“Nine”

Rated PG-13 for sexual content and smoking.



“Nine,” based on a musical of the same name, distracted me from itself. All during the movie, I kept saying to myself, “Why am I thinking of Moulin Rouge?” And, “I sure liked Moulin Rouge.” And “I wished I were watching Moulin Rouge.”

“Nine” is a story about a famous Italian movie director named Guido Contini (think Federico Fellini) played, most oddly, by Daniel Day-Lewis. The film centers around the 1960s. Contini, at middle age, is famous for his earlier films, not the recent flops. He is a bit depressed but he is going to make a new movie, “Italia.” Poor “Maestro” (that is what the public calls him), is suffering from artistic constipation. He mopes around Italy , driving his convertible, lying, avoiding responsibility, and dallying with his mistress, played by Penélope Cruz.

Sorry, but to me, Guido is a narcissistic cad, not a sympathetic character. He is another self-indulgent celebrity wallowing in his own pity. In “Nine,” this self-possessed celebrity sings a few songs and imagines others doing the same, including a prostitute (played impressively by Fergie) who hangs around a beach bunker, and for a few coins, dances seductively for a bunch of pre-adolescent boys including the young Guido. This on-the-beach scene merges into an impressive and massive production number on a sound stage … all of this played out in Guido’s memory and imagination.

I think we are supposed to be sympathetic to this guy and drawn by his magnetic personality. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Day-Lewis, but in “Nine,” he does not deliver the goods. Although Sophia Loren, who appears in the film as Guido’s mother, is most regal, I am not seduced by her. In fact, I am not moved by anyone or anything in the film. One or two musical numbers does not a good film make.

“Nine” earns two and a half bow ties out of five.



“Sherlock Holmes”

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material.

Want to bypass the disappointment that is “Nine?” Then, there is “Sherlock Holmes” with Robert Downey Jr., as the Master detective; the most popular fictional character in world literature (well, with the possible exception of Mickey Mouse).

This “Sherlock Holmes” is loaded with bells and whistles — enough to keep 21st century film fans entertained. In this movie, Watson gets beefed up thanks to Jude Law. (Holmes is supposed to be tall, but he is dwarfed by Watson in this version — a little disconcerting to me.) Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the only woman who impressed Holmes, is featured prominently. Ms. McAdams does a fine job and is most compelling. The bad guy is involved in the Black Arts and he has some cronies in high places. The plan is to take over the world, naturally. Holmes and Watson will have none of that.

I am an amateur Sherlockian and perhaps I should be indignant at the liberties taken by the filmmakers, but I loved “Sherlock Holmes.” It is pure cotton candy, full of fluff and way too much sugar, but it was funny and glorious to watch. It is not spectacular, not a classic, not brilliant; it is just cracking good fun. This is a Sherlock Holmes film presented with a wickedly impish wink. Purists should not go to see “Sherlock Holmes” expecting Jeremy Brett (of the PBS “Sherlock Holmes” series). This is a fun-loving Holmes; he does not suffer from bipolar disorder, he is an overgrown frat boy.

This is Hollywood Sherlock Holmes, with f/x (special effects) and a mega dose of super heroism. Schmaltzy it is, but if you want a thinking person’s Sherlock Holmes, rent the PBS series.

If you crave pure empty-minded entertainment, then: be it ever so unhumble, there is no film like this Sherlock Holmes.

“Sherlock Holmes” earns four bow ties out of five.