NINE ☆☆☆

"Nine" is a musical close to mediocrity, but I'll give it it's due.

The new movie musical, from choreographer/director Rob Marshall (of "Chicago" and the visual drama "Memoirs of a Geisha"), is a good music performance. The numbers aren't half bad, and the songs are lyrical, poetic, and pretty darn catchy. Marshall can work a tune on camera, and it helps he has a lot of great material (thanks Maury Yeston!), but Marshall's problem is that the movie's music numbers don't sing. They don't soar, or fly, or bounce all over the place, and for a musical that needs those show-stopping tunes to really be anything close to a musical, they definitely should. And I would think for any of that to work is to have good editing. So, in a way, should I blame the editors, Claire Simpson and Wyatt Smith? (Well, at any rate, the director should have pushed them more.) "Chicago," though not a great musical, either, still blasted a lot of their numbers with excellent camera work that danced and flew, and cuts that bounced and flashed and made us tap our feet at 90 miles an hour. "Nine" needed to be that.

On a good note, something positive of Marshall is his one great talent on his shows is garnering a very talented crew, who each exuberate great visuals, shot's that are visually arresting, with beautiful lighting, camera work, costume and set dress (just see "Chicago" or "Geisha," especially "Geisha,", and you would agree with me); photographer Dion Beebe, who moves his camera with great ease, the ever fabulous costume lady Colleen Atwood, and production designer John Myhre, all do wonderful work here, and bring out "Nine" beautifully.

Next to the music and the visuals, the story of "Nine," on the other hand, just wasn't taken on well enough. Marshall's "Geisha," a movie with no music tunes, suffered dramatically simply because Marshall couldn't tell a story with the flare he could with a dance number. Personally, every time the music stopped and the frustrated inner turmoil of Guido Contini came up, I sulked and waited for the next number.

Though it's hard to say, in spite of Marshall, the movie doesn't have a nice cast to back him up: Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Kate Hudson, Judi Dench, most Oscar winners, by the way. Their acting is wasted a little, but they each are given a tune to sing, and excel with them. They blew their vocals and surprised me they could even do that. For having them in the movie, that did it for me.

Not a bad script job, too. From Michael Tolkin and Anothony Minghella (the Academy Award winning director of "The English Patient"), who, sadly, recently passed away last year.

"Nine," isn't a bad musical, and it can get you that fix, but if you want a really excellent one, I would see "Moulin Rouge!" And in the case of "Nine," if you aren't willing to sit with contemptuous Guido Contini, I would just buy the soundtrack.

SHERLOCK HOLMES ☆☆☆

The new Sherlock Holmes is flashy, suave, cool, but also brutal, gritty, tough, and, as he should be, very smart. Director Guy Richie's take, with Robert Downey Jr. as the eccentric case detective and now head basher Sherlock Holmes, and Jude Law as his companion, the aristocratic-type, but brazen Dr. John Watson, is very stylish and very fun; 1800's London looks very dark and dirty, but in a good, Gothic-sort-of-way, with lots of detailed and lavish production design and CG overcast skies to help fill in the gloom. Even with Holmes being a rough boxer and Watson the objective, non-passive and intolerable doctor as Holmes sort-of subconscious, the script retains Doyle's Holmes, the intelligent, detail oriented super sleuth and his loyal partner. Here, in 09's "Sherlock Holmes," Richie, Downey Jr. and Law play off some comedic banter of Holmes and Watson, as well as having them get into lots of dangerous cliffhangers together, but still have the fun whoduit mystery that makes Holmes' puzzle deducing so good to follow along with. Now, the case of "Sherlock Holmes" isn't the mystery of the century, but it keeps your interest, and Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are so much fun to watch on screen anyway.

The rest of the cast is good: Rachel McAdams as the sexy, clever crime lady Irene Alder, Mark Strong as the mysterious villian, Lord Blackwood (we honestly don't see much of him in this movie, and we should have) and Eddie Marsan (more low key here) as Inspector Lestrade. The script, especially the dialogue, is smart, fast and witty, written by Anthony Peckham (writer of Clint Eastwood's latest, "Invictus"), Michael Robert Johnson and Simon Kinberg. I liked Hans Zimmer's score here, too, again synthetic-sounding and loud, but nicely playing off the motifs with banjos, being the new Holmes instrument of choice.

