In “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” said bromance blooms in new directions. Holmes dresses up like a lady to stay in disguise while the two pals even share a dance late in the film.

But what makes “Shadows” more than merely a “count the receipts” sequel is the addition of Moriarity, Holmes’ cerebral arch-enemy. Holmes demands an enemy equal to his intellectual gifts, and actor Jared Harris makes sure the new cinematic Moriarity more than fits that bill.

The inestimable Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and faithful sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law) suspect the mind behind a series of terrorist bombings is none other than Professor Moriarty. But the slick professor isn’t sloppy enough to leave any evidence to prove that suspicion. So Holmes and Watson must outsmart the mastermind before more innocents get killed.

That short summation is far more clear-eyed than the film itself, which once more overwhelms us with the unending style palette of director Guy Ritchie. The British director’s choices aren’t all oversold. He’s keen enough to step back and let Downey and Law banter incessantly, the former’s rapid-fire line readings feel like he can’t wait to share his next thought with us.

And while we cross our arms and wait for the style parade to wind down, along comes Moriarty to give us a villain of real consequence. Harris isn’t a “name” actor that might have lured a few extra ticket buyers, but his intensity and arrogance is a perfect match for Holmes’ flip demeanor.

By now, we know the new, improved Sherlock Holmes is a pugilist of the first order, But the sequel doesn’t give him enough secondary characters with which to scrap. His love interest from the first film, Rachel McAdams, appears just long enough to illustrate just how cruel Moriarty can be to an innocent. And the addition of Noomi Rapace as a fortune teller whose brother figures into the knotty plot adds virtually nothing to the proceedings.

Who needs supporting players when Downey and Law are swapping gentle jibes with such alacrity? Holmes’ affection for his mate is appealing, and while Watson is desperate to marry his longtime squeeze it’s clear he’ll have far more funny scampering around England with his best bud Holmes.

The duo’s connection, a source of surprise the first time around, is played for knowing laughs here. That’s a hearty sign for the franchise – it feels comfortable in its own skin.

And while most popcorn movies run out of imagination long before the final battle, “Shadows” wraps with a grand intellectual cage match and some first-rate humor.

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” won’t make anyone forget the classic Holmes tales of yore, but it’s cheeky spirit makes it a welcome addition to the holiday movie parade.

Well, I don’t want to suggest the non-possibility that director Guy Ritchie has no sequel up his sleeve to follow “A Game of Shadows,” his second neo-Holmes movie. This new one retains some of the virtues of the first—mainly the irrepressible Robert Downey Jr. in the title role; amiable Jude Law as his prickly colleague, Dr. Watson; and Sarah Greenwood’s plush Victorian production design.

But it also continues, and compounds, the shortcomings of that earlier film, chiefly the edited-to-death incoherence of Ritchie’s action scenes, with their tedious slo-mo trappings and kung-fu anachronisms, and his complete indifference to the elegant charm of Conan Doyle’s famous “consulting detective.” I mean, Sherlock Holmes in drag? Please.

While Conan Doyle did bring Moriarty out of the shadows in “The Final Problem” — the Holmes story to which this movie is largely irrelevant—Ritchie drags the evil brainiac onto center stage, which is a predictable mistake. Any character so malign must shrivel in the light; and Jared Harris (of “Mad Men”), who plays the nefarious professor, is too genial a presence to pass for sinister.

Read the full review at Reason.com

Near the beginning of the story, a mother named Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns from a trip to Hong Kong and becomes sick in Minneapolis. Her husband Mitch (Matt Damon) isn’t concerned at first but when her condition begins to rapidly deteriorate, he brings her to the hospital. Soon afterwards, Mitch find out that Beth has died and learns that his son is infected as well. While Mitch seems to be immune to the virus, he watches firsthand as his family falls victim to it.

“Contagion” soon introduces a large group of characters who will be affected, either directly or indirectly, by the virus. Laurence Fishburne plays Dr. Ellis Cheever, the Deputy Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who is hired to create a cure for the virus.  The doctor sends Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) to Minneapolis to investigate the roots of the rapidly-spreading sickness. In the meantime, conspiracy theorist Alan Krumlede (Jude Law) becomes obsessed with the virus after watching an online video of a man infected with it. Krumlede starts spreading rumors online about pharmaceutical companies working with the government in a grand scheme to help the companies earn a massive profit. The film’s cast is huge and also includes Marion Cotillard, Bryan Cranston, Elliott Gould, and John Hawkes.

