Among the topics discussed include how this rendition of Holmes is actually closer to Arthur Conan Doyle’s original vision; Guy Ritchie’s originally plans to cast an actor in his late 20s to play the title character before meeting Robert Downey Jr.; and why Jude Law’s Watson is unlike any other we’ve seen before. In other words, it’s information that anyone following the film would have already read about, rendering the featurette fundamentally pointless. It’s a real shame, too, because there had to be some other bonus material (like bloopers or deleted scenes) sitting around in the vault that fans would have liked to have seen. Though the Blu-ray edition gets the added incentive of WB’s awesome Maximum Movie Mode, even that seems a bit light for such a major release. The history behind Holmes is simply too rich to receive such a lackluster treatment, and though I’ve never been a very big proponent of studio double dips, this time around, it’s almost necessary to make up for such a major blunder.

And, just for a bonus, here’s an earlier Red Band clip-trailer via Trailer Addict that I failed to run a while back, It adds a bit to what we saw previously of Chloe Moretz and Nicolas Cage as the not at all ordinary alter egos of Hit-Girl and Big Daddy. It kind of makes you all gooey inside.

I think it’s safe to say that, between this and his stellar reviews for “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans,”  Cage certainly appears to have his regained his performing mojo. From what I’ve been reading, I’m also looking forward to more people agreeing with me that Vaughn, once  known only as Guy Ritchie’s producer, is the better movie storyteller.

James Cameron‘s super-expensive 3-D extravaganza for Fox, “Avatar,” emerged as the victor of a three-way battle for the top prize with an outstanding second-weekend estimated take of $75 million and an absolutely minuscule drop from it’s first weekend of 2.6%, according to Box-Office Mojo. The Hollywood conventional wisdom has it that most science fiction films drop by at least 50% on their second weekend. Clearly, this is not most science fiction films and the fact that people are waiting to see this one in 3D and paying extra for the privilege is not hurting. So, as I’ve alluded to often enough, the word of mouth on this thing is something else. However, as always, I await the backlash as some folks plunk down their extra-heavy 3D ticket price and fail to have a religious experience.

Second place, of course, was Guy Ritchie’s unorthodox action-comedy take on probably the oldest genre franchise in the biz, “Sherlock Holmes.” The Robert Downey, Jr./Jude Law team-up loosely drawn from the late 19th/early 20th century works of Arthur Conan Doyle defeated “Avatar” and all-comers on its record setting Christmas opening. It then fell a bit and earned a still whopping estimated $65.38 for Warner Brothers, a company that certainly has some experience with franchises. Better yet, this one is in the public domain, which means fewer folks get a share in the wealth.

Fox’s “Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel” actually beat “Avatar” by a couple of million on its early opening day last Wednesday, but fell sharply on Christmas Eve and rebounded the rest of the weekend, for a very healthy estimated third place showing of $50.2 million. Critics may detest it; parents may barely tolerate it, but, to paraphrase the old blues song, the little kids understand (or don’t know any better). The film’s total estimated take starting from its early opening is just a tad over $77 million.

Considering it’s a Golden Globe-nominated sex comedy presumably aimed at a very grown-up audience — not only because of the average age of its stars but also because it’s R-rated, Universal’s “It’s Complicated” has generated the critical equivalent of a shrug, with our own David Medsker coming down on the very much negative side. That doesn’t bode extremely well for this sort of movie, which can use all the critical and awards help it can get.

Still, this weekend’s rising tide managed to lift this boat to the tune of an estimated $22 million or so, which is really not bad for this kind of film. Or, it wouldn’t be because Nikki Finke claims the budget was $80 million, which is way high for this kind of movie  and suggests to me that it’s possible stars Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, and Steve Martin let their agents negotiate extra-hard for a big pay-day because they were perhaps less than wowed by the film artistically. Universal just doesn’t seem to be cutting itself any breaks lately.

The #5 spot went to one of the two heavily Oscar-touted films that expanded into wide release this weekend. Jason Reitman’s topical darkish comedy, “Up in the Air,” did just well enough that Nikki Finke was apparently forced to control her commercially inspired anti-George Clooney animus.  It earned a solid estimate of $11.7 million for Paramount in just under 1,900 theaters. While Reitman’s free adaptation of a novel by Walter Kirn has more than lived up to its hype in terms of critical praise and awards and nominations so far, “Nine” has been met with a chorus of mild critical disappointment and, despite some Golden Globe and Critics Choice nominations and a couple of minor awards, what sure seems to be rapidly declining awards buzz.

