Book Review: "The Adventure of the Engineer's Thumb" (Doyle, 1892)

(Please excuse the delay. Both of us were traveling this week and Leigh totally forgot what day it was until Tuesday.)

-->

“And now, Doctor, perhaps you would kindly attend to my thumb, or rather to the place where my thumb used to be.”

– Victor Hatherley, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”

Leigh: This week we have a story about an engineer who is put under pressure then doesn't make the cut but the details of the story aren't what make this case interesting. Okay, this case is a really interesting one and in my list of favorites for being intense and unusual, but how the story is told is what makes this adventure stand out. Instead of the case coming to Sherlock Holmes and unraveling from there and then being solved, the audience is told the story as it happened to the engineer. Sherlock Holmes is a much a part of the audience as we are in this case. We've listened to other people tell their stories in the adventures and we've complained about it. After the engineer told his story, I almost forgot that it was a Sherlock Holmes story. Sherlock only interrupts to ask a question once and based on that one question, he figures out the location of the house. While the case itself is exciting and different, I don't think that Sherlock Holmes' part was really needed. The one clue that helps him decide where the events took place was all that he was needed for and in the end, I think that an average police officer would've figured it out, especially if they arrived to a house on fire. Personally, I think Watson was just as useful in this case as Sherlock Holmes was and that rarely happens.

And can I talk about something important here? The old saying goes "nothing but trouble happens after midnight." I've heard this more in relation to a girl going over to a guy's house to hang out after midnight but I think that it is entirely applicable here. Especially if the person inviting you says, "Don't tell anyone about this ever at all period." Also, why are some people so thick that when they are told, "Hey, you should leave. Now." they decide to stay? Seriously. I don't think that this was originally intended to be a "worse case scenario" for teen party-goers but I think it could be used now as one. If you go out after midnight and are told not to tell anyone anything, there is going to be trouble and you'll probably end up dead. If you are told to leave by someone at the party, you should probably leave before you make an ass out of yourself or you get your ass kicked/thumb chopped off. That is the main message I got from this story and that's what I'll tell my kids this story is about when I read it to them when they're going to bed. I'm going to be a terrible mother.

 Austin: Well when your kids ignore your advice and lose their thumbs in cruel irony not only will they learn their lesson but all of the kids in their school will know about the Thumbless Ones and what mischief can lead to.

This is an odd story. Not one of my favorites because Sherlock Holmes is basically irrelevant. As they started their carriage to the grounds, I couldn't help but notice there were very few pages left. The ending is almost a mocking of a Holmes third act.

"I think we should go west!"
"No, it's east! We must search east!"
"What do you think Holmes?"
"The house is on fire. End of mystery!"

Then it ends. We don't even know if they attached the blasted thumb.

Much less dramatic than losing an actual thumb.

That said, I did enjoy his story and would enjoy it more on a reread because I won't be searching for what to solve. They had their best hook yet to the beginning. Instead of sitting down and starting from the beginning and getting to the odd element of the mystery, we start off with a guy who lost his thumb and pressured the bleeding with a twig.

I think I know your answer but should we judge this story just as a story or should it be seen though the filters of a "Sherlock Holmes story" or even as a mystery? Can it be a good short story and a bad mystery? Is it even a mystery?

Leigh: My kids will have enough difficulty in life because I'll be raising them. Being thumbless would give them an awesome story to tell though and I'm all about having fun stories to tell at random parties or in elevators to complete strangers or to myself because I'm bored.

Now for your questions.

Is this a good Sherlock Holmes story?: No.

Is this a good short story?: Yes! 

Is this a good mystery?: No.

Is it even a mystery?: Eh, I don't think so. 