Unfortunately, few of these characters are well-developed. With such a large cast, it feels like the script was more focused on the virus than the characters who are affected by it. When some of these characters eventually become infected, it’s difficult to care about them. With a smaller cast, this story could have worked a lot better because the filmmakers would have been able to better develop the characters early on. Instead, we’re introduced to characters who die off before we even care about them.

Halfway through, the story also takes a dramatic turn when it starts focusing more on Alan’s theories. The first half of the film is strong as it shows the virus spreading and the work being done to stop it.  In the second half, though, Alan seems to become a main focus of the story. His ideas feel like the rantings of a conspiracy theorist and slow down the pace of this otherwise interesting story.

“Contagion” starts with a simple idea: a deadly virus is spreading uncontrollably.   But then overwhelms it with too many characters and a bizarre side plot about government conspiracies. If it had focused on the medical community’s reaction to the virus and the spread of the disease itself, the story could have worked a lot better.

Director Steven Soderbergh knows how to make movies with a wide range of characters and he showed off that ability in films like “Ocean’s 11” and “Traffic.” However, the screenplay written by Scott Z. Burns does Soderbergh no favors. If the characters aren’t well-crafted in a story like this, the film doesn’t work as it should and that is the ailment that infects “Contagion.”

I am constantly bemused by the attempt to re-set Superman.  The original comics are classic pieces of Americana.  The original movie with Christopher Reeve was wonderful in almost every way – the first forty minutes of the original Superman is pure magic.  And the movie is true to the comic book sensibility: Superman is conflicted about his identity, and wants to tell Lois the truth, but he’s also supremely powerful and uncompromising about his defense of truth, justice, and the American way. 

One of my favorite moments in the movie comes when Superman utters that famous phrase: 

Superman: I’m here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way.
Lois: You’re going to end up fighting every elected official in this country.
Superman: I’m sure you don’t really mean that, Lois. 

He’s sincere in his belief in America.  

Just as importantly, Superman is sincere in his masculinity.  He doesn’t wax his chest, he doesn’t whine about having to do his job, and he will literally turn the earth backwards in order to save the woman he loves. 

Fast forward thirty years.  Now we’re hearing that DC Comics wants to reshape Superman.  According to the New York Post, the Man of Steel will now be “a conflicted 20-year-old who’s trying to find his way in the world … He wears hoodies, has smoldering eyes and, as a lanky Clark Kent, wears low-cut pants and hipster skinny ties.”  Even more disturbingly, according to CNSNews.com, the new Superman will be an emissary of the international way which presumably will be more in line with multicultural norms and practices. “I was raised in this country. I believe in this country,” Supermetroman will say.  “Does it have its flaws? Yes. Does it have its moments of greatness? Yes. Bottom line is, it’s my home and I’ll always carry those values around with me. But if I do what I can do just for the U.S., it’s going to destabilize the whole world. It could even lead to war.” 

Yeah, that has best-seller written all-over it. 

But that’s the way our culture has been moving in terms of its heroes.  Our movie stars are now metrosexual rather than men’s men.  John Wayne is out.  Jude Law is in.   

It’s been a long transition, a transition that began with the androgynous heroes of the 1970s – testosterone-free actors like Dustin Hoffman and Jack Nicholson became pop culture icons, replacing the Errol Flynns and the Marlon Brandos.  Now we’ve left androgyny and asexuality behind altogether, and we’re casting men who look like chicks (with the notable exceptions of Christian Bale and Russell Crowe).  Slap a wig on Taylor Lautner and you’ve got Lea Michele.  Johnny Depp can swishbuckle with the best of them because if he shaves, he looks a good deal like Kiera Knightley.