That lack of enthusiasm was certainly reflected in its lackluster fiscal performance as it came it in the #8 spot with a somewhat sad per-screen average of $3,902 and an estimated total of just over $5.5 million in just over 1,400 theaters. (For comparison, the “Up in the Air” per screen average was $6,203.) I think the reasons for its failure are obvious enough starting with a vague premise that’s hard for mass audiences to fathom and a show that’s actually not all that well known based on a classic of New Wave Italian cinema that has little awareness outside cinephile and artsy circles. It was clear the Weinstein Company’s marketing department didn’t mind Kate Hudson shaking her perfect but perhaps misnamed moneymaker with “Cinema Italiano,” but would rather forget the film’s relationship to actual Italian cinema.  Add to that no boost from critics or word of mouth and the result is box office disappointment. Simple enough, right?

Not for Finke:

Seriously, who did Harvey [Weinstein] think would be the audience for this very sexy (therefore very heterosexual) musical? Even though it grabbed Golden Globe nominations, it can’t grab an audience which may hurt it come Oscars. What a miscalculation, especially since the Weinsteins put so many other films on hold to focus on it.

For starters, it’s not that the poor box office may hurt it’s Oscars chances, it’s close to a sure thing. As far as I’ve seen, while the notoriously star-struck Golden Globes are one thing, the Academy almost never nominate films in more than a category or two that are neither commercial nor critical successes — you have to be at least one or the other, preferably both. There are exceptions for stand-out elements of an otherwise unimpressive movies such as, say, special effects or a hit song — “Cinema Italiano” is real contender in the best song category, I’m sure. It might even win. Worse songs certainly have.

As for the intimation that Weinstein should keep it gay and a musical with lots of sexy women dancing around is somehow a bad idea commercially because it might turn off the gay male audience — if that’s what Finke really means, I’d really like to know what she’s smoking. The sexy-female centric musical fantasia certainly worked well for Marshall in “Chicago” as it did for Bob Fosse, Busby Berkeley, and many others before him. While the connection between gay men and musicals runs deep, it’s pretty clear that even the worlds’ Roger DeVries-types don’t have a problem with scantily clad females in musicals and are vastly more mature than their straight male brethren about having to view sexiness not of their own preference.

Moreover, there’s another less well known but nearly as avid minority audience for musicals — Jewish people. Maybe the problem is that, being all about Italian people, “Nine” is both too goyish and too hetero to be a hit. Therefore, the new rule is that every musical should be a sequel to “Yentl,” since it involved both Jews and cross-dressing, or maybe it’s time for “La Cage Aux Folles” with Harvey Fierstein, Adam Sandler and the B’nai Brith Men’s Chorus, or possibly a gayed-up musical version of “Inglourious Basterds.”

All I’m saying is this: sometimes movies fail simply because they don’t turn out that great, not because of some gigantic corporate mistake. Nikki needs to remember this is not a business that can be boiled down to easy formulas. Along that path lies madness.

Rants aside, as usual, the largest per-screen average went into a film in highly limited release. This week that was Terry Gilliam’s “The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnussus,” the final film to star Heath Ledger. While my own review is the very definition of “mixed,” I’m still hopeful for the hugely gifted ex-Python animator to have some improved luck on future films., I’m glad that it may be finding an audience because I want to see that “Don Quixote” movie and lots of other insanity besides.

10. “Son of Rambow”

Movies like “Son of Rambow” don’t get nearly as big of an audience as they deserve, which is a shame, since it’s one of the most wildy inventive family films I’ve seen in a long time. And who better to make a movie that incorporates animated doodles into its character’s imagination than the director-producer duo that created the wacky, stop-motion music video for Blur’s “Coffee and TV”? It’s a match made in heaven, though much of the film’s success is thanks to newcomers Bill Milner and Will Poulter, who give child actors a good name.

9. “Billy Elliot”

Jamie Bell may be all grown up, but “Billy Elliot” remains the best thing he’s done. A classic feel-good movie featuring a great soundtrack, a funny and heartfelt script, and a memorable performance from Julie Walters as the title character’s chain-smoking ballet teacher, “Billy Elliot” was nominated for three Oscars and was eventually adapted for the stage (with music by Elton John, no less) where it went on to win ten Tony Awards. Still, for as much love as the Broadway musical has received during its five-year run, the movie version is still one of the most entertaining British films I’ve ever had the pleasure to see.

8. “Sexy Beast”

Though it’s best remembered for Ben Kingsley’s riveting turn as Don Logan, a venomous, high-strung gangster who doesn’t take “no” for an answer, “Sexy Beast” is a smart and energetic crime drama that also happens to be pretty damn funny. Of course, most of that humor comes from Kingsley’s expletive-laced performance, and it’s a crime that he wasn’t rewarded with a nice, shiny Oscar. Still, even though the movie is essentially the Ben Kingsley Show, “Sexy Beast” served as a nice introduction to Ray Winstone and Ian McShane, and will likely go down as one of the better crime dramas of the decade.

