La revanche de Sherlock Holmes

As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I was looking forward to "Silk Stocking," but was very disappointed with Rupert Everett's performance. He gave the distinct impression of being bored all the way through. Also, I was surprised by the scene of him shooting up during the case. My understanding of the "real" Holmes is that he was bored in between cases, and that's when he enjoyed his 7% solution. When in the midst of a case, he was excited and engaged and focused -- none of which Everett showed in his performance. My favorite Holmes remains Jeremy Brett, who showed actual modulation in Holmes' personality (irritation and boredom before the case presented itself; excitement, sometimes to a bizarre extent, during a case; rapture at listening to a classical concert etc.) rather than the sleepy, Johnny-one-note performance of Everett. Four snores.

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.

I am a really avid fan of all things Sherlock Holmes. I have all the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce original movies and all the Jeremy Brett Telefilms and series.

I also have the excellent 1959 Hammer 'HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES' with wonderful Peter Cushing as Sherlock Holmes (FWIW, I have like 8 different versions of that movie... : ) And, the later, not as well known 1985 film 'THE MASKS OF DEATH' also starring Peter Cushing as Holmes.

And, a LOT more... :D

So, in going into this movie I was curious as to how Rupert Everett would be in the starring role. Well, I honestly thought he did a very good job. Watson actually took a bit longer to get used to, but both I feel did a genuinely good job in portraying these famous characters.

Also, what gives the movie a lot of strength is the story itself. Not to mention, the excellent atmosphere and the very adept way it was directed and written.

Another thing I really liked was that with the way the characters were developed, you really had a strong emotional connection to both the good and the bad guys. I tell you, that one Duke or whomever the hell he was was SO damn pompous, I swear I really wanted to kick his bottom! So yes, the characterization all around was done very well.

A very compelling story, almost along the lines of a Jack the Ripper with a very effective atmosphere, something if you are a Holmes fan at all you should really find entertaining.

I gave it a strong '7'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MY PARTICULAR WAY OF RATING:

5 - Flawed, but with some entertainment value.

6. A decently passable story maybe worth a watch.

7. A solid film, well made, effective, and entertaining.

And, obviously, you can probably figure out what above and below these would mean... : )

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's replacement of Richard Roxburgh for a second post-Jeremy Brett installment of big budget Holmes adaptation is quite a wise one, adding as it does a touch of youthful energy to the detective's armoury. Indeed, the whole film runs at a cracking pace, dropping clues like confetti. But what really makes this adaptation shine is a growing sense of purpose in terms of atmosphere. Arthur Conan Doyle's creation is plunged further into its roots as a purveyor of the grotesque and shocking. Corpses, evil smiles (and that's just Ian Hart's Watson!), drug use, great music score, and plenty of dense smog enhance the proceedings further than the decent acting or script. Well worth a look on a dark night...