And yet these so-called stars can’t bring in audiences.  Four of Depp’s last five films not involving pirates have underperformed at the box office (the lone exception was Alice In Wonderland, in which Depp played Jack Sparrow with red hair and slightly less coherence).  Jude Law hasn’t headlined a hit in his entire career (Sherlock Holmes was Robert Downey Jr.’s show, start-to-finish).  Leonardo DiCaprio makes hits because he works with actors directors who are more famous than he is – Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorcese and James Cameron don’t need DiCaprio, he needs them.  And that’s not even looking at the worst of the lot: Ashton Kutcher, Robert Pattinson, Hayden Christiansen, to name a few. 

This isn’t a rip on any of these men’s acting abilities (except Kutcher, Pattinson, and Christiansen, who suck).  They’re all talented, particularly DiCaprio, who hasn’t yet fallen into Depp territory in terms of mannered performance.  But Hollywood can’t seem to understand why it isn’t developing stars with actual appeal, even as it wastes cash on the next Michael Cera flick.  

The solution is right before their faces.  Sylvester Stallone rolls out of bed after making virtually nothing for almost a decade, then churns out Rocky Balboa ($155 million), Rambo ($154 million), and The Expendables ($257 million).  Bruce Willis strolls through RED and Live Free, Die Hard, and the movies pick up a fortune.  Clint Eastwood is still an enormous draw.  America’s newest action star is Liam Neeson, who is 58 years young.  More people will still shell out bucks to see Harrison Ford (as long as he stops the metrosexual post-Calista Flockhart crap) and Sean Connery than they will to see Robert Pattinson sans fangs. 

It’s not because they’re old.  It’s because they’re dudes.  Men want to be them.  Women want to be with them.  They kick ass, take names, and don’t shave their chests. 

Most of today’s male stars are douchefaces, in Greg Gutfeld’s terminology.  They would never just ask a woman out on a date, romance her, and marry her, then provide for her and the children.  Rather, they’re like Zach Braff: “the guy you shake hands with when introduced, and he smirks, or stares at your girlfriend’s tits.  When you actually talk to him, you find out that he’s in a band.  When you talk to him some more, you realize you want to kill him.”  More precisely, they’re the guys who become best friends with a girl just to get to know her, subvert her boyfriend for two years, then when she breaks up with him, step in and provide a shoulder to cry on.  In other words, Patrick Dempsey in the worst movie of all time, Made of Honor (and/or every other Patrick Dempsey movie). 

Hollywood may think it’s time for the more sensitive male to take over the screen from their cavemen predecessors.  As long as Americans have a say at the box office, however, there will be an enormous untapped market for male characters who actually act like dudes.

Ritchie’s slovenly Holmes is a long way from Basil Rathbone’s, the actor who played the resident of 221 B Baker Street in 14 films over half as many years starting in 1939, and he’s even further from Doyle’s. The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case, a glib ladies man and ready action hero who knows how to use his fists.  As his physician-partner in crimesolving, Jude Law grabs his best role in years as Holmes’ closest friend and mother hen.

Set in London in the late 1800s, the game afoot does not involve Holmes most famous nemesis Professor Moriarty this time, but instead Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), a presumably hanged ritual killer and user of the dark arts who might have risen from the dead with a master plan for world domination. Through an influential Gentleman’s Club of fellow occultists, Blackwood all but controls Scotland Yard which leaves only  Holmes, Watson and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) — a scheming American woman from Holmes’ past with dueling loyalties and a mind just as sharp as her romantic rival’s — to stop him.  

The glue that holds the narrative together is not a somewhat convoluted –though smart in places – story, or the tense, suspicious romance between Holmes and Irene (has anyone ever created romantic sparks with McAdams?), but rather the detective’s affectionate friendship with Watson. Contrary to the rumor, there’s no gay subtext at work here. The dynamic between the two adventurers is similar to Hope and Crosby‘s “Road” films not a mountain named Brokeback. Holmes knows he’d be lost and lonely without his old friend to guide him, and though he doesn’t know it, Watson would be terribly bored were he to go through with his plans to marry and stake out a life as a run-of-the mill physician.