7. “RocknRolla”

Say what you will about Guy Ritchie, but his movies are an absolute blast to watch, and “RocknRolla” is easily his most mature film to date. Though he still seems to favor style over substance, the movie still succeeds thanks to an amusing story and lively ensemble cast led by Gerard Butler and Tom Wilkinson. Plus, that bizarre dance scene between Butler and Thandie Newton is one of the funniest WTF moments of the decade (not to mention their subsequent sex scene). Ritchie’s films may never receive the credit they deserve (he’ll forever be remembered as a Tarantino wannabe, even though QT himself has been accused of stealing several times over), but “RocknRolla” is what going to the movies is all about.

6. “28 Days Later”

Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire” may have netted the director an Oscar, but it’s his 2002 horror thriller, “28 Days Later,” that proved to be the more influential of the two. Not only did it feature the very first instance of fast-moving zombies, but it completely revitalized the genre to the point that Hollywood became positively obsessed with the brain-chomping monsters. Though Boyle’s modern take on the zombie genre quickly earned its own legion of fans, what made the film so great was that it delivered on the kind of biting social commentary we’ve all come to expect. Plus, without “28 Days Later,” there probably wouldn’t be movies like “Shaun of the Dead” or comic books like Robert Kirkman’s “The Walking Dead.”

5. “Love, Actually”

There aren’t very many romantic comedies that I enjoy enough to own. Christmas movies, on the other hand, I don’t usually like at all. How peculiar, then, that Richard Curtis’ “Love, Actually” has become such a personal favorite of mine, because it’s both a romantic comedy and a Christmas movie. Though it isn’t the first film to use the gimmick of interconnecting storylines, the ensemble cast is so good that it definitely feels like it. After all, where else can you find the likes of Liam Neeson, Colin Firth, Emma Thompson, Alan Rickman, Laura Linney, Hugh Grant and Keira Knightley sharing the screen? And that’s not all. There’s there’s also an amusing cameo by Rowan Atkinson, a comically sweet relationship between a couple of porn stand-ins (including “The Office” star Martin Freeman), and Bill Nighy and Gregor Fischer as the funniest couple of all.

4. “Bend It Like Beckham”

This may just be the soccer fan in me, but I went into “Bend It Like Beckham” with pretty high expectations. Thankfully, even though soccer doesn’t play as big of a role as you might expect, the movie managed to win me over with its charming story and lively cast. Parminder Nagra is excellent in the lead role, while both Keira Knightley and Jonathan Rhys Meyers round out the main trio nicely. Though Knightley had yet to blossom into the Oscar caliber actress she’s become today, you can definitely see that star quality in her the minute she arrives on screen. Fizzy, fuzzy and lots of fun, “Bend It Like Beckham” may be little more than a formulaic underdog film, but it’s the kind of guilty pleasure that no one should feel guilty about watching.

3. “Snatch”

Some critics may put down “Snatch” as a polished remake of “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels,” but Guy Ritchie’s sophomore effort accents everything its former had to offer. It’s slicker, snappier, more confident and better acted. It also features a career-topping performance by Brad Pitt and some of the wackiest characters (from Vinnie Jones’ Bullet Tooth Tony to Rade Serbedzija’s Boris the Blade) to ever appear on film. “Snatch” is the epitome of what Ritchie does best, and though he does inhabit the same filthy underworld as some of Tarantino’s earlier films, what “Snatch” may lack in originality, it makes up for with an intoxicatingly manic energy.

2. “Hot Fuzz”

“Hot Fuzz” was one of the best-reviewed movies of 2007, and yet somehow, most people have probably already forgotten about it. It’s too bad, really, since Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are one of the funniest trios working today. Their second feature isn’t as good as the 2004 cult hit, “Shaun of the Dead,” but it comes pretty damn close thanks to a witty script (co-written by Wright and Pegg) that playfully honors buddy cop flicks like “Point Break” and “Bad Boys 2.” Of course, the film is more setup than payoff, but when the payoff finally arrives in the form of a lengthy “Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid”-style shootout, it’s well worth the wait. The only thing funnier than a gun-toting reverend is watching a mean old lady get kicked in the face. Cheers to the boys of “Hot Fuzz” for finding room for both.

1. “Shaun of the Dead”

Wright’s feature film debut is arguably one of the best movies of the decade, but it’s also one of my favorite movies of all time. It might not look like much on the surface, but “Shaun of the Dead” has something for everyone – comedy, action, horror and even a little romance. The writing is dead on and never misses a comedic beat, like in the deftly funny tributes to “Night of the Living Dead” and “Evil Dead,” or when Bill Nighy shows up unconcerned about his bite mark because he “ran it under a cold tap.” What ultimately makes “Shaun of the Dead” such an instant classic, however, is Simon Pegg, who took an otherwise generic role and turned him into a movie icon.