Again, the story, and the case, could have been more involving, but it moves along briskly, and with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, very stylishly so.

UP IN THE AIR ☆☆☆ 1/2

A good story, and director Jason Reitman (of "Thank You for Smoking" and "Juno," and yes, son of Ivan "Ghostbusters" Reitman) brings out the humanity of "Up in the Air" better than anything else he's ever done. The movie is charming and very funny, but the drama seethes through just as well, hiding it's subtle poetic underpinnings, all evoked by good writing and an involved cast: George Clooney, Anna Kendrick, Vera Farmiga, Jason Bateman, Melanie Lynskey, Danny McBride, all give full character profiles or nuanced performances (I'll throw Sam Elliot in there for a nice comedic touch, mostly because I'm convinced he was playing himself).

And the timing couldn't have been better. With the economy in the dumps, "Up in the Air" finds Ryan Bingham, a corporate firing specialist, letting go more people in a single company than he would have a whole town five years earlier. We see all this through Natalie Keener, a young business pioneer, as office after office finds a list as long as Santa's naughty parchment of simple, hard workers to let go. Once we even see a very spacious office floor nearly empty, with scatterings of desks here and there. Reitman knows how fragile the material is, and presents it with just enough intimacy that we can watch without crying our eyes out, but feeling for every person fired by Clooney and his sure-fire (ha) verbal debriefing methods. Reitman even puts a nice touch with most of the fired-iees by actually casting real fired employees and having them lament on camera. Their testimonies are put together with a timely feel, evoking the times we live in with modest precision. And the testimonies are utilized at the end to help cement the film's point, which is further presented by Clooeny's Bingham through narration, "The stars will wheel forth from their daytime hiding places; and one of those, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over." I wouldn't give anything away for spoilers, but "Up in the Air" has a great theme, and is uplifting in this economic climate.

"Up in the Air" was made for the right time, at the right time. Hopefully, audiences will appreciate it more when it hits wide on Christmas, though Oscar will certainly relish it, but it wouldn't need one night of glamour to be remembered forever. Let it's audience decide.

AVATAR ☆☆☆☆

"Who's king of the world? Go on, James. Say it. Don't be shy. Who's the king of the world?"

"I am"

"That's right! Yes-you-are!"

There are movies that come along once in a while that are made with such vision, such scope, such huge undertakings of pyrotechnics (here CGI), that require such new feats of technology (here new 3D cameras and advanced performance capture), that there are only so many filmmakers who can accomplish it, stomach the pressure and the overwhelming hardship and workload, and who could only pull it off with not just good storytelling, but (excuse me) massive amounts of balls. James Cameron is one of those filmmakers. And after "Titanic," one of the best epic, romantic films ever made, we could have waited another decade for "Avatar."

"Avatar," James Cameron's sci-fi/fantasy genre explosion, is three syllables over WOW and into HOLY SHIT. It's an achievement of scope and CG animation coated as a crowd-pleasing action-packed extravaganza with a final blow-out battle that leaves the audience with a sense of astonishment and ultimate satisfaction. And, more importantly, it's a revolution to the escapist/sci-fi genre; it's a story that hasn't been tackled with this much width and imagination since "2001," or had the same impact as the first "Star Wars." The showing I attended, even at 11:30 in the morning, was sold out (so glad I bought a ticket the night before, though, granted, it was in IMAX 3D), and people were lining up in advance for the next screening. "Star Wars" had the same turnout. Could "Avatar" be the next non-franchise phenomenon? I don't here sequel, but I do hear a high chant culminating from the recesses of thousands of cinemas worldwide, "CAMERON! CAMERON! CAMERON!" It's a well deserved victory for him, and audiences are showing how willing they are to throw down their gold coins (or cash) to carry him to the winner's circle. Cameron could prove again that he is the king of the box office, and "Avatar" could go down as the highest grossing film of all time. The numbers are already impressive with $73 million domestically adding to over $200 million worldwide. I know "King Kong," Peter Jackson's big opus after the phenomenon of his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, was expected to top 'Titanic" for all time box office honors, but wasn't even close with less than $200 million at home. It may be Cameron has that certain magic that other films lack, or more hype than any other film could ask for. "Avatar" was a movie long in the making, for Cameron over a decade, and was predicted by critics as his next great masterpiece, and fan hype exploded over a still young internet, not to mention after "The Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" proved so worthwhile, everyone was screaming for more escapist fantasy, and after the end of "Star Wars" there was still hungering for the next great epic science fiction/fantasy film. The call was answered, and answered like a supernova explosion.

