You see, but you do not observe: A glimpse of "Sherlock Holmes"

Actually the best news out there today is further proof that, despite the ascendancy of a new generation and Barack Obama, there are still some areas in which grumpy old men, of which I'm rapidly becoming one, still rule the Earth.

In less than two weeks, of course, we get our own fantabulous 3-D animated feature with Pixar's "Up," but perhaps even better was today's announcement that this year's weeknight World Series games will start before 8 p.m., meaning that - even if my Orioles most likely won't have anything do with it - at least the games will hopefully wrap a little closer to my schoolnight bed time.

And best of all, the story I saw on this said Fox won't even take to the air before 7:30 p.m. Less than a half hour of inane Fox pregame (meaning, hopefully, no Steve Lyons, if he's indeed still there) and an earlier game time? I'm in heaven.

And I suppose the most "important" news out there today is that they're finally gonna do a biopic on Martin Luther King Jr. Not surprisingly, such a "prestige" and - in my book - "obligation" movie has attracted big fish Dreamworks and Steven Spielberg, so far as just a producer, but who knows?

The only way you could get me more than even mildly excited about this, however, is to cast the right dude as MLK. Don Cheadle would work OK, but for my money the slam-dunk choice would be Jeffrey Wright (oddly enough, Mos Def would be my second choice, and I actually saw them on stage together once in Suzan-Lori Parks' rather disappointing "Topdog/Underdog.")

You may remember that Wright has already played MLK Jr. once in a surprisingly entertaining but underrated HBO movie, "Boycott," also starring Terrence Howard as Ralph Abernathy and directed by "Homicide" and "The Wire" vet Clark Johnson. The only way to keep my interest in this going would be to bring him back for more.

The order of the day here, however, is supposed to be all about "Sherlock Holmes" and the case of its first theatrical trailer, with a little "Scott Pilgrim" thrown in at the end as a bonus.

When I first heard Guy Ritchie was gonna put his stamp on "Sherlock Holmes," I have to say I was more than a little worried. Now, don't get me wrong: "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and - to a lesser extent - "Snatch" are very funny flicks, but I'm not sure I'd call them clever in the vein of Holmes, and Ritchie's movies since then have been pretty much pure crap (with the possible exception of "RocknRolla," which I'm perfectly willing to concede I just didn't get.)

Beyond the tone, however, I also felt more than a little queasy when I heard rumors about them turning Holmes into some kind of Bond-style badass with exceptional fighting skills. That certainly wouldn't josh with any kind of Holmes I remember or ever want to see.

I suppose, though, with Robert Downey Jr. as our main man, I should have faith, and indeed this trailer does look pretty darn good. As everyone probably knows, Jude Law stars rather oddly as Watson, and as I just found out from the IMDB, Eddie Marsan of "Happy Go Lucky" fame stars as Inspector Lestrade. Enjoy the trailer, and feel free to check back for many more updates on this before it comes out Christmas day.



And, as a bonus of sorts, here's the latest installment of Edgar Wright's video blog about the making of "Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World." The part of me that used to (and sometimes still does) read comic books has to admire the details that he and comic book writer Bryan Lee O'Malley are trying to recreate while filming in Toronto, but you also have to wonder how much any of that is going to matter to anyone beyond the most devoted subset of geeks (of which I still proudly consider myself one.) Anyways, enjoy this latest bit about the making of the flick set to star veryfunnyman Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and, as I just found out today, one of my favorite people in "Rocket Science" star Anna Kendrick. Peace out.

Blog Five - From Comic Book Panel to Screen - Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World from Scott Pilgrim The Movie on Vimeo.

Cohen pranking across America again as "Bruno"

Maybe its just me, but being pranked by Sacha Baron Cohen as his alter-ego Bruno sounds at least as fun as watching an evening of "extreme fighting" in Arkansas, especially when you throw in $1 beers!

Lest anyone be thinking I'm nuts, allow me to explain. According to the almost-always reliable The Smoking Gun, Cohen is again actively turning his revealing camera on America as he did as Borat, but this time as Bruno for his next flick. Bruno, another creation from "Da Ali G Show," is a rather flamboyant fashion reporter for Austrian TV.

And, judging from what he set up for the unsuspecting folks of Texarkana and Fort Smith, "Bruno" may well turn out to be at least as outrageous - and hopefully nearly as funny - as "Borat."

As the poster shows, the poor dupees were lured by not only $1 beer, but also the promise of "hot chicks" and "hardcore fights," but instead got a vintage dose of Cohen's shenanigans. After what attendees who bothered to comment at The Smoking Gun confirmed were a "pathetic" card of fights, each card ended with two male grapplers - one named "Straight Dave" - in their underwear and kissing each other up and down the chest.

To me, that's funny enough already, but I suppose unsurprisingly the folks in Fort Smith took the bait and pelted the ring with chairs and probably anything else they could get their hands on. Now that's some blue collar brawlin'!

Sherlock Holmes battle taking shape

Speaking of Sacha Baron Cohen, he's now got some serious competition as rival flicks set out to tell tales of the supersleuth Holmes and his partner Watson.

Cohen is set to play Sherlock himself, with Will Ferrell as his sidekick Watson (thank God it's not in the reverse order!), for Judd Apatow and company.

Now, however, in a rival production expected to get started first, Robert Downey Jr. has signed on to play Holmes in what one can only assume would be at least a slightly more serious version for director Guy Ritchie.