The story itself, I felt was interesting. If you cut out Sherlock Holmes and make it about a guy who goes to the doctor because his thumb was cut off, I think it would be a really neat short story. I don't think it's a mystery though. As we both said, there wasn't really anything to figure out. There was no mystery. It was a thriller, definitely! I think this is one of the most suspenseful stories we've read yet! But because the genre wasn't really defined in ACD's day, can we really fault him? We've brought up this question before. I couldn't tell you what I had said but I think right now we can't blame him for making a story that wasn't a mystery but we can blame him for making a story that isn't like his others at all. There is a difference between having a story be unique in a set but still fit within the set and then there is what we have here. We have a story that doesn't fit the rest of the collection that we've seen so far. I think that this would've been really successful as a one-off in an issue of The Strand. Or even just have the story be about Watson but never go to see Holmes. There was a time period where Holmes was missing (SPOILER ALERT! lulz!) and I think that this story would've been a nice "While he was gone" story. ACD didn't really know that he was going to try to kill off Holmes though so I guess that idea doesn't work...

Austin: In my mind the best reason for having Holmes there is so there is someone for Watson to compare himself to. The first few pages consist of him bragging about how amazing this story is and how he found it on his own.

I always enjoy the concept of an unreliable narrator. I don't think it's a radical theory to suggest that Watson restructured this story to make him look better. I bet in "real life" Sherlock did all sorts of clever things aside from ask about the horse colors. Watson just took creative liberty and made himself the hero in a story where our heroes don't do anything.

This was a fun odd all of a story that I plan on rereading before next week's adventure. Yet this week everyone should prepare to watch a Classic Doctor Who story that is undeniably awesome and questionably a Sherlock Holmes tale. Get excited!

And here is Leigh Montano with the last word.

Leigh: THUMB!

In-Class Movie: The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)

-->

“Ah, me! It’s a wicked world, and when a clever man turns his brains to crime it is the worst of all.”

--Sherlock Holmes, “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”

Austin: When we reviewed Dressed to Kill, it corresponded with the Doyle story we were reading that week. Last time, Without a Clue served as a decent transition from Elementary in that they were both about Sherlock Holmes pretending to be smart.

Now we have The Hound of the Baskervilles on a week where we read "The Adventure of the Speckled Band." I was worried there would be a clear connection, but I was pleasantly surprised. They are both really awesome. All I knew about this version was that Peter Cushing was playing the famed detective. We can get to him in a minute, because the real star is Hammer Film Productions.

"It's elementary, Watson. Hammer beats rock." "That's not even close to how you play that game."

They were a group that has been around for decades, but were the most popular when they started to produce gothic horror movies. All sorts of Frankenstein and Dracula films that were spooky and sometimes a bit ridiculous. This is taking the most gothic Sherlock Holmes story and giving it to a group that thrived with that genre. From the first scene, this movie sets a standard showing this will not be another routine mystery.

In a story that has been covered more than any other Sherlock Holmes but every frame of this movie felt new and vibrant while still feeling like a proper Sherlock Holmes story. Perhaps because it's Hammer behind the wheel, this is the only Hound story where I felt there might just be a curse.

What say you, Montano? Am I building this up too much or is it that awesome?

Leigh: I watch a lot of British television. One might have gathered that from reading our blog or talking to me. One of my favorite shows is QI. I have easily seen every episode of series A-G at least 10 times each. Easily. One episode Alan Davies mentions this song: 

I cannot think of Peter Cushing without hearing this song. Made watching Hound of the Baskervilles very entertaining. The cold meds might've helped with that too.

There are a lot of perfect pairings throughout history, a bunch that I can't think of right now except peanut butter and jelly, but I think Hound and Hammer are one of those perfect pairings. Were some of the day-to-night shots done badly, yes. Were some of the sets cheesy, yes. Were some of the actors bad, yes. But overall, this was a fantastic adaptation. It's been a while since I last read the story so I don't remember some of the finer details but I feel that this was a great interpretation. It definitely helps that we have at least two very skilled actors here with Cushing and Christopher Lee, who I might add looked a lot less creepy when he was younger. 

