Short version: Really quite enjoyable.

Mr. Scott Walters took me up on my big screen offer this week, so TNM hit the Riverview Theater for 2011′s Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, the sequel to 2009′s Sherlock Holmes. All the major talent returned for this one: Robert Downey Jr (Sherlock), Jude Law (Watson), Rachel McAdams (Adler), as well as director Guy Ritchie. New to AGoS, Stephen Fry played a wonderful Mycroft, Jared Harris was solid as Moriarity, and Noomi Rapace played a gypsy fortune teller/revolutionary, which actually worked pretty well as sort of a sidekick to Watson in a few scenes.

Pretty straight-forward plot in this one – Holmes plays a game of cat-and-mouse with Moriarity, who’s manipulating national dignitaries in an attempt to start (and profit from) a war. He lures Watson away from his honeymoon (subplot A) and joins with Rapace’s character because her brother is mixed up in Moriarity’s schemes (subplot B). The movie is a little light on dialogue and development, but it doesn’t really have to be deep. AGoS builds directly off the 2009 SH movie, including the slick action scenes where we see Holmes fighting out the scene in his mind, and then fighting it out for real. It’s well paced, and interesting enough to hold together.

I remember walking away from SH thinking that it could have been outstanding, but fell just short of that, which was disappointing. Perhaps my expectations were lowered for AGoS, so while I thought it didn’t come as close to being an outstanding movie, I enjoyed it from start to finish. Unfortunately for this set of Holmes characters, what the movie also showed me was just how absolutely outstanding the current BBC run of Sherlock is, in both story and cast. Especially Moriarity. Seriously, Sherlock is worth watching once JUST for Andrew Scott’s turn as Moriarity. It’s a little unfair to compare the two, but inevitable since they’re two Sherlock franchises running at the same time.

In the end, I do recommend seeing Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows – especially if you enjoyed the first movie, but it also stands well on its own. …and then after that go rent the Sherlock DVDs, because seriously, everyone needs to see that show.

No movie this week. Not because I don’t love you (I do).

It’s because it’s my birthday! And I’m gonna watch the end of the Wild game (because I’m a glutton for punishment), and then start watching the first season of Community (in an attempt to finally get my sister off my back about it).

We will resume regular programming next week.

*URG*. It happened again.

A co-worker just called me “Wayne.” It’s understandable in that it’s his first week on the jov.

But still.

Being called Wayne may be my biggest pet peeve. I’m not exactly sure on the reason. It’s probably because I knew two Waynes growing up, and neither is a person to whom I want to be preferred. Anyone who mistakenly calls me Wayne these days is by no way confusing or comparing me with these two, but it still irks me.

As a public service to you, gentle reader, here is the unabridged list of names that I do not like to be called. Please adjust your behavior accordingly.

• Wayne
• Ward
• Big Guy
• Chad
• Chaz
• Wader Tater
• Metta Wade Peace
• Wade Van House

As I walked through the skyways just now, I noticed three people sporting backpacks emblazoned with the following logo:

In case you just arrived here from… well, the moon, that’s Nike’s Michael Jordan logo. (Technically, this is supposed to be referred to as “Jumpman.” I’ve never heard anyone actually use that term.) The Jordan silhouette has been used by Nike on their Jordan-branded gear since 1985. Pure marketing genuis in the mid- to late- 80′s– in my middle school, the Nike Air Jordan high-top shoes (“Jordans,” if you’re into the whole brevity thing) were much revered. Only a lucky few were able to afford such remarkable footwear, while the rest of us sullen proletariat were forced to trudge to school in our Asics, New Balances, and Nevados, likely procured from the Shoe Carnival.

This Jordan athletic idolatry made sense 20 years ago. Have you seen Michael Jordan lately?





He’s definitely not at the Barkley level of roundness, and I’m the last person to make fun of another’s weight… but you think Nike might stop pushing fitness-related gear associated with a guy who hasn’t seen a sit up in a decade.

To be a luddite, or not to be a luddite? That’s my question. While not opposed to technology– that would be just silly– I certainly value boundaries, both in costs and in distractions. So, low-tech or high-tech? Which is nobler?

I’m blathering, naturally, about the stuff in my pockets. Right now, I have:

1) a Blackberry Bold smartphone, sponsored by my work and used to get my work e-mails, as well as some rudimentary web surfing and texting
2) a Blackberry Curve smartphone, sponsored by me and used to get… well, I don’t really use it
3) a 3-gig iPod, 2007 vintage, with a cracked display and a propensity to shudder and buck and shut down if it’s cold out

This is *too much stuff* to carry around, especially when I can (theoretically) consolidate at least two of these into a single device. The work Blackberry seems to be the constant, in that I need to be able to access work e-mail and that’s the only mobile device that supports that (right now). However, should I:

- ditch the personal phone entirely in that there’s really nothing that I do on it that couldn’t be accomplished via the work phone? Considerations: ethics (meh), more draconian restrictions coming on what I’m able to do and see on said work phone?

- get a low-tech non-smart cell phone that allows me to keep personal calls and texts on my own dime but ditch the burdensome data plan?

- kill two birds with one stone, pitch the Curve and the antiquated iPod for a new 4G iPhone?

Please note that cost is a factor in this decision– I don’t necessarily have the funds to dish out for an iPhone right now. That being said, the iPod is clearly on its last legs, and not replacing that when it ultimately croaks is not an option. So, arguably, I’d be spending that money at some point, anyway.

It’s a question of whether I want to use said funds to collapse two of my pocket devices (that sounds dirty) into one, while continuting to float the somewhat unnecessary costs of the personal data plan – OR – being cheaper but lower-tech and carrying on my tradition of lumpy, radioactive pockets.

Guidance is appreciated.