Let me start with the disclaimer that I have never read any of the Sherlock Holmes stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and therefore have no means of comparing this year's movie, directed by Guy Ritchie to the original work. I mentioned to a friend and coworker who has, in fact, read all the stories, that I planned to see the movie on Christmas Day, and he expressed his concerns about the bastardization of characters that he cherished in his youth. Well, I can relate to that, certainly. (Allow me to shake my fist at Peter Jackson for his disfigurement of Tolkien.)
Very well. On with it.
The sets, depicting London in the late 19th century, are captivating. Viewers are presented with a chaotic, fog-shrouded city, filled with opulence and squalor in equal measure.
The story itself centers around Holmes investigations into a diabolical cult that is poised to seize control of the British Empire. Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is the villain, seemingly endowed with the powers of the black arts, who somehow cheats the hangman's noose and proceeds to terrorize the city. Undaunted (of course) by the sinister nature of Blackwood's powers, Holmes and the reluctant Watson delve into the matter to discover its true nature and deliver London from disaster in the nick of time.
Throughout the viewing, it became obvious that this film, while it does relate a full story, is really just the opening episode of a planned new series of films a las Dark Knight or Spiderman. There will be more Sherlock Holmes movies if this one succeeds. Holmes' femme fatale, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), confirms this with her warning to Holmes that Lord Blackwood is just a puppet inadvertently serving a greater evil: the enigmatic and never-seen Doctor Moriarty.
Well, apparently, the film's producers have a high degree of confidence that the film will meet with enough success to warrant further episodes. And I can't disagree.
Sherlock Holmes is a diversion from Ritchie's earlier, edgier work, which includes Snatch and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, both of which I greatly enjoyed. But judging the flick on its own merits, I'd say Ritchie has succeeded. Sherlock Holmes is a good, solid film. It delivers a good amount of entertainment and the characters are portrayed in sufficient depth to make me want to know more about them. So, I'll look forward to the next installment. Maybe next Christmas?
5 comments:
Until the other day, I didn't know such a movie existed. I have listened on CD and read a few of the Sherlock Holmes books, and I don't think this movie would appeal to me as I'd be doing the "Hey! That wasn't in the book! Holes was addicted to cocaine and here he's an alcoholic! WTF!" I would probably ruin it for those around me. Maybe when it comes out on DVD.
It seems like a movie for a younger crowd (as I don't recall any of the mysteries dealing with a villain set to take over the whole British Empire, not that that would be bad, as the whole British Empire has been throughout time, rather villainous, to say the least) and thus adds more to the disingenuous for me in a desire to see the movie. Or should I say, a lack of desire to see the movie.
No doubt, however, Junior and the others do excellent work. No doubt that many folk will watch the movies. This one, however, does not seem to follow the actual characters. I can't get over how much younger Doc Watson looks than Holmes. Hmmm!
Feh! Glad you enjoyed the flick. Thanks for the post.
I like this movie, really awesome, cool.
I have read all the original Sherlock Holms stories,and several of those by other authors ("The Seven Percent Solution" come to mind) and know the characters well. The Sherlock in this story bears a faint resemblance to the classic Sherlock. The Watson character is an excellent version of the original.
I enjoyed the movie; it was entertaining. I hope they do not make a series of it because it is too far from the characterization and plot line of the original. It will give viewers a warped view of a good classical series of short stories.
I enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies. Had they been based on, but removed from a well known character of the '30's and '40's I would have still enjoyed them, but been disappointed that the writers warped the main character so much.
Better to start, like Indiana Jones, with a new character entirely, even one based generally on Sherlock instead of using the familiar name on a different character.
One thing that bothered me was the escalation of the of the level of the crime.
Many of the Sherlock Holms mysteries had no crime, no violence, or much simpler crimes such as theft. Good interesting stories mainly demonstrating logic and deductive reasoning. Sherlock never tried to save the Empire or the world until the 1940s Basil Rathbone movies when he fought the Nazis. His brother Mycrofft was the one saving the Empire in the foreign office while Sherlock played with lesser mysteries.
So, enjoy the movie it is good, but for a change of pace read some of the original stories and see what you think of the real Sherlock Holms. The authors of the 1880's were a bit more sedate.
Until the other day, I didn't know such a movie existed. I have listened on CD and read a few of the Sherlock Holmes books, and I don't think this movie would appeal to me as I'd be doing the "Hey! That wasn't in the book! Holes was addicted to cocaine and here he's an alcoholic! WTF!" I would probably ruin it for those around me. Maybe when it comes out on DVD.
It seems like a movie for a younger crowd (as I don't recall any of the mysteries dealing with a villain set to take over the whole British Empire, not that that would be bad, as the whole British Empire has been throughout time, rather villainous, to say the least) and thus adds more to the disingenuous for me in a desire to see the movie. Or should I say, a lack of desire to see the movie.
No doubt, however, Junior and the others do excellent work. No doubt that many folk will watch the movies. This one, however, does not seem to follow the actual characters. I can't get over how much younger Doc Watson looks than Holmes. Hmmm!
Feh! Glad you enjoyed the flick. Thanks for the post.
I have read all the original Sherlock Holms stories,and several of those by other authors ("The Seven Percent Solution" come to mind) and know the characters well. The Sherlock in this story bears a faint resemblance to the classic Sherlock. The Watson character is an excellent version of the original.
I enjoyed the movie; it was entertaining. I hope they do not make a series of it because it is too far from the characterization and plot line of the original. It will give viewers a warped view of a good classical series of short stories.
I enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies. Had they been based on, but removed from a well known character of the '30's and '40's I would have still enjoyed them, but been disappointed that the writers warped the main character so much.
Better to start, like Indiana Jones, with a new character entirely, even one based generally on Sherlock instead of using the familiar name on a different character.
One thing that bothered me was the escalation of the of the level of the crime.
Many of the Sherlock Holms mysteries had no crime, no violence, or much simpler crimes such as theft. Good interesting stories mainly demonstrating logic and deductive reasoning. Sherlock never tried to save the Empire or the world until the 1940s Basil Rathbone movies when he fought the Nazis. His brother Mycrofft was the one saving the Empire in the foreign office while Sherlock played with lesser mysteries.
So, enjoy the movie it is good, but for a change of pace read some of the original stories and see what you think of the real Sherlock Holms. The authors of the 1880's were a bit more sedate.
Post a Comment