“…but he looked upon
aimless bodily exertion as a waste of energy, and he seldom bestirred himself
save where there was some professional object to be served.”
--John Watson on Sherlock Holmes, “The Yellow Face”
Austin:
Oh the agony. I look at the faces of
children and I just......I'm sorry, pardon me. It's all just so sad. There are
people out there who kill other people. I can't just take it.
Wow, I'm sorry. I just finished watching Sherlock Holmes and the
Case of the Silk Stocking and I'm still distracted by how melancholy
Sherlock Holmes was in this story. There is no charisma, no intelligence, just
lots and lots of brooding. He's more like a model than a great detective. He
pouts, he looks forlorn, and even when he's in a (truly awful) costume the performance
saps all the fun out of it.
This not what I expected from Rupert Everett. I first saw him as the
gay best friend in My Best Friend's Wedding and as the comical
buffoon in Dunston Checks In. (I see everything, okay?) He's an actor who
can easily be the life of the room, but in this he almost fades into the fog
without any benefit. The presentation of the movie rests entirely
on this performance. It's Sherlock, the mystery and the bad guy. That's what's
holding up this movie and I think only one of those is any good.
 |
| This is a better performance. |
I will go as far as to say this is the worst performance of Sherlock
Holmes I have ever seen. The final confrontation is just embarrassing to watch
because you have an acting contest where one is whooping the other without even
trying.
I could go on
with more hyperbole about this too bland for comprehension performance but I
really should check to see if we're on the same boat. Did you find something to
latch onto with Everett's performance?
Leigh: It's
almost as if Rupert Everett was told, "Pretend Sherlock Holmes is at a
Vogue UK photo shoot No smiling. No laughing. Brood, pout, realize
the terror in the world." Maybe not Vogue UK because none of his clothes
fit him at all. Unlike you, I don't see hardly anything. The only thing I know
Rupert Everett from Inspector Gadget (I was age appropriate) and the trailer for My
Best Friend's Wedding that was before some movie that I can't remember now that
my playmates and I used to watch a lot. We were young and unimaginative and
watched the same movies a lot. Don't judge.
 |
| I'm sorry but this song....it's just so.....excuse me for a moment. |
While I didn't hate his performance as much as you did, I wouldn't
say it's the best either. I did really enjoy this movie though, mainly because
I got to play our favorite game, 15 British Actors. You might play it differently
but when I spot an actor I recognize, I then try to name everything I know them
from. I did this with multiple actors in this movie and it was the main reason
I continued watching it. (Can you name the three actors who were also in Harry
Potter movies?)
I take it back, the main reason why I continued watching was to see
how Michael Fassbender played into the plot. I figured since he has since
become incredibly popular, he would play some important role in the plot. I was
right.
The plot itself was...interesting. It's definitely not like a
traditional Holmes story but we've okayed others that were more modern takes.
But this one seemed different. I think it's because the audience isn't allowed
to try to solve the mystery. Every time there is a chance, Holmes or another
character gets there first and tells the audience what is happening, aside from
one key twist.
So the movie
wasn't horrible. I'd say that Michael Fassbender made up for some of the flaws
but what do you think? What do you think about that plot?
Austin: It was
unfortunate for this movie that I watched the pilot episode to Hannibal the
night before. The show was truly excellent because it hit all the right creepy
notes within its respected subgenre. I didn't expect to see similar moments
with Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock removing the titular silk stocking out of the
girl's mouth was very reminiscent of The Silence of the Lambs. This was
a plot that seemed to be responding to the increase in popularity of CSI shows
and that didn't exactly gel with the Sherlock character.
 |
| You have something on your cheek. Stop screaming, I'm being helpful! |
Ultimately Michael Fassbender is just a serial killer instead of a
convoluted Sherlockian villain with a quirky plan. My words seem sarcastic for
the latter, but those are way more fun to watch. The twist with (SPOILER) Fassbender
being identical twins made my eyes roll, not just because it's overdone but
because it's an easy way to write a mystery plot.
On the other hand, double the Fassbender made the last third
entertaining. We did have to deal with Sherlock's godawful disguise--seriously
it was stupid bad. Yet once we got beyond that sequence we get to have
Fassbender acting way better than anybody else on screen. Yes, it was obvious
that he was ultimately going to be the bad guy just like how I solved After
the Thin Man when I noticed a young actor by the name of Jimmy
Stewart. (Oh I guess spoiler for that one too....Whoops).
But if this was
a movie that was so medically driven, why wasn't Watson better used? Also if
this was a bigger success and they made more of these TV movies would you have
continued watching?
Leigh: The twin
thing is over done. I didn't like it with The Prestige and I wasn't a fan with
Fassbender being the twin here. Like you said, it is a cop out. If it had been
done interestingly, have one twin be the crazy one and the other have
absolutely no idea at all that his brother is insane, then that would've added
a more interesting spin to it.
Watson is used at the beginning of the story to introduce the
mystery to Holmes but then he's only ever used to see if someone is alright or
dead. He wasn't even a good companion to Holmes. There's only one moment in the
whole movie where Holmes and Watson actually seemed like friends and companions
and it wasn't just Holmes bossing Watson around and Watson rolling his eyes at
the whole ordeal. Watson was poorly written and underused which is sad because
he's a good actor.
Now your last question, would I have continued watching if they had
made more? Maybe, if they had found their stride and Rupert Everett stopped
posing and brooding all over the place. The one thing that this movie was
lacking was the fun. At the end of a mystery, no matter how gruesome it is,
Holmes has fun. It's his flaw, he enjoys the problems that most cringe at and
are disgusted with. He doesn't have any fun in this movie and that's a problem.
So if they had fixed that then maybe I would've continued watching. (Side note:
They did make a Hounds movie with the same Watson and the actor who played the
Duke from Moulin Rouge. I'm interested only because I love Moulin Rouge.)
 |
| The song's afoot... |
Next we deal with another set of twins and a sorta familiar plot.
And now Austin
with the final word!:
Austin: Mopey!
No comments:
Post a Comment