![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sherlock Holmes
Feb. 22nd, 2010 12:00 amI am, among many other things, indebted to the friend who broadened my appreciation of literature by exposing me to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's work. They are quite wondrous works, not quite mystery but not quite outside; you never had a clear sense of whether or when there was a puzzle that you had been given enough information to solve, but if you read slowly and deliberately enough you'd often find yourself asking the right questions about the situations and sometimes divining the right answers before Inspector Lestrade. So I was skeptical about the notion that they were going to take creative liberties with the franchise in the movie.
Let me start with the elephant in the room. As maybe would surprise few, I despise retconning "bromance". When I was young, it was difficult for a man and a woman to have a deep platonic relationship without people wondering about the unseemly secrets that they must be hiding. Now, in the enlightened future, we have broadened our mind to be so suspicious of all friendships. It is wearying. Doyle's Holmes was certainly an egomaniac who was desirous of an educated and curious chronicler, but the overloading of co-dependency shown in the movie was horrific and embarrassing. Furthermore, I don't think it brought anything to the story.
Beyond that, though, the story was rich and detailed, even when it was portraying the poverty and filth of nineteenth-century London. The story was quite involved and neither too difficult to follow nor too simple to predict. They took some liberties with Holmes' acquaintances and skill set, but all in all it was a good ride. I give it eight thumbs up.
Let me start with the elephant in the room. As maybe would surprise few, I despise retconning "bromance". When I was young, it was difficult for a man and a woman to have a deep platonic relationship without people wondering about the unseemly secrets that they must be hiding. Now, in the enlightened future, we have broadened our mind to be so suspicious of all friendships. It is wearying. Doyle's Holmes was certainly an egomaniac who was desirous of an educated and curious chronicler, but the overloading of co-dependency shown in the movie was horrific and embarrassing. Furthermore, I don't think it brought anything to the story.
Beyond that, though, the story was rich and detailed, even when it was portraying the poverty and filth of nineteenth-century London. The story was quite involved and neither too difficult to follow nor too simple to predict. They took some liberties with Holmes' acquaintances and skill set, but all in all it was a good ride. I give it eight thumbs up.
