Films That Attempted To Entertain Me Over Vacation

There were several, so let's dive in.

Drag Me To Hell - Maybe the horror genre isn't for me. Maybe we shouldn't have watched the unrated, director's cut. There were several scenes that made me nauseous (usually they involved vomiting), but nothing actually scared me. I couldn't decide if I was supposed to sympathize with the old gypsy who placed the curse on the plucky young bank employee who refused a third extension on the gypsy's mortgage to prove she was cutthroat enough for a promotion, or the plucky young bank employee. I wasn't going to sympathize with the gypsy, since I didn't buy her spiel about being shamed by the girl (the gypsy chose to beg on her knees for an extension, so the way I see it, she shamed herself), but the girl went against her instincts and denied the extension solely for a promotion, so maybe I'm supposed to think she had it coming. The fight in the parking garage was alternately hilarious (use of a stapler) and disgusting (gypsy trying to bite the girl only her dentures were knocked out when she hit the dash, so she was just gumming the chin. Shudder).

The ending did surprise me. Not that I expected a happy ending, I thought it would be harsh in a different way.

Shutter - OK, I only half watched this. I think Unforgiven was showing on AMC, so I kept leaving the living room to watch that on a TV in one of the bedrooms. What I saw didn't interest me much.

Star Trek - I don't know what my expectations were for this film. It was entertaining enough. I liked Quinto's performance as Spock, Simon Pegg was funny, I was surprised to see Charlie Bartlett playing Chekov, though I can't decide if we needed the accent. It only seemed to be there for the purpose of one joke, so probably no, at least to the extent it was portrayed. Basically, all the actors worked for me, more or less.

I would have liked to see Kirk have more time to argue with Spock at the academic overview hearing. It's a simulation you aren't supposed to win, so why does it matter that Kirk cheated to beat it once? When he didn't cheat, he lost twice, so what's the big deal? All the time travel stuff actually made sense to me, which is a nice change. I don't mind the threat being a time-traveling Romulan miner out for revenge either. Star Trek does time travel stuff all the damn time, so it's not as though it's an unusual plot device.

Paranormal Activity - I can't decide which ending I like better. The alternate ending leaves a bit more ambiguity about what was at work, and what it's motives were. The ending they went with is creepier, because it suggests she's out there, up to who knows what (Hopefully that won't be answered in Paranormal Activity 2: Road Trip!). I had a hard time believing Micah is such a twit, so unconcerned with his wife's emotional distress. The whole "Well, you said not to buy a Ouija board, so I just borrowed one" bit was ridiculous. I'm not in a relationship, and even I know better than to pull such a jackass stunt. His stubborn insistence they not contact the demonologist because it might make things worse, even though Katie points out it's already getting worse, was kind of sad. He wanted to be the big man, run off the supernatural hoobajoop after his girl, and calling in someone else would be admitting he couldn't cut it. He almost seemed to be in the movie solely to keep making the wrong decision.

All of us watching laughed heartily at the psychic, who upon his second visit, immediately said that he couldn't do anything and that he needed to leave. He took a step into the house and was all "I've got to leave. I'm making it angry, I have to go, but I'll try and do something to help, but I can't stay here." If you can't be inside the house, then what are you going to do to help? I managed to avoid jumping from my seat throughout the movie, but I think that was because every time they switched to the bedroom camera, I started watching the entire screen intently, determined that I wasn't going to miss any little thing that might happen. That cut down on its ability to catch me off-guard. Really enjoyable film, though I don't think it lends itself to repeat viewings.

Sherlock Holmes - I saw this twice: Once with my dad, and once with Alex. We all enjoyed it. I didn't think it was particularly Holmesy, a bit too rough and tumble, but I'm a neophyte when it comes to Holmes. I may have read Hound of the Baskervilles when I was much younger, but I don't remember it. I was eager to see it with my dad, because he's much more familiar with Holmes, and he's a history teacher, so I wanted his unput on the historical accuracy of the film. He was highly impressed with the physical surroundings, the buildings and such, and the period accurate ordinance. He thought the clothes were almost entirely wrong, except for Watson, who he said was usually dressed half-right. He also though too many of the streets were cobblestone, but that there were appropriately few hansom cabs. So in terms of period accuracy, that sounds like a "C" grade.

He felt that Downey and Law did a good job portraying the characters as they were written, but he thought they weren't very true to the earlier works. For me, Downey felt more Dr. House than how I normally think of Holmes. I kind of think of Holmes as being more precise and controlled in his mannerisms, better able to control his condescension as the moment requires it, as opposed to Dr. House who just says whatever, whenever. From things I've read online, that picture is way off, but I didn't know that going in. I like how Jude Law plays Watson, especially having watched some of the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Shelock Holmes movies (The Scarlet Claw and Adventures of Shelock Holmes) with my dad in the days after we watched this movie. If I have a choice between the two portrayals, I'll take a Watson that's not a well-meaning, but ultimately useless buffoon.

I like Downey Jr.'s Holmes, too, he was an entertaining character, but I tend to associate with the long-suffering sidekick of the jerk genius (it's the same with House and Dr. Wilson. I am eternally on Wilson's side, more concerned that things go well for him than for House). There was a scene I particularly liked, the dinner scene, before Watson and Mary arrive. As Holmes sits there, and the camera jumps to different people, the noise gradually becomes overwhelming, it made Holmes' gift seem more like a curse for a moment, an inability to stop noticing all the little details that tell you so much, even for a moment. And all the little crimes and indiscretions he notices seem so obvious, it helps explain his sinking into drug-addled depression. It's all too easy, but he can't stop himself from seeing it, so he has to wall himself off. Of course, he follows that up with his assessment of Mary, which you could be charitable and say was jaundiced by his frequent associations with criminals, but really is him being pissy she's taking his best friend away.

One thing I couldn't figure out were the two scenes were Holmes is fighting, and maps out a plan of attack which we see in slow-motion, then the attack goes off exactly as planned. I assume it's suppsoed to show his powers of observation and deduction that he can so quickly perceive weaknesses in his opponent, and predict their movements well enough to map out a long-term strategy that factors them in. But why do it twice? Once would have been sufficient, or else do it repeatedly, say against the really big guy, or Blackwood. Only twice seemed odd.