La revanche de Sherlock Holmes

Stage, screen, and television adaptations or features using Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters turn on one simple, inescapable point: do we believe the actor as Holmes? If the answer is yes, then a bad story is still pretty good. If the answer is no, then whatever other attractions the story holds are worthless.

The answer here is clearly yes: Rupert Everett is very good as Sherlock Holmes. The transfer from print to screen is almost flawless. If anything, too much is made of Holmes' obvious flaws as a human being: his recreational drug use, patronizing arrogance, indifference to the feelings of others, preoccupation with the workings of his own mind. This Holmes reminds me of Dorian Gray. It is only his love of solving crimes that keeps him from committing them.

The story is pretty pedestrian. This isn't quite as bad as "the butler did it," but it's close. I won't spoil the movie as others here have by saying more. I liked the scenes where Holmes is reasoning out who the killer is. This was clever, unforeseen, and quite believable. But, from the time the chief suspect is identified, until he was finally caught .. the entire climax of the movie, in other words .. was ..well, trite, clichéd, and elementary, my dear Watson ..

Kudos to Helen McCrory and Perdita Weeks in supporting performances.

Rupert Everett has the aquiline profile and world-weary vocal delivery that are necessities for a screen Holmes, but he (and the excellent actors around him) are hamstrung by a cliché- ridden script. Sherlock Holmes, telling Watson to "keep your breath to cool your porridge"?? The last two times I heard that expression on screen were both in adaptations of Pride and Prejudice--and I certainly mean no disrespect to either of them. Holmes is also made to deploy a Mary Poppins aphorism about pie crusts and promises--perhaps you remember it from your childhood Disney viewing.

This is a good-looking production (apart from the occasional wobble from the annoyingly popular unsteadicam), though I have it on good authority that London fog did not swirl rapidly around the lampposts and chimneypots. Beautifully designed interiors include a Duchess' drawing room, a Victorian graveyard, an underground lair of the villain (he always has a lair, doesn't he), and a ceramic-tiled morgue. Costumes are in a muted color palette of cream, black, olive green, and brown, and the girls in their costumes for a classical tableau look as if they have stepped out of a Alma-Tadema painting.

In addition to Everett as Holmes, the production is graced with a uniformly strong cast. Ian Hart brings an acerbic vigor to the role of Dr. Watson, and Neil Dudgeon injects Lestrade with some humor. The superb Helen McCrory, as Watson's American fiancée, initially appears brash and pushy (she calls Holmes "Sherlock" throughout, even though his best friend Watson invariably calls him by his last name), an often-observed trait of American women in British film/TV productions, but she is too good an actress to keep to that one-note character. Guy Henry is disgracefully underused--give him a bigger role!

The story is a new one, which is not in itself a criticism; it is creepy and intriguing. The most glaring problem of the show is with the script; I hope that director Simon Cellan Jones continues to make more Holmes stories--but that writer Allan Cubitt will not.

While the main stars differ somewhat from the stereotypical Holmes and Watson, one hardly gets a chance to ponder this, as this little gem is fascinating from the start.

Excellent acting and a plot which is solid and built up in such a manner that the viewer is enticed to think along with Mr. Holmes make this BBC production quite a perfect installment in the series.

Everett and Hart show great chemistry and I wouldn't mind the BBC to carry on making more Holmes movies in this manner - if anyone over there happens to read this - keep 'em coming!

9/10 easily.

I'll admit it. I'm a big Holmes fan. I think Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could really write. However, this cute little TV movie leaves something to be desired... although I'm not sure what. (Yes, I do type like this after watching old movies. No, I don't like it, either.) Jeremy Brett - the other Holmes I've seen - was creepy at first, but he sort of grew on you until you no longer thought of him as an actor, but as Holmes himself. Everett... just... no. I don't find eyelashes very professional-looking.

I'm fairly sure that this was written from scratch - basically, that Sir Doyle didn't write it. This explains a few parts that are a bit ... well, dubious. Also, the perpetrators?! I know, there are lots of other outrageous solutions in the Holmes series, but still, it seems like a silly way to solve a mystery. "Hey, let's write a Sherlock Holmes with SOCKS and have TWI-" oops, nearly gave it away. Moving on...

One thing to note is that I liked this Watson more than other one. He seems a bit more alive then Hardwicke. That's always good.

6/10 - Worth a watch, if you like Sherlock Holmes. Otherwise, you may want to rent a nice Harry Potter.

I really liked that movie. The way Sherlock Holmes is portrayed here strongly reminds me of the 2010 TV show, called Sherlock (which is really great). In contrast to every other Sherlock movie I've watched before, this one resembles the 2010 Sherlock the best and I really like that version of him.