Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Well, it had its odd decent moments, but it was far too long and the plot was both far too simple and totally ludicrous. To be frank, you could have made it without the Holmes references, which were really just the names and a couple of jokes, and it would have just flown under the radar.

Holmes and Watson (and, indeed, this is one of the things that House gets right) were gentlemen, not louts. Without the names, they would have been unrecognisable, which you can't say for the Ritchie movie - and I would really, really like to see Jude Law, who was superb, play Watson straight. This pair were entirely unmemorable and it wasn't helped by a murky colour palette and some very silly camera tricks.

There were a couple of mildly funny jokes from the references to ACD canon, but this was hardly worth it. The whole thing was s-l-o-w, and anyone who'd read half a dozen detective stories would have got the villain long before the end. Ina was yelling, "What about the cabby you idiots!?" at the screen for a long time before the end.

Incidentally, what the fuck was Watson doing with a handgun in contemporary London? And the police would not just let the murder of a serial killer go with a shrug. That's not how it works. It's certainly not how the press work,and, by gum, they would have had a field day with these cases. I will be very surprised if Moriarty does not turn out of the a computer, and Mycroft was instantly recognisable as such ("I suppose that's supposed to be Mycroft?") and totally unconvincing both as a Civil Servant and as the brother of a far more suave Holmes - the opposite to the books, in fact.

Holmes just does not work in contemporary London unless you change far more than this, and Conan Doyle, while he wrote a lot of hack-work clunkers, knew how to make a crime at least seem baffling. The writers here aren't logical or clever or imaginative enough to sustain this.

The Brett Holmes, while it had its flaws, remains untouched as a TV version.

The Ritchie movie was far better, and far closer to ACD canon.

NB: I didn't realise it was actually meant to be a proper adaption of A Study in Scarlet, and didn't recognise it, probably because I think that is the weakest of the Holmes novels and the only thing I remember about it is the meeting in the lab and the interminable Mormon bits. Maybe the slow pacing was a substitute for said interminable Mormon bits.

Top Gear was far more fun. far more exciting (with that long feature on Senna as well as Tom Cruise going up on two wheels during his fast lap) and, thank ghu, far shorter.
Tags: ,

  • 1
I do agree it was far too simple - but new Holmes stories do tend to be (this was a plot of genius compared to the Ritchie film, for instance!) ACD's talent for writing this kind of puzzle frequently goes unrecognised. And, yes, I loathed Mycroft.

I went into this prepared to dislike it but it won me over. I didn't think this H & W were louts and I'm not sure I'd call ACD's H & W gentlemen. Watson, at least, appears to be middle class and while Holmes does seem to have ancestry who may have been minor landed gentry I'm not sure he qualifies. Certainly they both had the Victorian code of manners - Holmes especially had a chivalry that covered up his deep distaste for and discomfort with women - but that's a specifically Victorian thing that wouldn't apply to characters raised in contemporary society so I don't mind that so much.

I agree about Watson's revolver... but Watson's old service revolver is so much a part of cannon that, given they are concentrating on the risk-addict part of Watson's personality, we can easily assume Watson has smuggled/wangled an illegal revolver. It's allied to the gambling Watson we get glimpses of in canon. And I *did* like Watson as an adrenaline junkie who finds that side of his personality fulfilled by working with Holmes .

As for ignoring the murder of a serial killer - did they say they were going to ignore it? I may have missed that bit! I thought that they would investigate but not be able to find anything (which supports the idea that Watson's revolver is an illegal, unregistered one). Holmes refers to removing the powder residue from Watson's hands and the idea that although Watson would be unlikely to serve time for this, avoiding a trial is still a good idea. It's a handwave but no worse than some of ACD's handwaves.

Basically I think I came out opposite to you: there were a few really duff bits but on the whole I really enjoyed it.

I went into it with real hope that I would love it. Unfortunately, it lost me within the first ten minutes by being boring. (I have to say that I am not a fan of Gatiss's own detective novels which are badly written and ill-researched.)

You can be middle class and a gentleman, you know. In fact, I would suggest that both Holmes and Watson are upper middle class and with manners to match. Holmes treats the police as he would treat servants - and, indeed, to some extent as he does treat Mrs Hudson.

Nervous tics do not characterisation make.

My main quarrel, though, is with the idiotic camera work, the pacing and the plotting, all of which are bad.

Due to various things - and thank you for pointing out the handgun issue, which I'd handwaved myself! - I came to the conclusion after watching this that it's an AU. Well, it HAS to be, doesn't it? Otherwise they'd know about ACD and HIS H&W... Therefore, on reflection, obviously the handgun thing *can* be handwaved, as the same laws may not apply. Phew.

It wasn't enthralling, and yes, I'd fingered the cabby once they'd established that the passenger was a wild goose, but it was a quite enjoyable evening's watching, and I'll be trying to catch the next two (although I'm on holiday for both!).

Chaz puts his finger right on it when he says that the expectation is that the audience is stupid, but, unfortunately, a lot of the audience are cleverer than Holmes and this is not a good way of convincing us that Sherlock is clever, let alone a genius.

  • 1