One thing that is very important in an adaptation whether it be something like Harry Potter or something like Sherlock Holmes, is the feel. One of the main reasons an adaptation fails is because it doesn't *feel* like what it's trying to adapt. That's why the first two Harry Potter movies weren't as great. They didn't get that feeling of magic and wonder and danger that the books give you. (I'm watching through Harry Potter, can you tell?) This adaptation gives off the great feeling of mystery that all Sherlock Holmes adaptations should. It just feels right, like eating that last Oreo in the pack.

Hammer shouldn't get all of the credit though. Like every other actor playing Holmes though, we have Cushing putting his own spin on the Holmes character and it is wonderful. I love how spastic he is at times. He gets Holmes' urgency and seriousness without being a strict, stern character like some Holmeses are. 

Before I start writing love letters to Peter Cushing, what do you think? Where does he rank on your list of Holmeses? And what about that Watson? 

Austin: With those first two Harry Potter films, they had the look down but never the feel. Fans of the book were thrilled to see Hogwarts and Quidditch and the like depicted faithfully, but I'm not sure there is anything in those first two movies to make you become a new fan of the series. You need to have the right storyteller to make those visual components work with the story. 

With Hound it all fits. The final showdown is exciting thanks to the art direction, editing, score and dedication to the story. All of its imperfections work in its favor to the point where I know that this film garnered new fans to Sherlock Holmes. I believe this is my Memaw's favorite story. When she was working her way through BBC's Sherlock last month, she kept wanting to get to their Hounds episode because this was her favorite when she was younger. 

If this doesn't pan out, I hear they need some leadership on the Death Star.

But yes, Peter Cushing is awesome. I have only seen the first episode of QI so my first exposure to him was from that obscure 70s film called Star Wars. I really learned more of who he was when he sorta-not-really played The Doctor when the creator of the Daleks decided to update his classic Doctor Who episodes into movies staring Peter Cushing as Dr. Who. Cushing was fine, the movies were lame. 

In this, Cushing is a wonderful weirdo. He's mastered so much of the look and feel of Holmes, while just adding a tad bit to his eccentricity showing that nobody else in the country talks/moves like him. In a film with a specific horror feel where everyone should put you on ease, that's impressive to still be the oddest man out in such a subtle way. I'd say he's up there as one of my favorite Sherlock Holmes performances. Great confidence and strange heroics where you want to see him investigate more crimes, just like how Doyle wrote him.

Watson was just fine. 

Are you game to review more Cushing films in the future? Are you worried they won't live up to these standards without a story like The Hound of Baskervilles?

Leigh: I would love to review another Cushing starred adaptation in the future just to see what changes when different production companies change but the actors stay the same.

Cushing has definitely taken one of the top three spots on my list of favorite Holmes portrayals. It goes back to that ever abstract "feel" of Sherlock Holmes and Cushing makes me believe that he is or at least that Sherlock Holmes could've existed. He has to be unrealistically realistic, if that makes any sense at all. He has to be super intelligent but at the same time grounded. Would it be weird if I wrote "Mr and Mrs Peter Cushing" all over my notebooks because I think I'm in love. Maybe it has something to do with cheek bones...

I think that Watson needs some praise here. This might be my second favorite Watson. He played the role of sidekick well. He was the muscle when he needed to be, he brought clues to Holmes' attention like ACD's Watson does, he is there when Holmes can't be. He even starts questioning that one guy whose name I can't remember right now before Holmes shows up at Baskerville Manor. He isn't the bumbling sidekick that we have seen and he actually serves a purpose unlike other Watson's we've encountered. A well portrayed Watson is a requirement for my liking of a Sherlock Holmes adaptation and this one passes.

No, it can't be......ringwaiths!

I would also like to give a shout out to Christopher Lee. I know he doesn't need any more praise but he did a damn fine job acting as the new inheritor of the Baskerville curse. He made me want to care about the story a bit more because he was commanding of the screen when he was on. You wanted this guy to survive and I fell for the false death of him at the midpoint of the movie and was sad when he "died." (It's been a REALLY long time since I've read this one.) Watching this adaptation with two of Hammer's go-to actors has made me want to go out and watch the other movies that these two were in together. This movie at least made me a fan of Hammer Productions since I was already a fan of Sherlock Holmes.