That’s not to say the film doesn’t employ other charms. There are a couple of terrific actions sequences, one involving a shipyard and the other a slow-motion explosion, and the washed out cinematography does a lot to hide the CGI’d cityscapes and create the perfect wet and foggy atmosphere for such a dark story.  But the real plus is Ritchie’s success where it counts. Like Easter eggs for purists, bits and pieces of Doyle’s stories are seamlessly integrated into this affectionate piece of revisionism, and then there’s the genuine star chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law. Much can be forgiven if a film’s central relationship works, and as was the case with “Iron Man,” the blockbuster that made Downey Jr. the superstar comeback story of the decade, it’s hard to imagine how much lesser “Holmes” would be without him.

Fun, frivolous, and bearing no agenda other than pure holiday escapism, Guy Ritchie and Jude Law have officially earned a comeback, Downey Jr. has cemented his, and that promise of a sequel made just before the final fade sounds good to me.

UPDATE: Here are a couple of well-argued articles, one via Instapundit and the second from reader Nate Winchester, claiming the film is closer to Doyle than I gave it credit for. Instapundit’s is the more convincing; the idea being that Doyle gave Holmes certain character traits that “Guy Richie’s re-invention of the Sherlock Holmes film has, at it’s core, a great idea: let’s re-examine the way Doyle might have written about the exact same character in a more permissive, action-oriented era. All the elements are there[.]”

That’s an excellent way to put it. Or as one commenter put it, Ritchie “extrapolated” what would work best for a modern action-adventure. The link from Winchester is to an article written prior to the author seeing the film, but still worth a read.

My apologies for bringing up old crap, but Clooney’s statement, especially the part about how he’s so proud to be out of touch, is one of the most bafflingly odd things I’ve ever heard coming from Clooney, who’s also famous for telling anyone who’ll listen that everybody tells him all the time how brave he was for making a black and white movie about the red scare. It’s very revealing that Clooney would say this, to cheers, a mere three years after a child-rapist was handed an award by that same Academy.

Cut to the present, the child-rapist is caught, and much of Hollywood is outraged. “He should be allowed to live his life,” wrote Peter Bart, his words practically streaked with tears. Hey, guess what, Pete? He has been allowed to live his life. They’re all like Clooney, proud be out of touch. But why? To answer this question, we turn to the genius of one George Costanza.

They’re different than the rest of us. They’re “delicate geniuses.”

Back to the Academy Awards, who can forget Sean Penn humorlessly, smugly, embarrassingly chiding Chris Rock for poking fun at fellow delicate genius Jude Law? Rock’s offense? A joke, dripping with truth, which pointed out that Jude Law is not a box office draw. The box office doesn’t matter to them. Hell, look at the movies they nominate nowadays. They’ve grown more out of touch than ever. You think “The Sting” would get nominated for Best Picture today? Much less win? Or “Jaws”?

And then there’s David Cross (of “Arrested Development” fame), who brags that he snorted coke near Obama. If you don’t think that’s super-cool, then you’re probably a stupid Christian. He’s one of those atheists for whom it’s not nearly enough to just not believe in God, he has to build a stand-up career out of his atheism. He’s always been strangely uninformed about Christianity, but that doesn’t stop him from cracking hipster jokes about Christians. Back in 1999, he joked that he couldn’t wait to make fun of Christians when Y2K turned out to be a global non-factor. In this hilarious segment, Cross discussed Y2K more than my Southern Baptist Pastor did in an entire year.

Cross’ cocaine story, coupled with the story last week about Academy Award fixture Hilary Swank–the she sashays around the house nude in front of her boyfriend’s six-year-old kid–illustrates what’s gone wrong with the delicate geniuses.  Hilary, please, put us on a need-to-know basis. You were way cooler when you were the underdog, the “Next Karate Kid” made good. We simply know too much about the delicate geniuses. The delicate geniuses would be more respected and adored by their audiences if they embraced a little mystery. Remember when Sean Penn crazily demanded privacy? He was sooooo much cooler then. We all knew Paul Newman was a liberal, but I never got the impression that he thought that made him smarter than his audience.

But that’s exactly how the current stars sound when they take credit for the Civil Rights Movement, or wish shame on the grandchildren of people with different opinions than their own (that’s you, Mr. Penn), or indulge us with their stories about getting a snootful of Bolivian Marching Powder while in the company of The Savior, or traipsing around nekkid in the company of kids. They’re enlightened, you see, and we’re the uneducated masses.

