Gave it another go
Nov. 4th, 2011 02:11 pmFound myself overcome by ennui and lethargy today, to the point that I grew bored enough to give Ritchie's Holmes another go. I'd only seen it once before, back in like January or something, so I decided to see if it was really as bad as I remembered.
My opinion is still unchanged. It's not that it's a bad movie. Quite the opposite, actually. I think if it were anyone but Holmes, it would have been a very enjoyable Victorian action flick. And there really aren't enough of those, so kudos to it for doing something about that.
It's just a bad Holmes.
Ignoring the fact that I just spent two hours watching Iron-man do a weird accent, Downey's interpretation of the character doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was, depending on which story you read, dreadfully untidy, yes, but he was never dirty. He took great care to be as presentable and gentlemanly as possible, which you just don't get with Downey. Instead, you get some scruffy, graceless commoner in toff's clothing.
Mrs Hudson bugs me as well. I've always loved her. She's supposed to be able to hold her own against Holmes, and tell him off when he does something positively bone-headed (like shooting the wall). So why is she acting like she needs Watson around in order for her to be able to cope?
While it's nice to see that Mary Morstan is getting a bit more spotlight, she could have been handled better as well, I think. Her entire backstory has been re-written so that it negates the entirety of the Sign of Four. Maybe it's because that was always one of my favourites, but that really annoys me.
Irene Adler... just... what? Seriously, what? Why is it that in a film full of subdued colours, she's wearing bright pinks and blues? I hate visual cues like that. Just like Blackwood wearing leather. Why did he need to be wearing leather? I know he's the bad guy. He's obviously the bad guy. Please make it less obvious. Adler's form-fitting male dress bugged the snot out of me at all. It completely negates the maleness of the clothing. And why did she suddenly become a pirate at the end? I can handle a bit of re-hashing of the backstory, if they wanted to hetero up the story a bit, but they just went way to far with her. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, though.
Also, I bet Ritchie is kicking himself over the utter failure that was the Sherlock Scan. So many deductions could have been made so awesome, but I felt that a lot of them fell flat because we didn't get to see his thought process. That it was only ever used for the fight scenes felt like a terrible waste.
Watson was great. I still can't find a single fault with him. The plot was properly sinister and engaging. I even quite enjoyed Lestrade, and Holmes' relationship with the police in general. But I just have such a difficult time seeing it as a Holmes movie.
My opinion is still unchanged. It's not that it's a bad movie. Quite the opposite, actually. I think if it were anyone but Holmes, it would have been a very enjoyable Victorian action flick. And there really aren't enough of those, so kudos to it for doing something about that.
It's just a bad Holmes.
Ignoring the fact that I just spent two hours watching Iron-man do a weird accent, Downey's interpretation of the character doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. Holmes was, depending on which story you read, dreadfully untidy, yes, but he was never dirty. He took great care to be as presentable and gentlemanly as possible, which you just don't get with Downey. Instead, you get some scruffy, graceless commoner in toff's clothing.
Mrs Hudson bugs me as well. I've always loved her. She's supposed to be able to hold her own against Holmes, and tell him off when he does something positively bone-headed (like shooting the wall). So why is she acting like she needs Watson around in order for her to be able to cope?
While it's nice to see that Mary Morstan is getting a bit more spotlight, she could have been handled better as well, I think. Her entire backstory has been re-written so that it negates the entirety of the Sign of Four. Maybe it's because that was always one of my favourites, but that really annoys me.
Irene Adler... just... what? Seriously, what? Why is it that in a film full of subdued colours, she's wearing bright pinks and blues? I hate visual cues like that. Just like Blackwood wearing leather. Why did he need to be wearing leather? I know he's the bad guy. He's obviously the bad guy. Please make it less obvious. Adler's form-fitting male dress bugged the snot out of me at all. It completely negates the maleness of the clothing. And why did she suddenly become a pirate at the end? I can handle a bit of re-hashing of the backstory, if they wanted to hetero up the story a bit, but they just went way to far with her. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, though.
Also, I bet Ritchie is kicking himself over the utter failure that was the Sherlock Scan. So many deductions could have been made so awesome, but I felt that a lot of them fell flat because we didn't get to see his thought process. That it was only ever used for the fight scenes felt like a terrible waste.
Watson was great. I still can't find a single fault with him. The plot was properly sinister and engaging. I even quite enjoyed Lestrade, and Holmes' relationship with the police in general. But I just have such a difficult time seeing it as a Holmes movie.