Next we find out what happens when engineers are under pressure (pun intended) even if the story is relayed to the audience. 

And here is Austin Lugar with the final word.

Austin: Hound!

Book Review: "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" (Doyle, 1892)

-->

“On glancing over my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes, I find many tragic, some comic, a large number merely strange, but none commonplace…”

--Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Speckled Band”

Leigh: Case of the Speckled BLAND, amirite? No, but I love this story. If I had to pick one of the short form ACD stories to be the definitive Sherlock Holmes adventure, this one would be it, I think. It has the complex mystery that the longer stories have but in a much more compact story. We get the background of the situation without having to sit through too much excess information and we still have a grasp on what's going on. We don't learn about the doctor's time in India more than he was there and then left, because we don't need it. We don't need to know why he killed someone, just that he did. I think this might be the best-written short form Sherlock Holmes adventure. ACD was really on form for this one.

But of course I have some questions and critiques. I wish there was a class that I could take called "Inheritance and allowances in Victorian era England" because everything I've learned about how much money people are allowed each year is from Sherlock Holmes novels and Downton Abbey. One might say that it is incomplete. I don't understand where the allowance comes from. I understand that their mother left it to them but where is it right now? Why can't they get all of it at once? Why does their money fluctuate with the market? If anyone can answer these questions for me, you get internet points. 

What's an allowance?

We have had a similar story to this one before. Not with the deadly snake or anything, but with the stepfather trying to con his stepdaughter out of money. The first was an actual con and this one was murder. What has changed so much in the past ~125 years to make mysteries less about just killing someone out of passion and killing them because of money? There are a lot of TV crime dramas that center around someone killing someone over their fortune but more often than not, it's for some other deranged reason. What has changed? Has the focus of the public/media changed or have the criminals changed? 

I feel like a four year old today, asking every question ever but my inquiring mind wants to know. 

So, Austin, why?

Austin: What? No I don't know anything about Victorian allowance systems. Even the allure of internet points isn't going to make me research that topic. I'll just wait until you have half a Woodchuck and you investigate it yourself.

Anywho, this story is so awesome. It's essentially a locked room mystery filled with insanity. What I loved about rereading this one is finding all of the humor in the story. The story begins with Holmes appearing at the end of Watson's bed while he was asleep. There's a great little bit with Holmes saying the only way to solve the case is for him and Watson to be in her room that night. She is a bit startled that he just proposed a rather indecent payment for the case. Then of course you have the constant reminder that the house contains a cheetah and a baboon.

It's wonderfully absurd. The story basically relies on it being absurd. If the original girl would just scream "Snake!" this whole thing would be over, but instead she screamed "Band!". All of this fits in a story where you have a criminal who would think of a plan like this to sneak a snake through a ventilator. Such a thing would be impossible to solve because it's insane. That's why this is my favorite Sherlock Holmes because he doesn't judge the insanity, only looks at the facts.

Oh shit! A band!

In fact, he basically solved it before he even got to the house in a wonderful bit of bragging at the end.

As for your pondering on the motive, I think you still see plenty of examples of both. Usually if something is this calculated and involving rare snakes, you have a better reason than hating the person. The amount of planning will last longer than the initial emotion of anger. Crimes of passion can happen so easily because we live in a world where anything can kill someone. Mysteries need a satisfying resolution due to their puzzle structure. Audiences will probably be unsatisfied with "I hated that guy" as a reason for the murder. Needs backstory and motive and blah blah blah. What it really needs is more swamp addlers.

Enough of your questionings over nitpicks. What makes this one of the best stories ever?

Leigh: I'm only nitpicky because I love it so much, like an overprotective mother.

