I thought the movie was a lot of fun. Of course, it is not the original, it is a modification, a huge alteration from the original Holmes. But, accepting that (and even though I clearly prefer the original concept), I didn't feel offended by it. I took it for what it was: nonsensical entertainment. I laughed with many Holmes-Downey/Watson-Law dialogues, and the atmosphere, although clearly unrealistic, was nice. And I thought the main leads did a good job, and I felt the girl who played Irene Adler was very attractive (even if her character was not Irene Adler as described by Doyle: who cares?).
Of course, Brett was one of the best Holmes ever on the screen, and one that respected the original (for me, better) concept. But I have some reservations about the Granada Series; which I described in another forum:
Finally, the Granada series became weirder and weirder, getting away from Doyle to a very confusing concept (The Eligible Bachelor, The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes), which felt awfully empty and was aggravated by Brett's sickness symptoms on screen.
By the way, I love The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. It is an alteration, but not crazy and arbitrary, like the Ritchie film: on the contrary, it takes the original to a new direction, with loving care and constructive purpose. To me, it is the best Sherlock Holmes movie ever, even when it has many faults (deerstalker in the streets of London, and things like that).
Of course, Brett was one of the best Holmes ever on the screen, and one that respected the original (for me, better) concept. But I have some reservations about the Granada Series; which I described in another forum:
The Pros
1) The main attraction: Jeremy Brett. Undoubtedly a great performance, full of unique details: through his eyes, his gestures, his nervousness, his being esporadically histrionic, you feel Holmes' mind at work. You also feel him as a human being with weaknesses, not as a super-hero.
2) The production design seems to represent the time where the action is placed accurately. Baker Street looks lovely.
3) Faithfulness to the Canon.
4) 35mm film gives a beautiful image.
5) Nice location work.
The Cons (especially the first two)
1) In general, a frequently annoying naivety which makes it hard for me to concentrate on each chapter's story. Especially when it comes to the humour and/or people's reaction to Holmes' deductions. Some examples that come to my mind:
- Watson is always very surprised and when Holmes explains his reasoning to him always says: "So simple" and Holmes feels irritated. Simply this does not seem funny to me, and what's worse it is not believable as a dialogue between two INTELLIGENT persons who KNOW EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME.
- Lestrade is way too silly. I understand it pretends to be comical, but he's so exaggerated when he pompously shows his authority (as in the second stain), that I don't believe the character and therefore, I don't find him funny. What's more, Holmes does not seem so intelligent besides him, as he is so obviously stupid.
- The Gioconda's subplot in The Final Problem. It is a very poor plot considering it's the work of Moriarty. And Holmes' "amazing" deductions created by the writers are too silly: TO EVERYONE'S SURPRISE (!) he guesses the Mona Lisa has been stolen because it is not where it used to be.
- Holmes' disguises are always very evident. In other Holmes films he could fool the spectator. Here, everytime he is in disguise seems very obvious to me from the very start (i.e. The Final Problem, The Empty House).
2) Doyle's dialogue is sometimes TOO MUCH respected. It was literary dialogue, meant to be read, not performed. And even if a skillful actor could make it sound natural, the performers here usually play it in a very old-fashioned, solemn, unbelievable way. I don't expect Holmes and Watson stories to be played naturalistically, but these series' supporting cast sometimes goes too much in the other direction.
3) The production design probably was very meticulously researched but, on the other hand, lacked a certain degree of personality. It feels a little "generic" to me, compared to the (perhaps less historically acurate) visual style of works like The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Terror or the Rathbone films.
4) This has been said before, and it's probably nitpicking, but sometimes (around 1988) Brett did not look like Holmes at all. I understand this happens because of his illness, and I feel sorry for the man, but they should have stopped the production until he had recovered. In The Hound of the Baskervilles he looks awful.
1) The main attraction: Jeremy Brett. Undoubtedly a great performance, full of unique details: through his eyes, his gestures, his nervousness, his being esporadically histrionic, you feel Holmes' mind at work. You also feel him as a human being with weaknesses, not as a super-hero.
2) The production design seems to represent the time where the action is placed accurately. Baker Street looks lovely.
3) Faithfulness to the Canon.
4) 35mm film gives a beautiful image.
5) Nice location work.
The Cons (especially the first two)
1) In general, a frequently annoying naivety which makes it hard for me to concentrate on each chapter's story. Especially when it comes to the humour and/or people's reaction to Holmes' deductions. Some examples that come to my mind:
- Watson is always very surprised and when Holmes explains his reasoning to him always says: "So simple" and Holmes feels irritated. Simply this does not seem funny to me, and what's worse it is not believable as a dialogue between two INTELLIGENT persons who KNOW EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME.
- Lestrade is way too silly. I understand it pretends to be comical, but he's so exaggerated when he pompously shows his authority (as in the second stain), that I don't believe the character and therefore, I don't find him funny. What's more, Holmes does not seem so intelligent besides him, as he is so obviously stupid.
- The Gioconda's subplot in The Final Problem. It is a very poor plot considering it's the work of Moriarty. And Holmes' "amazing" deductions created by the writers are too silly: TO EVERYONE'S SURPRISE (!) he guesses the Mona Lisa has been stolen because it is not where it used to be.
- Holmes' disguises are always very evident. In other Holmes films he could fool the spectator. Here, everytime he is in disguise seems very obvious to me from the very start (i.e. The Final Problem, The Empty House).
2) Doyle's dialogue is sometimes TOO MUCH respected. It was literary dialogue, meant to be read, not performed. And even if a skillful actor could make it sound natural, the performers here usually play it in a very old-fashioned, solemn, unbelievable way. I don't expect Holmes and Watson stories to be played naturalistically, but these series' supporting cast sometimes goes too much in the other direction.
3) The production design probably was very meticulously researched but, on the other hand, lacked a certain degree of personality. It feels a little "generic" to me, compared to the (perhaps less historically acurate) visual style of works like The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Terror or the Rathbone films.
4) This has been said before, and it's probably nitpicking, but sometimes (around 1988) Brett did not look like Holmes at all. I understand this happens because of his illness, and I feel sorry for the man, but they should have stopped the production until he had recovered. In The Hound of the Baskervilles he looks awful.
By the way, I love The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. It is an alteration, but not crazy and arbitrary, like the Ritchie film: on the contrary, it takes the original to a new direction, with loving care and constructive purpose. To me, it is the best Sherlock Holmes movie ever, even when it has many faults (deerstalker in the streets of London, and things like that).
Comment