Just as last season brought a record number of plays as well as stellar gross sales (despite doom-sayers in the industry) this season already looks locked and loaded with a huge number of shows scheduled to open between October 1st and the first week of May (the traditional Tony nomination cut-off).  So to help the readers of Big Hollywood plan their trip to the Great White Way (we can still say that, can’t we?), I submit the top 10 things to look for from the center/right perspective:

10.  ”Superior Donuts” – A transfer from Chicago’s Steppenwolf Theatre (one of my personal favorite regional houses in America), the play stars “Spinal Tap”’s Michael McKean as an aging hippie who owns a donut shop in a largely black neighborhood and Jon Michael Hill (do all young Broadway actors HAVE to go by three names now?) as a 21-year-old from the neighborhood who talks his way into a job at the shop.  From the New York Times review:  ”In one of the play’s most amusing exchanges Franco challenges Arthur to name 10 black poets. Arthur names a few, then stands dumb, a look of deep concentration on his face. “It’s like watching George Bush on ‘Jeopardy!’ ” Franco cracks.”

9.  ”Hamlet” – Uber-UN activist Jude Law stars as the Danish prince in a Broadway transfer from London’s famed Donmar Warehouse theatre company.  His performance was almost universally praised by Fleet Street’s snarky critics.  This production has Hamlet delivering his “To be, or not to be” soliloquy in an on-stage snowfall.

8.  ”Bye, Bye, Birdie” – One of the first musicals to embrace pop music with a back-beat, “Bye, Bye, Birdie” will receive a revival at New York’s Roundabout Theatre Company.  It will star Gina Gershon, Dee Hoty, Bill Irwin and (wait for it….) John Stamos.  All I can say is this production has the potential to be fantastic, or to be a complete disaster… don’t expect anything in between.

7.  ”The Neil Simon Plays:  Brighton Beach Memoirs & Broadway Bound” – Revivals of two of the three plays which made up the Neil Simon “BB” trilogy will play in repertory this Fall (I’m guessing the middle play, “Biloxi Blues,” is omitted because Brighton Beach and Broadway Bound share the exact same set which is the Brighton Beach home of Simon’s alter-ego, Eugene, so it is much easier to play them in Rep.  Biloxi takes place in an Army barracks as it follow Eugene through basic training).  The revivals will star Laurie Metcalf.

6.  ”In the Next Room (or the Vibrator Play)” – After having its world premiere at Berkley Rep., this play is transferring to Broadway via Lincoln Center Theatre.  The New York Times describes the play as:  “A fanciful but compassionate consideration of the treatment, and the mistreatment, of women in the late 19th century” and the show’s website calls it “a comedy about marriage, intimacy and electricity.” Hmmm…  In the words of Forrest Gump:  ”And that’s all I have to say about that.”

5.  ”Race” – World Premiere of David Mamet’s newest play starring James Spader, Kerry Washington and Richard Thomas.  When asked about details of the plot, producer Jefferey Richards said:  ”The title speaks for itself.”  Mamet, Spader and a play called “Race.”  Seriously, ENOUGH SAID!

4.  ”A Steady Rain” – Starring Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman, this play is one of the most anticipated of the Fall.  A press report describes the Chicago premiere as: “A Steady Rain chronicles love and rage on the streets of Chicago as a domestic disturbance call sends two Chicago cops, friends since childhood, on a harrowing journey that will test their loyalties and change their lives forever.” But, as the NY Post succinctly said: “Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman in police uniforms? All the boys will be there!”

3.  ”The Addams Family” – A musical adaptation of the famous, macabre characters starring Nathan Lane and Bebe Neuwerth.  I am both embarrassed and proud that I am SO looking forward to this show!

2.  ”The Royal Family“  – George S. Kaufman and Edna Ferber’s famous parody of the Barrymore family, this revival will star Rosemary Harris, Stephen Collins, John Glover, Tony Roberts, Jan Maxwell, Ana Gasteyer and Reg Rogers.  Its view of celebrity and privilege in the tunnel-vision perspective of an actor’s life resonates just as perfectly today as it did in 1927.  Really looking forward to see this cast play those characters (especially since I went to school with one of them!).

