Sherlock Holmes
Family and I went to see "Sherlock Holmes" this afternoon. As someone who has read the books and stories many, many times, I'd seen enough of the previews to know that I'd better leave any expectations home if I was going to enjoy the film.
Robert Downy Jr was brilliant, as always, even if this interpretation of Holmes is a bit of a stretch. Same for Jude Law as Watson. I enjoyed them both very much, so long as I didn't make any comparisons. There were moments when they were spot on, and moments when they were very out of character with the books.
But their handling of Mary Morstan, Watson's fiancee, and the ever scheming and beautiful Irene Adler, "the woman" in Holmes' mind, were very well done. Lestrade was just right most of the time, too. The bad guy was wonderfully bad. Holmes treatment of his landlady, Mrs. Hudson, however, was abominable. As bad a tenant as he was, the real Holmes was always gentlemanly with her.
Oddly enough, much of the deduction revelations were given to Watson and Adler. Holmes didn't really shine until the end, and then there were some plot holes.
The overall plot felt like fan fiction to me and got rather muddled here and there, though there were a series of very good set pieces. But it is a visual feast, fast paced, often funny, with some little details here and there straight out of the books to delight a purist like me. And Watson's "bull pup," mentioned in "A Study in Scarlet" and never again in the Canon, has a very nice role.
Interestingly, a line from the previews, someone-Irene, I think-joking about Holmes and Watson "flirting" does not make it into the final film. Given the general choppiness of the plot and and the holes, I suspect a lot of good stuff got left on the cutting room floor. Too bad.
Overall, a fun, lively romp. If you're a fellow purist, try to forget the books and just relax and enjoy.
Robert Downy Jr was brilliant, as always, even if this interpretation of Holmes is a bit of a stretch. Same for Jude Law as Watson. I enjoyed them both very much, so long as I didn't make any comparisons. There were moments when they were spot on, and moments when they were very out of character with the books.
But their handling of Mary Morstan, Watson's fiancee, and the ever scheming and beautiful Irene Adler, "the woman" in Holmes' mind, were very well done. Lestrade was just right most of the time, too. The bad guy was wonderfully bad. Holmes treatment of his landlady, Mrs. Hudson, however, was abominable. As bad a tenant as he was, the real Holmes was always gentlemanly with her.
Oddly enough, much of the deduction revelations were given to Watson and Adler. Holmes didn't really shine until the end, and then there were some plot holes.
The overall plot felt like fan fiction to me and got rather muddled here and there, though there were a series of very good set pieces. But it is a visual feast, fast paced, often funny, with some little details here and there straight out of the books to delight a purist like me. And Watson's "bull pup," mentioned in "A Study in Scarlet" and never again in the Canon, has a very nice role.
Interestingly, a line from the previews, someone-Irene, I think-joking about Holmes and Watson "flirting" does not make it into the final film. Given the general choppiness of the plot and and the holes, I suspect a lot of good stuff got left on the cutting room floor. Too bad.
Overall, a fun, lively romp. If you're a fellow purist, try to forget the books and just relax and enjoy.