I used to have a lot of time for Guy Ritchie, but "Revolver" was just a nonsensical mess. Even so, two multi-flick projects (with "Iron Man," of course) starring Mr. Downey just makes my world a little bit more enjoyable, so here's hoping this brings Ritchie back to top form.

"Mad Men" has five-year plan

With "Mad Men" thankfully set to return for its second season on AMC July 27, show creator Matthew Weiner has been making the rounds to promote it and letting out some intriguing details about just where the great show is headed.

According to TV scribe James Hibberd, Weiner revealed at the Television Critics Association press tour that he envisions the show running for five seasons, with enough time lapsing between seasons to cover about 10 years in the lives of ad executive extraordinaire Don Draper and associates (man, I can't wait to see what in the world Peggy has done about her new baby since we last saw her!) And Weiner's reasoning in using this technique makes perfect sense:

"I can start the story fresh, and at the same time there will be all these events that happened in between that will provide additional storytelling energy," he said.

I love it when showrunners are bold enough to set their own time table, as the "Battlestar Galactica" folks did at Sci Fi. That life span is, of course, dependent on people continuing to tune in, but I can't see AMC giving up on its flagship show before its allotted run finishes. If you somehow missed the first season of the smartest show on TV, you can now either buy or rent the first season on DVD or catch all 13 episodes in a marathon catch-up block July 26 to prepare for the season 2 debut the following night.

One other programming note: If you're as amped as I am for "Hellboy II: The Golden Army" and want to watch the original flick again before seeing the sequel, F/X is airing Guillermo del Toro's "Hellboy" tonight at 8, so set your DVR. And now I have to go to the paying job I somehow still have. Peace out.

"The Bank Job" is a caper well worth catching

First off, forgive me if I'm a bit rusty at this, because if I'm not mistaken, this is indeed the first movie I've made the effort to review this year.

The reasons for that, I would say, are three-fold: I'm still not paid to do this, the movies (for the most part) have just been remarkably bad, and, unless it's of a movie that I clearly expected more from, bad reviews simply aren't as fun to write. The lone exception to this flow of mediocre muck had been Michel Gondry's "Be Kind Rewind," an oddly endearing little movie that I passed on commenting on because, I'll confess, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around exactly what it was about. If you can still see it (which I doubt), I would encourage every one to do so, especially for the last half hour or so, which is pure magic.

But I certainly digress, because today's movie is "The Bank Job," luckily a much more straightforward kind of flick but, in its own way, just as enjoyable.

If you look at the poster for this one you know it's promising the kind of old-fashioned kind of heist flick we just don't see much of anymore, and I'm pleased to report that it delivers on that with spirit.

Roger Donaldson's flick tells the (mostly, I'd have to assume, though probably not entirely) true story of the biggest heist in U.K. history, which netted for those who survived it a share of $4 million pounds or so. Like with any great heist flick, however, it's about a lot more than money, and Donaldson, who, believe it or not, actually directed the movie "Cocktail" way back in the day (whatever happened to Brian Brown, anyway?), takes an approach that's at least as welcome for what it leaves out as for what it includes.

For me, heist movies work best, as Donaldson's flick does, when they focus on the crime itself and its consequences rather than a) gadgets that strain and crush credibility; b) a cast of characters that pile on quirk just for quirk's sake; c) slang that sounds like nothing anyone, in Britain or elsewhere, ever uses; or d) using a constantly moving (and shaking) camera as a substitute for any real urgency. Yes, I'm taking aim here at Stephen Soderbergh (for the Oceans that come after 11), Guy Ritchie (for "Snatch," not "Lock, Stock") and Paul Greengrass (for that last Bourne flick, which just left me with a huge headache.)

Donaldson is able to resist all that because he wisely understands that the true story he has here, transcribed for the screen by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, is as crazy as just about anything he or anyone else could have made up. I don't want to give too much away, but it involves, among other things, a black militant (named, funnily enough, Michael X) with incriminating photos of a royal with rather loose virtues, politicians who pay women for more than your most conventional kind of sex and, of course, MI5 or MI6 (I've never really mastered what exactly how many MI's there are or what each one really does, which I suppose is by design.)

And the flick almost, but not quite, falls apart in the third act as all these forces start to converge, but wisely wraps things up before you have time to think about it all too much. The flick is at its best when it simply focuses on the band of rather ordinary folks who pulled off this rather extraordinary heist and, for the most part, got away with it.

At the center of it all is Jason Statham, and be warned: Though he plays a fairly bad dude, fans who enjoy watching him kick ass (of which, in small doses, you can count me as one) will be rather sorely disappointed; he indeed doesn't throw many punches at all until he's kicking a prostate old man (you won't hear who from me) in the cojones. It's still a commanding enough performance to carry the flick, but just as much credit goes to Saffron Burrows, who up until now had really made little to no impression on me at all. As the femme (for some, at least) fatale who lures Statham and his mates into this crazy scheme, she not only has the look that would make men follow her just about anywhere, but for once in movies like this, gets to play an active role in the caper and makes the most of it.

As far as the many supporting players, I will reveal that that is indeed David Suchet (a k a Hercule Poirot) who plays a truly sleazy porn king (well, duke really) with relish, and that Colin Salmon (a k a almost-the-first-black-James-Bond and a familiar face to "Prime Suspect" fans) plays one of the "militants," though to tell you which one would just spoil the fun.

I hope more than a few people will turn out for this one, rather than (or maybe in addition to) Roland Emmerich's latest empty spectacle. Peace out.