I've just watched Avatar...

[Shards]

This was on my short list, but the early responses aren't looking promising. Most of the complaints are about it not being very clever or witty, which would be a complete waste of the franchise.

^-.-^

Not really. I mean, let's be honest, ACD, the original author of Holmes, didn't like the franchise himself and was only churning them out for the money. He even invented the ret-con specifically because he had killed SH off for being so sick of him, and then found it was too profitable a venture to let go. So, really, adapting it to what will make the most money in a modern audience, while it may be disapointing to hardcore fans, actually ends up being the thing most in the spirit of the original works. Ain't irony a bitch?

Also, while the main plot is somewhat predictable and has a bit of a lack of wit to it, Downey brings the anti-social and generally fucked up parts of Holmes's personality to the stage in a way that they've rarely captured well before, and the banter between him and Law's Watson is very well done, mainly because they capture the buddy-cop chemistry that SH and Watson really were the original founders of. It's nice to see the veteran Watson played in such a way where he actually feels like a clever war vet (his actual backstory), instead of a dumbass there only to make Holmes seem smarter.

And so far as your quip about background effects, they were there, but not in force. I will admit I exaggerated in saying that there was one unt precisely one! thing going on in every frame, but that doesn't change the fact that there wasn't enough to make it feel like a battle. Each scene was roughly: Show a lot of people squaring off in one way or other (airships vs. pterodactyls, horses vs mechs and marines, etc.), show a decent amount happening in wide shot, close in on plot-specific action with maybe one thing happening behind them, continue that way until character dies or is rescued, allow one more thing to happen on screen while leading up to rescue. I know a lot of people disagree with me on this, but I find it much more immersive to watch Michael Bay movies, or Martial Arts movies, where the choreography and effects are often so hectic you have no idea what's going on, because that just feels more realistic of an actual battle scene to me.

[Andara Bledin]

The old PBS series with Jeremy Brett was the quintissential Holmes adaptations for the screen. Watson doesn't come off as a fool (because he's not), and Holmes is as arrogant and shrewd as ever.

As for the action scenes, one bit that I can remember clearly (for no discernible reason) involved the warrior fighting on the deck of the shuttle, and there being no less than 4 separate attacks that happened in the background of that shot.

Besides, there was a fairly large field carried by only 2000 defenders, the vast majority of whom were on land under the canopy and the spacing of the air-based fights would all be dictated by the distance between the attcking flyers. Shoving more "action" into those shots would have been inconsistent with the reality of the setup.

I'm certain that if the camera was set more from the POV of the fighters and swung around wildly as the view panned back and forth, you'd be much happier, and the entire movie would be diminished for it.

^-.-^

[cinema guy]

The old PBS series with Jeremy Brett was the quintissential Holmes adaptations for the screen. Watson doesn't come off as a fool (because he's not), and Holmes is as arrogant and shrewd as ever.

Brett was indeed a great Holmes. that TV series was probably the single most faithful adaptation of ACD's stories. But littl of the original stuff is suitable for a big-screen modern adaptation, sadly.

(typing with only my left hand is a pain)

[draggar]

...and it is awesome.

It is stunning to look at, with great action sequences. It is big screen movie. The level of detail is incredible.

The story is a little bit 'Dances with Wolves', and characterisation and drama take a back seat to the spectacle.

I only saw it in 2d, can't wait to watch it again in 3D.

We just saw it in 3D and will try to see it in 3D iMAX soon. It was incredible. The entire movie is not in 3D (in fact, most of it is in 2D) but the sequences they did in 3D were a nice addition.

The movie itself screams a history lesson.

[Red_Dazes]

^_^ Just saw it 3D Imax last night.. WOW the IMAX does so much to improve upon the already kick A** visuals. I was a bit worried at first because the show was sold out so everyone was packed in close... and I had to sit next to a gaggle of little kids.

...but man as soon as the movie started they were SILENT. I have a habit of tilting my head to the right when I watch movies.... a word of advice to you all. DO NOT DO IT. It messes with the 3D really bad... I almost puked. lol

Now I think I should go see it in 2D.

[fireheart]

Saw it yesterday (not Boxing Day ), and my boyfriend and I also sprung for 3D. Immediately we discovered two things:

1) There will be such a thing as 3D Advertising....(o.o)
2) I will act like a 5-year-old kid who has just watched a 3D movie for the first time when I watch this film.

Do you want to know why? Because I could not stop going "wow!" every single time night fell during the film....the sequences were amazing. And I also learnt that having a small combo at the theatre does NOT work well. (a small combo at the theatre consists of a popcorn about the size of a small netbook and a drink that equates to a medium at your local Subway)