there is nothing humans can give them for their land, because it is not theirs to give, much like Native Americans.

These intricacies slowly discovered by Jake are largely ignored by others. Instead of attempting to understand the Na’vi and their planet, the humans - led by war hawk Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) – seek only to conquer. The Na'vi are technologically inferior to humans, so the only thing stopping the demolition of this peaceful race and green planet is the public relations consequences from planet Earth. If you think this sounds at all like current events, you're right - Cameron clearly doesn't attempt to hide his political agenda.

Without revealing too much of the plot, Jake makes a decision that would be highly questionable at the start of his adventure, but the process of him coming to know the Na'vi makes it a foregone conclusion. It is a decision that any decent human being would make given the circumstances, and the way he comes to that decision is one thing that makes the plot so wonderfully developed.

The visuals of this film take 3-D to the next level. The 3D glasses enhance animations of impeccable floating islands and dancing jellyfish rather than simply being used as a cheap gimmick.

And while Avatar is at its heart an action movie, the plentiful action throughout the two hours and 41 minutes, is never mindless or excessive. The audience is actually compelled to care about what’s taking place.

Avatar essentially proves that it is possible for a movie to have everything, which is why in retrospect, it will be viewed as a landmark in cinema.

With the stop motion animated Fantastic Mr. Fox, Anderson has, at the very least, proven that he's still capable of surprising moviegoers. It's an entertaining little movie that tells the story of a war between George Clooney's Mr. Fox and three agricultural tycoons, led by Michael Gambon's Franklin Bean. Despite the kids’ movie trappings, Mr. Fox offers all the melancholy, mortality and strained relationships one would expect from a Wes Anderson film. I'm not familiar with the Roald Dahl book it's based on, but melancholy, mortality and strained relationships are a big part of Dahl's work, lest someone accuse Anderson of douring up a children’s story.

The cast is top notch. Capable of creating laughs rather than relying on the visuals, which are generally breathtaking in their own right. The star of the show, however, is Gambon's Bean. He displays honest to god, badass menace and I’d love to see further, more adult, exploits of the pistol toting, alcoholic cider swilling villain.

I have no idea how kids will react to this movie, but I can't imagine very well. At 87 minutes, it runs slightly longer than necessary, but it never grows tiresome. The more serious elements aren’t countered with the kind of bombast that The Incredibles employed. There is action and intrigue (including pine cone grenades and a feral battle in an electrified room), but not nearly enough to interest people who don't appreciate the sardonic humor and pure craftsmanship involved in the animation.

Regardless, for adults it's a genuinely fun movie released during the overly serious Oscar bait season. And while it's unlikely to completely satiate Anderson's fans, it's an encouraging sign that he's still willing to try something different.