Just a follow-up to my reported intent last week to go see the new "Sherlock Holmes" movie. We did, and I enjoyed it very much. I would recommend it as an entertaining movie that doesn't pretend to be anything else. I sort of agree with Steven Barnes, who "really wanted to love this movie" and instead "just kind of liked it. A lot." Since I didn't have any particular expectations but also liked it a lot, I guess that makes my review a tad stronger than his.
Barnes has an interesting insight:
Guy Richie's re-invention of the Sherlock Holmes film has, at it's core, a great idea: let's re-examine the way Doyle might have written about the exact same character in a more permissive, action-oriented era.
That speaks to whether Holmes purists will like the movie as they judge whether the film "is loyal to the essence of what Doyle actually created." I think it is, and the ones more likely to be disappointed are the "Basil Rathbone as Holmes" fans rather than the readers of Doyle's fiction. The film, for example (as Barnes notes), seems to make Holmes out as some sort of action hero. That would be startling for those used to Rathbone's more cerebral portrayal, but Doyle depicted Holmes as an expert in several forms of self-defense and someone very much able to take care of himself in a fight.
One of the things I liked most about the movie was its portrayal of Dr. Watson as an intelligent, witty, resourcesful man very much worthy of Holme's friendship. How we can be expected to believe that a medical doctor, heroic war veteran and literate compiler of the Holmes canon can be the bumbling boob portrayed by Nigel Bruce in the dozen Rathbone movies is one of life's great mysteries.