Now, "Avatar" isn't a masterpiece, or Cameron's best film. The movie isn't flawless. Like George Lucas before him, James Cameron's writing in science fiction isn't really the best. The story, though it doesn't lack that breadth, isn't involving enough. It's character's are flat, and their dialogue equally bland and humorless, and the actors are given more room to spread their CG muscles then their acting chops.

"Avatar" isn't perfect, but because of the movie's overpowering hold on our sense of wonderment it's flaws are nothing but pesky nats to swat away when we loss ourselves in the summer breeze. It's the movie of the year.

DVD REVIEW: 12 ☆☆☆ 1/2

The most impressive cast of roaring Russians I have ever seen together in one film, and it's only necessary that it be a remake of "12 Angry Men," and I'm such a fan of the original anyway, I had to see "12."

It's star and director, Nikita Mikhalkov, in the Henry Fonda hero role as Juror #2, runs the show with a great romantic vision of civil dispute that's so worthy of the story it makes for a much bigger and meaningful film than the slums of America did for Sidney Lumet. (Tops to the photographer, Vladislav Opelyants; the movie looks beautiful and is shot with a great eye.)

The cast is just top-notch, probably some of the best in the Russian industry, who play each juror with mad conviction, angry and screaming like raging killers. For the whole cast it's a grand portrayal of the jurors, and for a movie near three hours I could watch these guys duke it out for another hour more. (If I have one problem, it's the subtitles swished by too quick as the lines delivered were so fast. I couldn't see how you would do it any other way. Dub it and sacrifice the great verbal performance? I don't think so. Dubbing would have killed this movie.)

Another thing I also like about "12" is how for this interpretation the jurors, going, one by one, from guilty to not guilty, were able to relate to the young boy under trail through realizations in their own lives, stories in their past that effected them deeply and hence brought them around to the empathy of the boy. The original "12 Angry Men" had it's jurors just coming to reason as the sole "non-guilty" juror was able to steer them to convincing evidence and conclusions. That isn't to say Sidney Lumet's film isn't human. Both films are, and very. And that gives it the meaning, and makes each one a great film.

DVD REVIEW: INK ☆☆☆

To make a movie, to turn it into something that looks like it could have been made with the biggest budget, the best pyrotechnics, the most impressive cast and crew, and the one passionate director that has just as much vision and stamina as James Cameron, is a movie to take away from, at least for up-and-coming filmmakers.

"Ink" is a low-budget movie with a great original vision of the sci-fi/fantasy, and is very well written and directed by it's creator, Jamin Winans, an unknown indie movie man with his own production company (Winans was even the movie editor, though his constant cuts to show his various coverage I would have done without, but he did it with flash). With "Ink's" minimal resources, the movie is an impressive feat. It has scope, a well structured narrative, convincing visual effects, and interesting characters. Not too rounded, I admit, but carry the movie like Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise would.

The movie needed, I'm sure at times, bit sets, lots of planning, and a large cast and crew to put it underway, but who says you can't do it? Though on a bigger scale, and budget, than the recent sleeper smash "Paranormal Activity" (that was made for $15,000, and "Ink" $250,000), "Ink" is a great example of undertaking a big feat with just a hint of the dreams that go through the vision of some of the world's greatest Hollywood directors. It's an amateur's masterpiece.