For me, the best part of this whole story is when Holmes says that he was wrong and that he didn't come to the right conclusion in the first place. It's not often that the infallible man admits he was wrong. This whole story was another glimpse into the character of Sherlock Holmes that just adds more to the complex character that he is. Instead of being the usual cold person that he is, when the living twin is visibly upset, he is soothing and tries not to put her on edge any more than she already is. He tells her to get closer to the fire to get warmer, he gives her a good "there there" pat on the arm, and instead of showing off and patronizing her, he calmly explains how he figured out how she got there. He usually isn't this comforting towards women and often thinks that their bouts of emotion are silly but here he is different and kinder. Why is that, I don't know but I'll allow it.

We see how Holmes reacts to threats, no matter how serious they might be. Holmes does this by simply ignoring any threatening motions that the evil doctor presented by talking about the weather and flowers. This guy has killed people and at that point, was planning on doing it again and yet Holmes just sits calmly talking about crocuses. And then to show the audience that he can hold his own in any fight, he unbends an iron poker. I don't know if you've tried to bend an iron poker, but it's not easy. 

And finally, we see that Holmes has a different set of morals that he adheres to than the rest of us. If I had unintentionally caused someone's death, I would feel terrible and probably require years of therapy, even if the person I killed was a grade A jerk. Yet here, Holmes shows no remorse at all. He basically said, "Yeah, I killed that guy. What of it? You wanna fight about it?" He doesn't tell the coroner or the police what he did and doesn't feel the need to. He's alright with the country thinking that this guy died because he was playing with a dangerous snake. By the way, I'm all for exotic and interesting animals as pets but a cheetah, a baboon and a deadly snake all in one house? Wouldn't the police or something get involved? Or the RSPCA or something? Or were exotic animal laws different then than now? Someone should just make me a course on Victorian Era laws and how they differ from our modern ones. More internet points for anyone who does and even a pretend cookie!

Austin: This is the real character showcase for Holmes. It's all we love about him wrapped up in this story. Emotional, aloof, bizarre, bragging, imperfect, and a bit violent. Watson isn't overshadowed by any of this oddly enough. This is where he plays the role as the biographer very well. All of his questions and ponderings are never belittling because the story is so mysterious. This is one of the best paced Doyle stories where even with long monologues of information.

Perhaps it's because I have to run out the door to head to Chicago, but I think we've covered it. Of course on the drive I'll think of all the things more I wanted to say. 

The Spectacled Band

Instead, I'll plug what we're going to talk about soon. On Friday we'll finally tackle one of the billion adaptations of “The Hound of the Baskervilles". First up will be the 1959 version starring Peter Cushing (best known for his small part in Star Wars and playing "Dr. Who" in a couple of bad Dalek films.) This is available on Netflix Instant.

Next week we'll be covering the next Doyle story as usual. Then on Friday we'll be reviewing something I am very excited about. When Tom Baker was the star of Doctor Who in the 70s, there was a glorious golden period of the show when the writing and the style was top notch. In one beloved story, The Doctor changed his wardrobe and took on a Sherlockian case. So we'll be reviewing that awesome story called...."The Talons of Weng-Chiang"

Get excited.

And here's Leigh Montano with the final word.

Leigh: Why'sitalwayshavetobesnakes?

In-Class Movie: "Without a Clue" (1988)

“I have no doubt that I am very stupid, but I must confess that I am unable to follow you.”

Dr. John Watson, “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle”

Austin: When this movie started I had a blast because it was everything we were talking about in our blog. Holmes complains how it should be less about the mystery and more about the character. There are plenty of jokes about all the duo, the Strand and it even has its own ridiculous way to pronounce Lestrade. 

Without a Clue has an awesome concept for a movie. In Victorian times, there really is a Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson solving crimes in London. The truth is that Watson (Ben Kingsley) is the true genius but he didn't want to discredit his doctor standing so in all of his stories he made up a character who made of all his deductions. The fame of Sherlock Holmes spiraled so he had to hire an out of work actor (Michael Caine) to play Sherlock on all of the cases while Watson continues to secretly solve all of them.

"As you can see here, this is a pipe."

It's a very fun premise and the two actors have a blast lying and yelling at each other. It becomes even more meta because since Watson is the author of the stories, he starts to have parallels to Arthur Conan Doyle in how he wants to kill off Sherlock because that's all people know him for.

