Well-a-well-well-well...
I saw the new Sherlock Holmes movie yesterday... hmm. Didn't like it. Wasn't expecting to. Simply because I adore the 'real' Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - and I knew they wouldn't be able to find it within themselves to be true to even one of the plots of the fifty-six short stories or the four novellas. I don't watch stuff with witchcraft in it, so I felt rather uncomfortable with the (somewhat fragmented) plot they did choose, which involved a craaaazy Dracula-imitating dude pretending (so Holmes assured us at the end) to have supernatural powers. Robert Downey Jnr did a pretty passable job of playing the crazy, messy, erratic side of Holmes (rather than the antisocial, moody, crack addict side) but I was very disappointed in Watson. He looked the part but was completely unmemorable, even though they tried to give his character more dignity than previous portrayals have done. Mary Morston from The Sign of the Four and Irene Adler from A Scandal in Bohemia were both nicked from their proper places in order to have a female presence and love interests for our famous pair, and I must say that I thought Rachel McAdams's role was rather confusing and a little too emphasised. And the emotion betwixt her and Holmes was too underplayed or too overplayed; it never hit a balance. What I want to know is, why didn't they just DO The Sign of the Four? It had everything: the South American pygmy, the war in India, hidden treasure, a thrilling nighttime chase on the Thames, not to mention a rather sweet little love story for Watson...
No comments:
Post a Comment