Review: Sherlock - Series 1

At last, a Sherlock Holmes adaptation that's actually good.

As longtime readers of my blog will know, all of the Sherlock Holmes film adaptations or public domain spin-offs that I have reviewed  have been sorely lacking, to say the least. I will not go into the specifics here, but I will say that each and every one of the ones that I have viewed or read did not, I believe, succeed in depicting a version of the Great Detective that was at all true to the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories. I confess that I myself have not actually gotten around to reading those stories, but I have it on good authority from someone who has read them that the adaptations that I mentioned were infinitely inadequate, and, might I add, sensationally stupid.

BBC's Sherlock, however, is a different story.

Set in 21st century London, this adaptation features a modern Dr. John Watson recently returned from a tour of duty in Afghanistan, just like he was in the original stories. He's limping through life, perfectly miserable because, as he says, "Nothing happens to me." Then, through a mutual friend, John meets a truly strange person, who immediately discerns his whole life's story just from a look at the good doctor's cell phone. Before he knows it, this new acquaintance has invited him to become his new flatmate. The man's name? Do I even have to say it? ...Fine. Sherlock Holmes!

Sherlock and John, played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, respectively, are featured in a series of three 90-minute installments in this, Series 1 of Sherlock. From helping the police track down a serial killer to fighting a ruthless Chinese Triad to racing the clock against a mysterious malefactor, with it all being overshadowed by an enigmatic mastermind, Sherlock and John have all sorts of daring adventures. John is with confidence able to say to Sherlock's brother Mycroft, "I'm never bored."

Sherlock gets practically everything right. The cast and writers are, as I understand it, the cream of the crop in British Telly. Though all of the actors and actresses are top-notch, of particular note are the two leads, Cumberbatch (or "Benny" as some of my sister's fangirl friends are fond of calling him) and Freeman. The are undeniably the foremost of the cast, along with Rupert Graves as Lestrade and Mark Gatiss as Mycroft. Cumberbatch portrays a Sherlock Holmes who is cold and efficient, a self-described sociopath who is slowly learning empathy and humility. This is marked contrast to Robert Downey, Jr.'s clownish, half-baked performance. I remember hearing somewhere that if these two depictions could be met somewhere in the middle, we'd have a perfect Sherlock Holmes. As it is, I believe that Cumberbatch is the superior Sherlock Holmes, giving us a charismatic, memorable execution which continues to impress me as I re-watch this show in preparation for finally viewing Series 3. (No spoilers, please!)

Much also should be said for Martin Freeman's John Watson. Freeman is one of my favorite actors, up there with James Frain and Liam Neeson. I loved him as Arthur Dent in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I loved him as Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and I love him here as John. The thing about Martin Freeman is that he's an incredibly versatile actor, handling a wide range of roles, both comedic and dramatic. He manages to bring the full force of both of those propensities into his acting on this show, pulling off hilarious punchlines and sobering drama. It's fortunate that we have such a talented actor such as Freeman in the role of the viewpoint character of Dr. John Watson, perhaps equally as important that we have as incredible an actor as Benedict Cumberbatch in the role of Sherlock Holmes.

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are the two creative minds behind Sherlock. Though I am still a relative novice in the world of British Telly, being only vaguely familiar with Doctor Who (I'm still bogged down in Season 1) and the like, I do know this: These people genuinely love the Sherlock Holmes stories. They are dedicated to making the coolest, greatest, best Sherlock Holmes adaptation that all the might of the BBC can produce. This is present in everything from the characters to the plot details, with small tidbits like a text message that Sherlock sends John in the first episode having the same text as a telegram that Holmes sends Watson in one of the stories. Speaking of texting, this is very much a modern update of Sherlock Holmes, with key facets of the plot hinging on things like cell phones and the internet. Where Holmes smoked a pipe, Sherlock uses nicotine patches. In the hands of lesser talent, such an adaptation would be gimmicky at best and hamfisted at worst, but Moffat, Gatiss, and their compatriots are not by any means lesser talent.

Moffat in particular has a brilliant sense of suspense and mystery, as seen in the first episode of the series, "A Study in Pink." The mood is set perfectly right off the bat. It is very noirish, very stylish and techie. It kind of hearkens back to the '60s acid trips that you might see in the early episodes of Columbo. The most prominent feature of the show, however, transcends its stylish facade. Sherlock has a special brand of fast-paced humor and fun which makes you smile and gets you excited about what's going on in a way that few televisions shows manage do do. Above all, however, it's very intelligent, smart fun.What I'm saying here is that Sherlock is unusually cerebral for a television show, for in the end, any Sherlock Holmes story should be highly cerebral. I normally believe that television is a pretty watered down form of entertainment which cultivates dimwitted thinking in its viewers, but Sherlock is one of the few exceptions. This is one of those TV shows that makes you think.

The series' only con, however, is just what I pointed out as it's greatest strength: Being cerebral. Sometimes the mysteries presented in this show are a bit difficult to wrap my mind around, especially in "The Great Game", where you have multiple mysteries interwoven with each other with complicated solutions. As the old saying goes, "The devil's in the details." Sherlock is just so dadblamed smart that sometimes even I can't keep up with it. This is, I think, my third viewing of Series 1 and only now have I managed to understand who killed Connie Prince and why.

In summary, Sherlock is easily the best active Sherlock Holmes adaptation on the market today. Indeed, it is fitting that a classic work of English literature is being adapted by the BBC in a modern, tightly plotted update of the Great Detective, who, as it happens, is the most adapted literary figure in history. With awesome acting, cool characters, fantastic humor, and dynamic drama, it is not only the best Sherlock Holmes adaptation out there, but also one of the best adaptations period. Heck, it's one of the best TV shows out there period. A word of warning, however: Being a mystery crime drama, it is a bit intense for younger audiences, with a smattering of bad language and some blood and violence. Better to reserve this for viewers 15 and up.

RATING: 10/10

Image courtesy of wukaifeng.com

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Steve Rogers is doing okay.

After being frozen in ice for 70-plus years and surviving an alien invasion in New York during the events of The Avengers, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America, is doing alright for himself. He's working as a professional good guy at S.H.I.E.L.D. with his Avengers gal pal Black Widow, living in Washington, D.C. where he runs 13 miles daily, and he's made at least one new friend, a VA worker named Sam Wilson. He's integrating into the modern world fairly well, and has even reestablished contact with his now elderly former lady-love, Peggy Carter. Life is... not bad. At least he doesn't have post-traumatic stress disorder like fellow Avengers alumni Tony Stark.

But then stuff hits the fan, and stuff gets real.

It all starts when Steve's boss, Colonel Nick Fury, Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., is locked out of important, top secret files. Troubled and suspicious, Fury seeks out Alexander Pierce, a senior S.H.E.L.D. leader, to delay the upcoming Project Insight. This project, theoretically, would use three new helicarriers to target criminals and terrorists before they have a chance to strike, which Captain America isn't too happy about. "This isn't freedom," Steve says to Fury. "This is fear." Fury is then critically wounded by a team of assailants led by the mysterious assassin known as the Winter Soldier. Just before the wounded Fury gives Steve a thumbdrive containing the aforementioned top secret files, he whispers to him, "Don't trust anyone." Steve must work with Black Widow, a.k.a. Natasha Romanoff, Sam, and Maria Hill to stop the Winter Soldier's deadly mission, figure just what the heck is going on with Project Insight, and foil the real villain's dastardly plans.

Okay, I just want to be clear, and I'm not gonna lie: This movie is awesome. Resoundingly so. I'd even say that it's resounding in its awesomeness. But empty praise tells little. What makes this movie so great? Without a doubt, I'd say that it's the best installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, up there with Iron Man and The Avengers. My personal favorite remains Thor, but Captain America: The Winter Soldier is undoubtedly the best.

But again, why? Firstly, this movie is constituted of some incredible acting talent. Everybody from Chris Evans as Captain America to Robert Redford as Alexander Pierce to Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury to Emily VanCamp as Agent 13 gives it their all in this picture. It's on the level of the The Dark Knight Saga in terms of sheer star power. It's just as much Fury and Black Widow's movie as it is Cap's. Even the guy who plays the Winter Soldier (I won't tell you who it is because, you know, spoilers. Also, don't Google "Winter soldier". You'll get immediate spoilers.), despite not actually being the main villain, totally kills it. It all adds up to the believable performances coalescing together with the remarkable onscreen chemistry to produce nothing short of brilliance.

Speaking of killing, we've got a lot of cool, killer action sequences which keep you on the edge of your seat. Beginning with the boat skirmish at the beginning between Cap, Black Widow, and the S.H.I.E.L.D./S.T.R.I.K.E. agents and Batroc (Georges St-Pierre, whom we previously saw in Sherlock Holmes, which starred Robert Downey, Jr.), and ending with the climactic battle between Captain America and the Winter Soldier aboard one of the helicarriers, these are some really cool action scenes. But the real thrills from this movie don't come from the fights and explosions; they come from the suspense.

To understand this faucet of the film, we must first understand that Captain America: The Winter Soldier is just as much political thriller as it is superhero action-adventure flick. More accurately, I believe that the writers said that it was a political thriller disguised as a superhero action-adventure flick, just as Captain America: The First Avenger was a throwback to pulpy World War 2 adventure movies disguised as a superhero movie. There's a lot of stuff in this movie that will make you go, "Whoa, I did not see that coming." It's intelligent and relevant in its sociopolitical commentary, asking hard-hitting questions about freedom, security, patriotism, heroism, trust, and friendship. One particularly heart-pounding scene features Steve and Natasha unearthing a devastating revelation about S.H.I.E.L.D. that rocks them to the core. The only explosions that took place in it were after everything else had happened... not that I don't like stuff blowing up, it's just that there's been a lot of it in superhero movies lately.

But while this film is indeed thrilling and exciting, it also has the capacity for some quiet, tender, humanizing moments. For instance, the first half or so of the first act is filled with Steve just going around doing things. He meets Sam while outrunning him multiple times while running... during the same run. He goes incognito to the Smithsonian exhibit dedicated to him and his World War Two buddies. He visits a now very elderly Peggy Carter, who encourages him when he says he isn't sure what the right thing to do is anymore. There's also the many great scenes between Steve and Natasha, Steve and Sam, Steve and Fury, Steve and Agent 13, and even Steve and Alexander Pierce which serve to illustrate the finely crafted characters that Marvel has managed to produce.

Miscellaneous things I liked about this movie include its various continuity nods, such as references to previous MCU films and set ups for future MCU films. For instance, we've got Brock Rumlow (Frank Grillo), known in the comics as the mercenary called Crossbones, the aforementioned Batroc, based off of Batroc the Leaper, as well as namedropping a certain neurosurgeon. I also liked the film's sense of humor, which, while by no means in the same shape of humor found in the Iron Man and Thor films, was, indeed, funny. Miscellaneous things I did not like include what they did with Jasper Sitwell (Maximiliano Hernandez). I don't know if it was an Life Model Decoy, or brainwashing, but he deserved better than that. Maybe he'll come up later in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., I don't know, but I just hope that he's not out completely.

All in all though, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, is a solid film. Sam Wilson/Falcon, the Winter Soldier, and Agent 13 were all a bit underused (Batroc is gets one action sequence), despite being heavily promoted, but I can deal with that because when they were used, they were used very well. The acting was top-notch, the script, cinematography and music were all great, and it really pulled of the political thriller thing. It's a great film, and I liked just about everything about it, minus the smattering of bad language. What's more, it made me want to check out the comics run by Ed Brubaker (co-author of Gotham Central), whose storyline introducing the Winter Soldier in the comics was used as an inspiration for this film. Incidentally, this film was also the perfect Geek Pride Day/Memorial Day weekend movie!

RATING: 8.5/10

Image courtesy of comingsoon.net

Charlie Chaplin

A few weeks ago, I finished watching The Charlie Chaplin Collection on Netflix with my dad. It was an anthology of several of Chaplin's more obscure films, most which I found to be generally mediocre from a humor and entertainment standpoint. However, my history of viewing Chaplin films goes back a long way, when my father purchased a collection of Charlie Chaplin films which featured "The Artist In His Prime", which I remember enjoying immensely. My personal experience aside, Charlie Chaplin is without a doubt a cultural monolith, and a pioneer in the then burgeoning film industry of the early 1900s.

And now for a Cliff Notes version of his life story! Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin was an actor and director in numerous silent films, also acting as a scorer, producer, and editor in nearly all of them. He arose from obscurity and poverty as a small time stage actor, where he at one point acted in a stage production of Sherlock Holmes for two years. He got into movies when he appeared in the 1914 silent film Making a Living, with Keystone Studios, movie from England to America. He developed the character of "the Tramp" which he portrayed in many of his films around this time, that character debuting in The Kid Auto Races at Venice, but what first filmed in the production of Mabel's Strange Predicament. Tillie's Punctured Romance was a pivotal moment in his career, helping him advance in fame. He later moved on to the Essanay Film Manufacturing Company, where he met up with his frequent leading lady Edna Purviance, who co-starred in over 35 films with Chaplin over the course of an eight year period. After his stint with Essanay, he moved on to the Mutual Film Corporation, where he filmed several of the pictures seen in the aforementioned The Charlie Chaplin Collection.

By this time, Chaplin was a worldwide favorite with audiences, including a young Indiana Jones, as revealed in The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones. Then it was onto First National Exhibitor's Circuit, where he recorded my personal favorite of his films, Shoulder Arms, a 1918 comedy set during the First World War. He noted that it was a potentially dangerous film, due to the subject matter, but he nevertheless was enthusiastic about it (the film wound up being quite successful). During his tenure with First National, Chaplin developed several features featured in the aforementioned "The Artist In His Prime" collection, including Sunnyside, The Kid, and A Day's Pleasure, all filmed in 1919 (The Kid was his longest film to date, running 68 minutes). In this same year, he formed the United Artists with a handful of colleagues, including Douglas Fairbanks, in order to have total control over their films. However, he was not able to do work for this new company until his contract with First National was up. Once the contract was up, however, he produced such classics as The Gold Rush (1925), City Lights (1931), and Modern Times (1936).

In his later years, Chaplin became very vocal about his political views, parodying Adolf Hitler in The Great Dictator (1940) and slamming capitalism in the failure Monsieur Verdoux (1947). As a result, he became wracked with controversy in this era, being subject to everything from vehement criticism to federal investigation, which in itself was linked to a paternity suit (Chaplin's love life was marked by a series of stormy and often short lived marriages). He was a suspected Communist, was confirmed to hang about with known Communists, and even received the International Peace Prize from the World Peace Council, a Communist organization. He also failed to claim American citizenship, describing being fed up with the country's "moral pomposity" upon his departure from it in 1955. He sold his remaining shares in United Artists around this time. Chaplin went on to make several films from his new Switzerland base of operations. He only returned to the United States some twenty years later in 1972 where he was given an honorary Academy Award for his contributions to film. He died on Christmas Day in 1977 at the age of 88 after suffering a stroke in his sleep. He was survived by nine children from two different marriages.

Researching this article (read: browsing Wikipedia while simultaneously typing) made me come to dislike Charlie Chaplin as a person. As an entertainer and an innovator, however, there are few whom I can esteem higher. I have yet to see all his films, but I have City Lights, Modern Times, and The Great Dictator on my family's Netflix queue. His contribution to film is immeasurable, as his many Academy Awards bear witness to. Many years ago, I was greatly entertained by the Chaplin films' ingenious sight gags and slapstick comedy, and I hope to entertained once more when I review the "The Artist In His Prime" collection. Maybe I'll even do some real in depth research into the man, perhaps read a book or two. I'm sure it would quite enlightening.

Image courtesy of wikipedia.org

Review: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I am now getting around to reviewing this film, as promised. Before we begin, let me say up front that yes, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is better than its predecessor. That said, it's still not the best film I've ever seen, but obviously, few are.

Completely forgetting the sequel hook involving new improvements in the science of radio, and thankfully touching on the occult background of Sherlock Holmes only briefly, this film opens with a series of apparent anarchist bombings, leading Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) to begin an investigation  into the matter. Of course, Watson is getting married, and is about to go on his honeymoon, while Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) falls prey to the evil Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who Holmes will tell you is "the Napoleon of Crime," as he is described in the books. After one madcap set piece involving a train, Holmes and Watson set off for France and Germany to track down Moriarty, who is working with crack shot Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson) to plunge the world into a war which he will profit from. Can Holmes and Watson, with a little help from Holmes' brother Mycroft (name dropped in the previous film, played here by Stephen Fry) stop Moriarty's dastardly plans, or will everything go straight to, uh, Hades?

While I still believe that this film repeats its predecessor's mistake by including a ludicrous amount of over the top action, unlike the previous film, it doesn't rely on it. It also helps that the action is far more badbutt that that of Sherlock Holmes. In relation to this first point, I was thrown for a loop when Holmes and Moriarty engage in an actual fist fight, or rather, they don't. I know they fought physically in the books, but there's no actual fight here, just a fake out or two. But still, the action is very well done, even if there is still too much of it.

Harris' Moriarty is a great villain, appearing far stronger in the first few minutes that Mark Strong's Lord Blackwood was in the entire first movie. His goals are far more interesting and detailed than Blackwood's were in the first film, though not by much. He's menacing, calculating, and even cool. You simply love to hate him. The best scenes in the film are between Holmes and Moriarty. There's also an even greater dynamic between Holmes and Watson than there was in the first movie, even if it's more of the same from the first movie. By that, I mean that it's the same recycled conflict of Watson not getting along with Holmes because he's getting married and moving out, kind of like they're *gasp* breaking up. This ties into some innuendo and gags concerning just how intimate Holmes and Watson's relationship is. I still don't understand why Hollywood can't get it through its head that two males being close friends doesn't necessarily mean a romantic relationship. It's just so frustrating! At least the characters are a bit more rounded here, with Holmes demonstrating both sides as clownish detective and a determined fighter for justice. Of course, I'm not sure exactly if his means of defeating Moriarty financially would actually work in real life. I'd refer the problem to Law and the Multiverse, but I think that 19th Century British law is a little out of their field.

Irene Adler is written out of the script pretty early, and is replaced by some gypsy woman (Noomi Rapace) with a basic motivation, no name that I can remember being mentioned, and unmemorable scenes, characterization, and dialogue. I would much preferred if they had stuck with Adler doing stuff with Holmes and Watson and further developing her character, instead of not going out with a bang. There might even have been a conflict between Adler and this woman, which would have made them both more interesting. Conflict over Holmes, maybe, perhaps with Adler getting jealous. Of course, Adler's not the only interesting supporting character inexplicably shunted aside. Where the heck is Lestrade? Wikipedia says that he's in it, but I might have missed him during that brief scene at Scotland Yard where Holmes briefly alluded to him. This film has lots of fan service for Sherlock Holmes fans, but at the same time ditches two of its most important characters in exchange for Mycroft Holmes and random gypsy lady.

Like the first film, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows can be funny when it wants to, but its humor borders on vulgar sometimes. This includes a moment when Watson's newlywed wife Mary (Kelly Reilly) finds herself staying in Mycroft's house, and then comes face to face with Mycroft wandering through his house in the altogether. A disgusting gimmick intended for cheap laughs if I ever saw one. In addition, this film suffers from Sherlock Holmes' problem of keeping viewers in the dark about Holmes' deductions until later, despite what Jeremy Jahns said in his review. Again, this is extremely frustrating, and Guy Ritchie or whoever the heck is responsible for writing this thing could stand to learn from BBC's Sherlock.

Also, remember what I said about Sherlock Holmes being clownish? He was in the first film and he remains so here. I picture Sherlock Holmes as being far more serious than he is here, and it feels like Sherlock is just channeling his performance as Tony Stark in the Iron Man movies sometimes. I theorized in a conversation with my friend Nate (the one who thinks that Superman: The Movie is the best superhero film of all time) that Downey's tenure as Iron Man may have affected his other performances, or perhaps he's simply been typecast. Either way, if there are any persons in the audience who have seen any of Downey's other movies made after Iron Man, then I'd like to hear your opinion.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is more introspective than Sherlock Holmes, and leaves a possible sequel hook in for number three, and yes, there will be a number three, in the form of Sebastian Moran. He was also a great secondary villain, and I'd love to see him return. It would be fitting if he did, as that would coincide with the character's scheduled appearance in the upcoming third season of Sherlock. Ending with a rushed denouement, this film pleases me more than the last film, but not by much. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, but I still prefer Sherlock. On a related note, I really should get around to reading those books.

RATING: 7.5/10

Fun fact: I asked my mom why she liked Sherlock Holmes, and she simply replied that it was "fun." Yeah, I guess so, and I guess that's kind of why I liked "the Cape," which was essentially a live action cartoon, very much like Batman & Robin. But that's another post.

Image courtesy of beverlygray.blogspot.com

Review: Sherlock Holmes

It was my mother's idea to watch this movie. I had previously had no desire to watch the film, but after I realized that my sisters and mother had gone so far as to move up its sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows to the number one position in our Netlflix queue, I felt the need to watch it to see what good they saw in this film. After watching it, I still don't understand why my dear mother found it so appealing.

I've mentioned before that I haven't read any original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories, mainly stemming from apathy crossbred with laziness. This movie did little to stir my interest in the stories, and if anything, it gave me reason to harbor discontent towards them. To cut to the chase, I felt that this movie blew like a bomb.

This sub-par excuse for a film chronicles the adventures of the long running partners Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) as they fight against Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occultist leader who uses apparent supernatural abilities in an attempt to take over England, and eventually, the world. At first, they have him captured, and then executed after trial, but he miraculously seems to rise from the grave. Holmes and Watson must track down Lord Blackwood and find out what his real plan is, with a little help from Irene Alder (Rachel McAdams), an old flame of Holmes'.

For all its faults, Sherlock Holmes does get some things right. Namely, it quickly shows from the start that Sherlock Holmes is awesome... and funny. He pulls of ridiculous stunts with frightening regularity, and is, of course, a genius detective. In addition, he's a formidable fighter, and the way he does his fight scenes is very detailed, planning his moves with surgical precision, predicting his opponent's moves and how long it will take them to recover from a beating. That said, the said fight scenes are slightly lackluster, in that they lack that special snap to them that makes them really go.

Also of note is the acting. And really, when you've got some solid stars like Downey, Law, and Strong in the lead roles, you can't get much better. As much as I disliked Green Lantern, I loved Strong as Sinestro in it, and I was hoping that his woefully underused talent would be put on display here. Sadly, it wasn't, but more on that later. Likewise, I like Downey as Sherlock Holmes, and he's got a good dynamic going with Law as Watson. They bounce off each other like rubber balls on the ground, and it's pretty good to watch, with most of the film's already solid comedy coming from their interactions.

However, I'm afraid that there are many flaws with this movie. For starters, Lord Blackwood isn't a particularly strong villain. We know that he wants to take over the world and all, but we don't go into his motivation very deeply. He's just so... I thing Jeremy Jahns put it best... generic. Blackwood is just a run-of-the-mill movie bad guy with run-of-the-mill goals.

Speaking of ill-defined characters, most of the others here aren't give a terrible lot of attention. Irene Adler is an interesting and likeable supporting character, but not a whole lot is done with her. She's sort of just there. True, she has a more or less well plotted out motivation, but she's still just not given a whole lot to do other than flirt with Holmes. Most of the other characters have the same problem, from the ill-defined but potentially complex character of Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) to Watson's fiancee Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly) to Mrs. Hudson (Geraldine James). It's a shame really, especially about Lestrade, a tragically underexploited character in my opinion.

I'd also like to make clear that there is just too much stuff blowing up and too much action. Sherlock Holmes is meant to be a very cerebral character, with most of the conflict in the story rooted in suspense and mystery. There's a little mystery in here, but not a whole lot of suspense. BBC's Sherlock got that part right, focusing on the characters and the mystery rather than ludicrously over the top action sequences.

Finally, the actual mystery solving is largely kept hidden from viewers until the climax of the film, where Holmes reveals that he's worked everything out. In Sherlock, the audience is let in on the clues and things, allowing us to be kept "in the know." There's none of that here. Granted, when there is actual mystery solving, it's pretty cool, but there's just not a whole lot of it. There was also some clunky expository dialogue that rakes on the ears. The rest of the dialogue wasn't anything special.

In the end, I declare that Sherlock Holmes is the most mediocre film that I've ever reviewed, and I hope to never see it again. I will be reviewing it's sequel in a week or two, and I might eventually have to do a post on Sherlock, just so you all can get a taste of a Sherlock Holmes adaptation that is actually good. At least this film had the decency to not include the blasted dear stalker hat.

RATING: 6.5/10

Image courtesy of imdb.com

Review: Sherlock Holmes and the Titanic Tragedy

I am ashamed to say that I have never read any Sherlock Holmes stories. I made one attempt to read A Study in Scarlet, and I've seen all the episodes of the excellent BBC series Sherlock, but other than that, this glorified fan fiction by William Seil is the closest I've ever come to actually reading a Sherlock Holmes story. And as someone who has never read the real thing, even I can tell that this book is a disgrace to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

In this book, Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes, both now retired for some time, are recruited by the British government to assist a government agent, Irene Adler's daughter Christine Norton, in transporting secret government plans to America, on the doomed ship Titanic. Throw in Professor James Moriarty's brother, Colonel... James Moriarty, and a large cast, including a decisively creepy quasi-romantic subplot between Watson and a much younger woman, and you've got what seems to be the makings of a standard issue Sherlock Holmes fan fiction. And let's not forget appearances by Mycroft Holmes, Jacques Futrelle, and Captain Edward Smith, plus a name dropping of Winston Churchill. Unfortunately, this book somehow managed to see the light of day and was published under a British press.

This book is... oh, what's a good word to describe it... awful. Yes, it is just awful. To be fair, the prose is good enough, apart from a slight stylistic error. This error is the occasional use of words such as "snorted" in place of the word "said." If you don't find this objectionable, I invite you to snort the word "yes" (thank you to James V. Smith's You Can Write a Novel for this bit of advice) Anyhow, it's the substance that's really lacking. This story has absolutely no merit as a mystery. The main villains behind the plot aren't fleshed out very well at all, what with motivations and all that, the anticlimax is ripped right out of The Final Problem, the story in which Sherlock Holmes seemingly fell to his demise, and there are far too many characters to keep track of. This last complaint in particular is something that I cannot emphasize enough. When the first person to die was killed, I honestly couldn't remember who the heck that person was. The large cast also prevents everyone from getting a decent amount of character development, particularly Christine Norton.

The mystery itself is boring and predictable, lacking real depth and meaning. On another note, this book could easily be called "Dr. Watson and the Titanic Tragedy", as it barely features Holmes at all, instead focusing on the adventure of Watson. The whole point of Watson is to give a window through which we can observe Holmes. When Holmes goes off on his own, this isn't possible, and we're instead stuck with Watson and Futrelle mucking about in the Titanic's hold.

In the end, I'm tempted to say that reading this book was a waste of time, but no, there was some good to it. I'm now encouraged to actually read the real stuff. I'll see about adding Doyle's stories to my reading list.

RATING: 5/10

Image courtesy of baker-street-studios.com