I thought the first one was more mysterious, and had the benefit of being surprisingly funny and exciting, whereas with this one, a bar had already been set.
So I get when people are wondering where the sort of genius Holmes they're used to has gone, because this Holmes doesn't really demonstrate much long game (not that he's dumb--just that all the brilliance is about things happening in the short term).
However, I do adore the competence of Watson, both physically and mentally. I will always sideeye people who defend the Rathbone Holmes *too* much, just because he was such a buffoon.
Also! Stephen Fry! (Whose character apparently needs to have the benefits of
heterosexuality
explained to him, despite also being a genius)
Oh yeah, I loved Watson's competence. But I do see what you're saying.
Will Rock of Ages feature Tom Cruise not taking himself seriously? I don't know anything about the story, or how straight it's played.
I don't know either, but I thought that trailer looked dreadful.
From all I've heard, the stage show doesn't take itself at all seriously.
I did want to stab things, including myself. And rip off all their wigs.
So my 12YO niece and 14YO nephew dragged me to the new Twilight movie over the weekend. I think I'd have enjoyed the movie more if it just realized it was overwrought, half-baked melodrama and ran with it. Or if Edward and Jacob had decided that they didn't need Isabella, and run off together.
They also wanted to see the new Chipmunks movie. A mildly diverting but very forgettable hour and a half.
You deserve a big gold star as an uncle, Fred Pete.
I think it's crazy who some of the Chipmunk voice actors are -- Amy Poehler, Matthew Gray Gubler???? (Am less suprised by Anna Faris and Christina Applegate on the ladies' side.)