Everything setting up the premise is a blast but then once the mystery starts, it is as if they ran out of cleverness. It becomes every other mystery that isn't handled with the most attention. All of the fun picks up again when the plot is able to be thrown out again and it can just be Holmes/Watson up against the bad guy. 

This is my second time watching this movie so I could be a little bit more judgmental towards the middle. What did you think? Did you have fun with it?

Leigh: When I was watching this, I felt conflicted. The 7 year old part of me loved this movie because the 7 year old part of me loves pratfalls and America's Funniest Home Videos because what's not to like about a guy getting hit in the balls? But the Holmesian in me really didn't like it. About halfway through the movie, I think when Michael Caine was hanging by his coat, I realized that this was just a live action Scooby Doo movie.

That's what it felt like. It had the pretty girl, it had the handsome guy, it had the not so pretty girl, hell, there was even a dog. It was just a live action episode of Scooby Doo. And I think this is a bad thing. I really wish I had a friend who had a kid who was like 7 or 8 so I could sit them down and have them watch this movie and get their perspective. I think a younger audience would like this movie a lot more than the target audience of Holmesians and fans of Sherlock Holmes.

As for the story, I thought it was neat. After the season two finale of Sherlock, I had seen on the internet a theory that Sherlock Holmes was just a figment of Watson's imagination. I like how this movie took that concept and ran with it. The concept was neat and fun and there was a lot there but the mystery was a lot to be desired. We've seen this plot before with the only other non-Elementary movie we've reviewed. Is there only one plot allowed for Sherlock Holmes movie adaptations? Was there some law about this in England? (Oh, by the way, I loved the overt British Pride throughout the movie. It amused me.)

"Bloody hell, hadn't we already solved this one?"

Another thing I was disappointed about was the very limited use of Peter Cook. He is a comic genius and he was on screen for such a brief time and very few of his "jokes" were actually funny. Most of the jokes for the whole movie weren't really funny in my opinion. In fact, I got bored halfway through this movie. I started doing other things. 

List of things Leigh did while movie was playing:

1. Played a dumb game online

2. Messed with her knitting

3. Watched a YouTube video

4. Checked Twitter

5. Left the room out of boredom

6. Flew to the moon

I felt the exposition was too long, the middle third to be pointless and failed at making jokes, and the end to be a bit dumb. I mean, if I were in a room that was getting ready to explode and there was open water right next to me, instead of standing in a boat watching the explosion, I would've jumped in the water, but that's just me worrying about self preservation. 

Overall, I did have fun, especially if you include my other activities as part of this viewing experience. One thing that did interest me though was the roles that Caine and Kingsley had. They played Holmes and Watson, respectively...or did they?

Austin: So you're saying that you didn't like it...

No, you're right. The physical humor really doesn't work. Caine is a fantastic actor but he can only react so many times to a dog tackling him to the ground. Especially if it's edited in a way where he has to awkwardly stand there waiting for the dog to jump up on him. (Speaking of, the best goof in the movie is when Holmes is addressing the crowd for the first time and the stuttering guy has this extra behind him who is whispering all of his lines while clearly being in the frame.)

Most of the humor does not work in this movie and yet I still think that Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley were great. Kingsley announcing his new creation of "John Watson, the Crime Doctor" is done with such contained pride it always made me smile. I love watching these two because they are playing upon a few different characters in the canon. Kingsley is playing Watson who is truly Holmes and Doyle. Caine is playing Holmes but really is a Watson, but one of the bumbling incarnations.

To judge Kingsley as Holmes, I think he does a fine job. He is conscious about the fame because he wants the proper credit. I'm not sure if he wants to be famous, but he wants people to know how smart he is. Unlike other versions, he seems rather constrained in his intelligence. He can bring up observations that he's found but only if someone asks for it. I like his ability to sit perfectly still and ponder on the evidence. Reminds me a bit more of Hercule Poirot than Holmes, but it worked as a master detective.