As the above indicates, Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air” collected the most nominations from the awards given annually by the Hollywood Foreign Press Assocation (HFPA) with six nods. Just behind it was most of the other films that are emerging as this year’s awards usual suspects. The Broadway musical adaptation from director Rob Marshall, “Nine,” got five nominations; “Avatar,” and “Inglourious Basterds” received four nominations each. Following with three nominations were “The Hurt Locker,” “Invictus” and “Precious,” as well as two names that are somewhat new to this year’s awards sweepstakes, Tom Ford’s “A Single Man” and the upcoming star driven comedy from Nancy Myers, “It’s Complicated.” (Thanks to Nikki Finke, or her inevitably long-suffering assistant, for providing not only a complete list of nominations, but also a convenient awards tally not only by film, but also by studio and TV network.)

Neither “A Single Man” nor “Invictus” made the cut for “Best Picture – Drama.” Meryl Streep and Matt Damon both got two acting nominations, with Streep competing against herself in the “Best Actress – Comedy” category for “Julie & Julia” and “It’s Complicated.”

One factor that somewhat complicates covering the Globes is that they separate dramas from comedies and musicals. This year, “Up in the Air,” which bills itself as a “dramatic comedy” but which a lot of people seem to see as simply a mature and relatively low-key comedy with topical overtones, was nominated in the drama category. This prompted the AP (via MSNBC) to opine that the nomination in that category could give it more “weight” for the Oscars. I have to say that, while it’s so wrong in some many ways, there may be some truth to that and getting the meme out that the film is more drama than comedy might help Oscar voters to nominate it.

To further mess with our heads, another film that is said to mix laughter with more serious aspects, “A Serious Man,” got a nomination for actor Michael Stuhlbarg in the comedy category. Also, Robert Downey, Jr. was nominated for the upcoming Guy Ritchie action-mystery fest, “Sherlock Holmes,” in the comedy category — which may or may not be fitting, though the film does seem to be is playing up the humorous potential of the Holmes myth.

A couple of modest surprises. “District 9” was nominated for Best Screenplay; nice to see genre picks getting their props. Also, it’s a law now that Christoph Waltz must be nominated for his A+ villainy in “Inglourious Basterds,” but missing was newcomer Christian McKay, whose universally gushed-over performance in “Me and Orson Welles” seems to have been shaping up to be Waltz’s possibly only real competition for the Supporting Actor Oscar. Not enough star power for the Globes, I guess. The Golden Globes has never been the tidiest of awards, that’s for sure. Nor are they known for being the most, well, merit-based.

Indeed, while La Finke is making with the invective as usual, she may have a point about the awards not registering very high on the integrity scale. I personally don’t take any awards all that terribly seriously — they are really only an aggregation of opinion, and so their value kind of depends on the thoughtfulness of the voters. Moreover, even where people might actually know their fields fairly well, their choices are often distorted by various outside factors such as visibility/name recognition, personal popularity, career achievement for non-career achievement awards, and what movies they actually got to see.

Still, the Globes may be a special case. In 1982, Pia Zadora, a young singer and former child actress and star of “Santa Claus Conquers the Martians” with a very wealthy husband and a promotional campaign to match, won “New Star of the Year.” The award was purportedly on the basis of her soon-to-be Razzie-winning performance in a movie called “Butterfly.” Ms. Zadora has done a better job of living down the embarrassment than the Globes ever have.

Fittingly, then, the award show itself has always been a looser, more booze-infused, affair that many argue is therefore more entertaining than the Oscars. Eugene Hernandez is clearly correct in stating that the Globes “favor star wattage.”

Nevetheless, Anne Thompson makes a few interesting observations about possible Oscar tea leaves here. Where I can’t agree with her, however, is that she finds it a “shocker” that Sandra Bullock scored two acting nominations, one for “The Blind Side” on the drama side and one for “The Proposal” on the comedy side. She seems surprised that Bullock got even one nomination and skeptical that her “Blind Side” performance has a major shot at an Oscar nomination. My hunch is that Bullock is a shoe-in for an Academy nomination for the feel-good sports drama (nominating “The Proposal” for anything would be very unusual). The Academy likes to acknowledge somewhat populist sleeper hits and it also loves to honor actors who rise above their usual meh-to-okayness with a really special performance that’s better than just okay.

I call this the “Kim Basinger in ‘L.A. Confidential’ phenomenon.” I’d say that not only is it extremely likely that Sandra Bullock will get an Oscar nomination for Best Actress, but that her prospects for winning are actually very good. I mean, the Academy can give Meryl Streep a reasonable award just about any year they want for as long as she decides to make movies, but how many chances are they going to have to give one to Sandra Bullock?