Guy Ritchie did a wonderful job of resurrecting Holmes back to screen. There have been many attempts to present Holmes on the screen. I felt the characters in those attempts were just reading lines from the book. The stories in the book were chronicles of Holmes and narrated by Watson. However in the movie, Ritchie is supposed to be narrator so he gave his own interpretation to the character which included witty dialogues differing from the book. Deduction techniques were similar as book which will make loyal canon fans happy. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law has done complete justice to their characters. Ritchie gave a aggressive touch to the characters. Though Holmes was expert in boxing and martial arts, most of the time he even completed the dangerous cases without being violent. The movie's homes was closer to James bond compared to book's Holmes.
Romance between Irene Adler and Holmes was cheerful. Even in books also it was maintained that Holmes stayed away from Fair sex but he had a soft corner for Irene.Irene was well characterized by Rachel McAdams. Another deviation of characters was that, in movie it was mentioned that Mary Morstan met Holmes first time when Watson introduced each other in restaurant. However in canon, Mary Morstan was client of Holmes in the novel "The sign of Four".
The screenplay and cinematography was awesome.The chronological facts were maintained by showing half constructed Tower-Bridge and reproducing the dirty and polluted Victorian-era London.
The movie is must watch for persons who don't know who Sherlock Holmes was or who have never ever read the Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.
===================SPOILER================.
The weakest point of the movie was its plot-line, as the movie was more concentrating on the personality of Holmes and his relation with Watson. By centering the plot on fictitious brotherhood and occult, Holmes resembled more of Robert Langdon of "Angels and Demons" fame. Antagonist, Lord Blackwood, was also not properly sketched and the methods he applied didn't need the wits of Holmes. His methods were privy to many persons,esp the constable in jail whom he bribed. Mumbai police could have easily solved that case. The cases in book though are simple but are singular(Standard Holmes' vocabulary) in nature. The methods of crime are known to criminal himself or his accomplish. Here Blackwood had many accomplishes like constable in jail and cemetery caretaker. Holmes here didn't cared to interview them. In Book, he suspected everybody until proven innocent. He judged the person and could have told there background just by looking at him for few moments. I think Ritchie has read 1 short story and started writing for this movie.Though not all, but 1-2 novels of his are must read to know his persona. Thankfully, Ritchie introduced Holmes' arch-nemesis Prof. Moriarty in end to start a Holmes' Franchise of movies. Since "not yet read Holmes stories" viewers have finally got introduced to Holmes and Watson' personality,I hope,in next movie more of Holmes grey skills must also be displayed,along with his other skills, so that world can know "why is Sherlock Holmes known to be the greatest detective ever." Ritchie can take any liberties in writing the next venture's plot but the solution of the cases must be achieved by answering the lines like "Why didn't the dog barked" or " Why and where did the one of pair of dumb-bells gone?".
======================================
Movie Viewer's Rating: 3.5/5
Sherlock Holmes Fan's Rating: 2.5/5
Let the posts flow..:)
ReplyDelete