Sherlock Holmes

[rainey]

It’s probably a commentary on the attention span of today’s movie-going public that a film based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s great stories about the world’s most famous detective has to be presented as an action flick. Or maybe it’s just a commentary on Guy Ritchie’s directorial style. Either way, Sherlock Holmes is just that, an action flick. Not that there’s anything wrong with this. In fact, in parts it works well. It’s just that Doyle’s stories (I've read them all at least twice) were more cerebral in nature, more contemplative. But they were also steeped in atmosphere, and in Sherlock Holmes, the movie, Ritchie gets this just right. I’m predisposed to like a movie set in 19th century, dark, foggy, street-lamped, cobble-stoned London, no matter the subject. This predisposition negated my predisposition for disliking films that play fast and loose with the stories I love, so there we were, effectively starting out at neutral.

I would not have thought to cast Robert Downey, Jr. in the lead part. The definitive Holmes for me will always be Jeremy Brett from the wonderful Granada TV series, seen in the States on A&E Network. This is why I am not a casting director. Downey was effective and smart and with the requisite Holmes charisma. Jude Law was more than capable as sidekick Dr. Watson. The movie borders on buddy film at times, but not enough to ruin the depth of the relationship between the two. And in a bigger surprise, I actually found much from the original stories in the movie. Holmes’s methodology is there, as is his skill at disguise, his violin playing, even his pipe. Inspector Lestrade is present, as is eternal nemesis Moriarty, and so is "the woman," played by Rachel McAdams (who is nice to look at but unfortunately seems out of place in old Londontown).

All in all, the film is more loyal to Doyle's work than I had expected. Still, a Sherlock Holmes looking more like Jackie Chan in parts, along with the standard action-film explosions and manufactured suspense (at one point I half-expected the obligatory car chase, but with hansom cabs, of course) stretches the film out much longer than a tighter, stick-to-the-story approach would have. A two-hour and eight-minute action film could have been a grand 90-minute detective mystery. Keep the fog and the cobblestones. Lose the Die Hard angle.



7.5/10

[Blurry]

I definitely enjoyed this movie, though I agree with

Keep the fog and the cobblestones. Lose the Die Hard angle.

I also think you're right about Rachel McAdams not quite fitting it, but I'm of the opinion that this worked out well for the sake of the film. It sort of emphasizes how she stands out to Holmes.

[Sauwelios]

What seems most un-Holmesian to me (I haven't seen the movie yet) is the supernatural story. There's nothing supernatural in the Conan Doyle books.

[rainey]

I also think you're right about Rachel McAdams not quite fitting it, but I'm of the opinion that this worked out well for the sake of the film. It sort of emphasizes how she stands out to Holmes.

I'll buy this.

[Blurry]

I also think you're right about Rachel McAdams not quite fitting it, but I'm of the opinion that this worked out well for the sake of the film. It sort of emphasizes how she stands out to Holmes.

I'll buy this.

I wonder if I get a commission...

[rainey]

Feel free to take a little something for yourself out of petty cash.

[Blurry]

LoL, what would you consider to be a "little something"...as opposed to "too much"?

[rainey]

The general rule of thumb is that you're safe if you go about 2/3rds of the way between two-times negligible, and ample. Somewhere just above sufficient, but well before plenteous. You should feel satisfied but not gorged. You'll know it when you get there. It'll just feel right.

[AnitaS]

The general rule of thumb is that you're safe if you go about 2/3rds of the way between two-times negligible, and ample. Somewhere just above sufficient, but well before plenteous. You should feel satisfied but not gorged. You'll know it when you get there. It'll just feel right.

This almost - ALMOST - satisfies my craving.

No, I take that back. Actually, it just whets the appetite.

Your poetry is sorely missed, good sir.

[rainey]

Anita! Always a pleasure to see you.

Well, as it turns out I'm not really having too much success getting it published anywhere lately, so maybe. Maybe I'll post some soon.

[AnitaS]

Well, as it turns out I'm not really having too much success getting it published anywhere lately, so maybe. Maybe I'll post some soon.

I'm sorry to hear that, rainey, but I hope you'll continue to be persistent, your work truly merits a much wider audience. [And I'd be more than satisfied if you just gave us your irregulars and factory seconds.]

[Oughtist]

[And I'd be more than satisfied if you just gave us your irregulars and factory seconds.]

I'll second that! (Being, albeit, an unlicensed purveyor of irregulars and factory seconds myself! )

[sangrain]

Ewww, sloppy seconds. Okay, that didn't come out right.

I guess what I wanted to say was; there should be no seconds when it comes to creativity (yes, I know, it sounds mushy and cheesy, but there it is. I said it.).

[tentative]

Hi Rainey,

Don't be put off because they ain't buyin'. You know the gig. Maybe one out of ten? If we're lucky? The burn pile is always bigger than the keeper pile. Besides, what else are you going to do with your time? Sailing in the goo doesn't seem very attractive this year. Maybe time to pull the hull and do that long overdue maintenance?

Anyway, start posting your poetry again. Those of us less talented people need something to admire.

[rainey]

No goo so far, JT. Fingers crossed. (Although it might help eradicate those pesky barnacles...)