Sherlock Holmes

A new Sherlock Holmes film comes to theatres, and since I hadn’t seen the original of Guy Ritchie’s variant of Sherlock Holmes, I figured time had to come to watch it.

It’s hard not to compare it to Sherlock, the BBC series starring Benedict Cumberbatch, but it’s also stupid to resist it. Both are reimaginings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary character, and they’re both completely different in every way. While Sherlock is modernized, Sherlock Holmes are contemporary to the book. Sherlock is about Holmes’ mind, and Sherlock Holmes is an action film.

I cannot dismiss Sherlock Holmes as simply an action film, however. There’s a lot more to the Holmes character than just running around and punching others, as the trailers would have one believe, but the intellect, and resourcefulness of Holmes does not come across to the audience in the film. The audience does see the workings of Holmes’ mind, but it’s never anything that a slightly astute person could conclude on their own.

Whoever thought Ritchie was the person to helm a Sherlock Holmes film, obviously never read the books, and it seems that Ritchie had just finished OAC English, and was eager to show his knowledge of elementary symbolism. Yes, I get it, a crow is there, someone will die.  Wow, a crow representing death, that’s so clever little high school boy.

The special effects are jarring, as the majority of many shots are CGI, and look obviously like CGI. It removes one from the story.

I’ll still go see the sequel, as I’m not paying, apparently, and it’s a communal gathering with friends, but honestly, I look forward to New Years Day when I can watch the new episode of Sherlock.

One Thought on “Sherlock Holmes

  1. The movie was awful. I will not be seeing the sequel. But that clip from the tv show looks great. I’ll have to check it out.

Leave a Reply

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: