Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Sherlock Holmes, the movie

I was going to write a post about dreams last Friday, which is sadly when I last updated my blog or practically even came up here. Because dreams are so interesting, and mine are so chaotic--like an action movie.

But you know what? I'm not actually going to write about dreams today. I'll save that for another day, preferably a day when I can remember all the twists and nuances of my dreams the previous night. Then I'll share some of the crazy dreams I've had in the past.

So, let's segue into an action movie: Sherlock Holmes.

I saw this movie last night, which, considering how skittish I can be, probably wasn't the best idea. Seeing it at night, that is. Let's just say that I have a strong imagination when it gets dark. That when I finished reading Coraline at home, in bed, around the stroke of 1 or 2 in the morning, I was too scared to do anything other than shiver under my blankets and hope that the scary button-eyed monster wouldn't try to get me to climb down any rabbit holes.

Maybe this is partly why my dreams are so vivid?

In any case, Sherlock Holmes wasn't really scary--for most people. For most of the movie. But the voo-doo and black magic that it showcased, though of course perfunctorily and logically disbanded by Holmes, played very well (in the vein of this movie) by Robert Downey Jr., spooked me. Even when I knew it had to be logical. Because I couldn't explain away all of the logic!

Plus, there was quite a bit of getting-cut-open-ness that I wasn't so keen on watching.

But overall, I have to say that this was a pretty good movie. The acting was--really well done. Jude Law was attractive, yes, but even more so believable! I believed in his character, and if he wasn't Watson, I didn't care--he was Holmes' companion, the only man to keep him as he should be. The filming of the movie itself was interesting--the flashbacks, the way Holmes thought (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you should see the movie. I don't want to spill all the beans!), the coloring, the deductive reasoning at play, keeping the audience engaged--very interesting, very cool. In my humble opinion. There was humor, clever word play, creative characters, and an engaging plot.

More than a few explosions, too.

However, if you like Sherlock Holmes books--love them--live by them--I don't think you'll like this movie.

In fact, if you don't like action movies, if you hate them and cringe when you see a commercial for them, you might want to think two or three or maybe even four times, before you decide to go and see it.

But if you want a twist on tradition--this may be the film for you.

I'll tell you that even with all the flinching, I found many points of interest and laughed a few times throughout. Oh, yeah--and I also fell a bit for Holmes.

And Watson. Much better than Watson from the book.

Of course, I was never Arthur Conan Doyle's biggest fan, so what do I know?


Amalia T. said...

my one complaint is that the bulldog was not historically accurate for the time. And I loved the way they showed Holmes thinking and analyzing things too-- I thought it was a great way of keeping him intellectual while allowing for action.

WhisperingWriter said...

I heard that it was a good movie. I might see it when it comes out on DVD.

Jess of All Trades said...

I have to confess I've never read a Sherlock Holmes story (ducks flying books), and I enjoy many action movies, and Smart movies. So this was right up my alley. I think your reviews is right on. I thought they used a lot of clever storytelling techniques and -- well...yeah. The cutting-openness. Not so much.
I did love Hans Zimmer's score though. Cheers to him for branching out a little.