1.  ”Oleanna” – The Broadway premiere of Mamet’s 1992 Pulitzer-Prize winning play (it appeared off-Broadway at that time making this production it’s Broadway premiere).  When originally produced, this play was a compelling, challenging and electrifying reflection of the ground-breaking Clarence Thomas hearing that had split the nation the year before.  The 1992 production starring William H. Macy and Rebecca Pidgeon was universally praised for its thought-provoking approach to the issue of sexual harassment and the use of rhetoric as a weapon in politically correct America.  None other than Frank Rich gave it one of his strongest endorsements as theatre critic of the New York Times.  But, a funny thing happened between 1992 and today, David Mamet famously proclaimed himself “No longer a brain-dead liberal.”  Will this breach of liberal dogma and orthodoxy in any way affect the theatre community’s once universal praise of “Oleanna”?  I know I will be looking very closely at how it is received by the critics as well as industry insiders.  This new revival premiered in Los Angeles at the Mark Taper Forum starring Bill Pullman and Julia Stiles.

Stage Right is on Facebook.

Director Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” opens Christmas Day 2009.

Since putting a “fatwa” on my head seems to be in vogue, I’m banking on getting my face on the cover of “GQ”. Get lost, Jude Law.

Sure, following the massive influx of violent threats, I could have opted to remove the most recent video. Everyone else (YouTube officials, in particular) seem to be kowtowing to these crazy Islamic cyber-fear-mongers.  I’d rather be keel-hauled.

With this post I’m hoping to finally expose and open a discussion (the term “brainstorm” might be more appropriate) on how to deal with cyber-terrorism. No, I’m not talking about the dramatic, “hack into the Federal Governments computers (a la Mafiaboy) and destroy the system” type of cyber-terrorism, but rather the type of online intimidation that occurs in our living rooms every day, making us afraid to speak out.

God forbid you insinuate the religion of Islam is anything short of peaceful. It only results in responses such as these:

“DEATH WILL FIND YOU NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE EVEN IF YOUR ON THE MOON WITH WALLS BUILD UP HIGH DEATH WILL STILL COME AND FIND YOU”

“ur a freaken racist pig… otherwise u wouldnt be making any sarcastic remarks…u just got the worst reputation amoungst muslims that I showed that video to…they were cursing u like crazy….take my advice and remove that racist video”

“you should actually post a new video, correcting the mistakes you made in this video, and im sure you know which ones you made, because that’s the only way that’s gonna save you from a freak accident.”

“FYI, i am glad, because if u said this to my face, u would be on the floor. simple. u come here and disrespect me, forget me, u disrespect the prophet pbuh, u expect me to just sit by, u disrespect the quran and then u try to play it off. u r a joke. a joke. dont EVER do this again. EVER.”

“your a jew ISLAM WILL TAKE OVER THE WHOLE WORLD”

“u should make a video apologize to the muslim community. thats the only option u have.”

Charming.  In their defense folks… My video IS classified as hate speech. At least, that’s what thousands of Muslims said whilst flooding YouTube with constant “flagging.” In case you haven’t yet heard, there are actual online Muslim networks that exist solely for this purpose. The minute anything even remotely critical of Islam pops up online, thousands of members are notified and are commanded to flag, spam and utilize comment suppression techniques that ultimately result in the video’s removal and permanent banning of the user.

The frightening part is that their “Denial of Service” tactics are devastatingly effective, extremely covert and easily mobilized.  I guess that a nation of people who can’t fire their Kalashnikovs without blowing out a shoulder socket have finally found a way to level the playing. Allah Akbar!

Multimedia sites are becoming a playground for liberal propaganda and unfair censorship… All in the name of “tolerance.”  My question to you is this: What can you do to help stop it? What can we ALL do to counterbalance the growing offense that’s been mounted?

Whereas the Colt revolver once served as the great equalizer, the personal computer has taken its place. We can either add it to our own arsenal or fall by the wayside and let the “Sentenza Angel Eyes” of the world ride off into the sunset.

…Oh, and Sean Penn sucks.