I think it's good writing practice to review other peoples work. Besides there's something cathartic about judging someone else.
I've seen a few movies recently. The Princess and the Frog from Disney. It wasn't bad but definitely "whited down" for a general audience. It looked to be set in the 1940's but didn't show any of the social issues of the time. But why should it really? The main target audience is children after all. It was nice to see something in the old style of Disney and for what it is it was it perfectly.
For some reason I don't want to like Robert Downey Jr. but if his performance in Iron man hadn't completely won me over to his camp then his performance in Sherlock Holmes definitely would have. The story line was well done touching on some of the classic concepts in the original Holmes stories but it was really only a small part of the movie after the acting, special effects and scenery. I hope the writer made some money.. but of course it wasn't really a new story was it?
For the first time I read the book A Confederacy of Dunces and I'm going to add it to the list of books I will reread. There's a subtle genius to it that I'd like to pinpoint and maybe emulate. The most surprising part of the book is that it had escaped my notice until now. Sadly the author is dead and has only written one other book. I find myself wondering if he would have written many pieces of genius or if this book was all he had in him creativity wise. Like having all of his luck spent at one time rather than piecing it out over the next several decades.