Then you have Caine playing the caricature of Holmes who is very arrogant and a bit belittling. However since he doesn't have information to back it up, he can't be the one to brag the most. Yet him not being the one bragging makes Lestrade seem even more of a goof. Jeffrey Jones does a good job of that but they pretty much forgot about him for the second half of the film. Like Watson, Caine's Holmes does want to help out with the case as much as he can. He has to serve the purpose of "Oh this is obviously what's going on..." just so Watson/Holmes can say "No." He's dumb but always sincere. 

With Moriarty......he's just completely bland and it could have been any villain with ridiculous facial hair. The only plus from his presence was allowing Caine to scream in the fields about how he's in danger. I enjoyed that bit. Same with the Mrs. Hudson and Baker Street Irregulars, as expected, nothing too interesting.

Last very random comment, this movie was scored by Henry Mancini who is famous for The Pink Panther and Breakfast at Tiffany's. Yet I know him best as the composer behind one of the greatest films of all time....The Great Mouse Detective. It's hysterical how much he repeated the themes for both of his quasi-Sherlock movies.

Henry Mancini being drawn to compose another score....on the harp.

Leigh, try to keep your disappointment with the movie to a minimum as you breakdown what you liked and didn't like about how they treated our beloved characters.

Leigh: I didn't hate it! I liked it, it just wasn't my favorite adaptation out there. I think my email sounded a lot more negative than I meant it to me. Please excuse that. My mouth was still hurting from the dentist. There were lots of things I did like about it.  I liked the concept and I loved the actors. I felt even the supporting actors did a great job. And when you have two greats like Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley, even if they're reading the telephone book (they still make those, right?) it's going to be good. Our lead actors did such a great job that it was believable. Michael Caine did a great job being a drunk womanizer, almost like he has played this role before, and Ben Kingsley is fantastic just standing still. When he was sitting on the train, thinking, you believe that he was actually thinking about a web of crimes that lead to a bigger criminal instead of just sitting and acting like he was thinking about these things. I think these actors saved this movie. The editing sure didn't help it.

What's it all about, Sherlock?

The expansion on the idea that Holmes is a figment of Watson's imagination works really well with these actors. You believe that Kingsley is smart enough to solve these cases and then even go so far as to set it up so that someone else looks as if they're solving them, although the British public must've been really dumb because Caine playing an actor playing Holmes was laughable. I wish that there were a couple of more moments like at the beginning when Caine asks the reporter about the windows on the front of the building. That is something that ACD's Holmes has said (or something similar) so it is easy for the audience to think that he is smart but the illusion is broken so quickly that I think it lost something. If Caine were smarter around others when he was pretending to be Holmes, I think it might've worked a little better. Instead of having someone act as if they're the greatest detective ever, we have someone who is bumbling his way through it and people are ignoring the mistakes. That's just not believable. Even Lestrade (by the way, I gagged every time they said "Lestaaade.") ignored Holmes' mistakes and you would think that he'd be the first to point them out, especially in the dynamic they created in this movie. 

How the movie switched the traditional Holmes/Watson roles was neat to me. Instead of a bumbling Watson, we have a bumbling Holmes. He really did act like the other Watson we've explored. He wasn't the brightest, he wasn't the most observant but he did try and he did care and he did want to help. Caine didn't just play a drunk who was getting paid to be someone, he played a character that wanted to learn so he could play his role better. I love the parallels that are made between Kingsley's Watson and Holmes/ACD. We have the fake death, we have the want to get rid of Holmes altogether (I would totally read a book called "Watson: Crime Doctor!") and we have that lack of modesty that Holmes is known for. Kingsley's Watson hated the fact that he had to apologize to Caine and it's something that the real Holmes wouldn't have done unless it was necessary. While the plot wasn't fantastic, the characters were incredibly well written and acted. But I'll watch either of them in anything...

Next time, we figure out just what that damn whistling is and yet again that it is wrong to trust step parents. One might think that ACD might have had father issues but that's a different blog entirely.

And now Austin Lugar with the final word.

Austin: Psalms!