Saw "Sherlock Holmes" the other day...
...and thought it was okay. Cinematography was good but I didn't really engage with it, for which failing I blame the storyline and the characterizations.
I've read and loved Conan Doyle's stories, and I'm sorry, but Holmes was not slovenly (unless circumstances required it), and while not weak, neither was he an action hero. I understand the desire to characterize him as such, to make him more accessible to a wider audience - to me, however, that's just not Holmes.
I like Jude Law well enough as Watson, but again, his characterization seems off. There's quite a bit of homosexual subtext between the two that seems out of place as well, in my opinion; in the stories, Holmes came across as too cerebral to be interested in sex either with another man or with a woman.
Which brings us to the character of Irene Adler, whom the film writers have portrayed as Holmes' former lover as well as a master thief. Given that characterization, and that despite his impressive physical condition Downey Jr. looks every one of his forty-odd years (drugs are BAD), I question the wisdom of casting Rachel McAdams as Adler. She looks about eighteen years old, or in any case far too young to have had numerous encounters with Holmes, on both professional and personal levels.
All that being said, the film is entertaining enough, and I like the fact that Victorian London is shown in its industrial-age seaminess, with plenty of soot included. Sound and special effects are also top-notch.
I'd be happy to hear other opinions!
I've read and loved Conan Doyle's stories, and I'm sorry, but Holmes was not slovenly (unless circumstances required it), and while not weak, neither was he an action hero. I understand the desire to characterize him as such, to make him more accessible to a wider audience - to me, however, that's just not Holmes.
I like Jude Law well enough as Watson, but again, his characterization seems off. There's quite a bit of homosexual subtext between the two that seems out of place as well, in my opinion; in the stories, Holmes came across as too cerebral to be interested in sex either with another man or with a woman.
Which brings us to the character of Irene Adler, whom the film writers have portrayed as Holmes' former lover as well as a master thief. Given that characterization, and that despite his impressive physical condition Downey Jr. looks every one of his forty-odd years (drugs are BAD), I question the wisdom of casting Rachel McAdams as Adler. She looks about eighteen years old, or in any case far too young to have had numerous encounters with Holmes, on both professional and personal levels.
All that being said, the film is entertaining enough, and I like the fact that Victorian London is shown in its industrial-age seaminess, with plenty of soot included. Sound and special effects are also top-notch.
I'd be happy to hear other opinions!