Ever since I saw the first trailer for the Guy Ritchie-directed, Robert Downey, Jr/Jude Law-starring Sherlock Holmes film, I've been very apprehensive about it. As a self-professed Holmes fan (as well as being an actual Holmes!), I tend to have pretty high standards for any story in which the character appears. Of course, with the Conan Doyle tales now in the public domain, they're fodder for anyone who wants to try their hand at it.
Based on this preview review by comic writer/gossip columnist Rich Johnston, it sounds like the latest big screen offering is every bit the bust that its trailer made it appear to be. In fact, Johnston's views line up quite nicely with my reaction to each trailer I've seen, which has been to think, "That's not Holmes." At no point does Downey seem to embody any of the Great Detective's attributes, leading one to wonder why they even bothered slapping his name onto it. Why not create a new set piece about a drunken, belligerent middle-aged Englishman in the late 19th century who goes around getting into fights while bumbling his way through private investigations? After all, if it was successful, the creators would own the exclusive rights to the characters and could make millions off the franchise.
Anyway, this sounds like a pass for me this Christmas season. Vicki and I will continue delighting in our viewing of the DVD collection of Granada TV's British episodes starring Jeremy Brett (which are truly excellent). I'm currently also reading two original books called The Final Solution (one by Michael Chabon and the other by Walter J. Harmidarow), both of which treat the Holmes legend with considerably more respect and admiration. Hell, maybe I'll even re-read Leah Moore and John Reppion's wonderful 5-issue comic series entitled The Trial of Sherlock Holmes. That just goes to show that some people know how to use the character well, and others are simply without a clue, so to speak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hi
Very nice and intrestingss story.
Post a Comment