Winners and Sherlock Holmes
So the book giveaway ended up with 66 comments on LJ, 15 on Facebook, and 26 on the WordPress blog. I used a random number generator to pick three winners. Congratulations to:
I’ll be getting in touch with the three of you about the details. Thanks to everyone who entered! (And for those who want to check out the books but don’t want to wait for my next giveaway, might I suggest putting in a request at the local library?)
Anyway, on to the movie chat. Amy and I went out on a real, live date yesterday to see Sherlock Holmes. (Pop quiz — is it a good idea or a bad idea to take your wife to a movie that has Jude Law and a topless Robert Downey Junior?)
My first complaint is that the whole thing is just a ripoff of House. I mean, really. Holmes is just House without the limp, and his sidekick Watson is totally Wilson. Come on, they barely even changed the names!!!
Seriously, I enjoyed it. Didn’t think it was the most brilliant film of the decade, but it was a fun romp. I’m not an avid reader of Doyle, so I can’t say how true the film stayed to the book, but it worked for me. I do wish we had seen a little more of Holmes’ deductions over the course of the movie instead of getting the whole thing explained in one lump at the end, but I understand why they decided to tell the story that way, trying to keep the audience in suspense.
My biggest complaint … involves spoilers.
I liked Lord Blackwood’s plot. A little cliche, but the magical aspect was a nice challenge to Holmes’ Vulcan point of view. I thought it was a good contrast, but then at the end we discover Moriarty’s scheme. All along he was really after … the remote control.
Wait, why did Blackwood invent this revolutionary technology to begin with? Why not simply put his weapon on a timer? It’s like a terrorist decides to lob a grenade into the White House, so he invents transporter technology to get it there. Had Blackwood been using this technology all along for his magical effects, that would have been one thing. Instead, it felt tacked on for the sake of the Moriarty plot.
It felt clunky. The writers clumsily forcing the sequel hook into the story. And that makes me grumpy.
Still a fun film, though. I’ll happily see the sequel when it comes out.
January 4, 2010 @ 6:12 am
Answer to question: it’s precisely because you take her to movies like this that she’s still with you!
Regarding infodump of deductions at the end–that’s the way Doyle wrote ’em. Kind of obvious to the modern reader, but back then it worked.
I haven’t looked into seeing it because I see movies like this on DVD.
Jim C. Hines
January 4, 2010 @ 8:37 am
I know the explanation-at-the-end is true to Doyle’s style … I don’t object to that in itself, but I wish I had seen more of that logic/deduction along the way as well. Not instead of the end-of-story wrap-up, but in addition, if that makes sense?
January 4, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
After we saw the movie, my husband joked that Moriarity wanted the remote control because he was preparing for the invention of cars, when he would corner the garage door opener market. The movie was fun, but I suspect this may be a case where the sequel is better.
Jim C. Hines
January 5, 2010 @ 8:28 am
I just figured he wanted to do some channel-surfing 🙂
I don’t know. I think the sequel *could* be better, but they could also flub it up royally. Fingers crossed they do a good job, though!