![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Irene Adler should sue!
So I went to see the new film, Sherlock Holmes, last night, with Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson. Don't. Just don't. Not if you are a Holmes afficionado. How was it bad? Let me count the ways. (SPOILERS AHEAD.)
It's very violent. Lots of graphic fisticuffs. It privileges fighting over ratiocination. While Sherlock Holmes was never above a fight when necessary, it certainly wasn't his preferred mode of action. In this film, he's getting into it with some huge villain every five minutes.
It's got a lot of "perils of Pauline". Sherlock knocked out in a slipway with a ship about to run him over, Irene Adler trussed up and headed for the slaughterhouse knives, etc., etc.
Then there's character. Irene should sue. She may have been an adventuress, but she was never a strumpet or a temptress, and the idea that she would ever be in the employ of Moriarty is simply ridiculous.
The whole film reads as though they just decided to use the names and some minor characteristics, and ignore what Doyle wrote. (Why would Holmes have to be introduced to Mary Morstan by Watson, when they met her at the same moment, according to Doyle?)
Then there's the so-called plot. It's "Conan Doyle meets Dan Brown" and Doyle loses. Occult practices, a mysterious secret Order plotting to rule the world, oh, please. There are gaping holes in the plot, and it's one of those movies so dependent on action that they have to have someone explain everything at the end.
I suppose that if you'd never read, or cared about, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, and all you want is an action movie, it's okay. There's lots of action, a few decent special effects and some nice cinematography. But if you have read and cared about the real Holmes, you'll spend the whole film cringing, muttering under your breath, or laughing at inappropriate moments because it's so silly.
It's very violent. Lots of graphic fisticuffs. It privileges fighting over ratiocination. While Sherlock Holmes was never above a fight when necessary, it certainly wasn't his preferred mode of action. In this film, he's getting into it with some huge villain every five minutes.
It's got a lot of "perils of Pauline". Sherlock knocked out in a slipway with a ship about to run him over, Irene Adler trussed up and headed for the slaughterhouse knives, etc., etc.
Then there's character. Irene should sue. She may have been an adventuress, but she was never a strumpet or a temptress, and the idea that she would ever be in the employ of Moriarty is simply ridiculous.
The whole film reads as though they just decided to use the names and some minor characteristics, and ignore what Doyle wrote. (Why would Holmes have to be introduced to Mary Morstan by Watson, when they met her at the same moment, according to Doyle?)
Then there's the so-called plot. It's "Conan Doyle meets Dan Brown" and Doyle loses. Occult practices, a mysterious secret Order plotting to rule the world, oh, please. There are gaping holes in the plot, and it's one of those movies so dependent on action that they have to have someone explain everything at the end.
I suppose that if you'd never read, or cared about, Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, and all you want is an action movie, it's okay. There's lots of action, a few decent special effects and some nice cinematography. But if you have read and cared about the real Holmes, you'll spend the whole film cringing, muttering under your breath, or laughing at inappropriate moments because it's so silly.