ravan@guido.DEC (12/18/85)
Re moriarty's (and others') reviews of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES: I was saddened to see that Mr. M. didn't like the film, although given his name I suppose it shouldn't be surprising. (By the by, it is apparent from some of his remarks that he did not stay through the end of the film...) That several others have indicated that they were less than pleased *does* surprise me, as all of my friends who've seen the movie enjoyed it thoroughly. Of course, the fact that we loved it won't change the opinions of those who didn't, but I would like to encourage everyone who hasn't seen it yet to take *all* the reviews with a grain of salt and go find out for yourselves. Concerning some of Mr. Moriarty's remarks: >There is no mystery here -- the audience cannot >see either an enigma being methodically unravelled, nor does it have clues >scattered before it which the detective interperts. The mystery here is a >straw dog, waiting for the screenwriter to knock it over in the last half >hour. True, to a degree, though there were clues here and there. I would have preferred a bit more deduction and a bit less of those special effects (especially the airplane, which was completely unnecessary). Still, I thought the scene of Holmes' initial deductions about Watson was quite true to form. The obvious items like the name tag, there for anyone to see if they only practiced being more observant; the bit about the custard tarts, which I found extremely funny, since it is such a marvelous field for a schoolboy to be expert in - all the different colors and textures of custard! One has visions of Holmes hanging around the lunchroom sampling from dozens of different custard desserts and making notes... >AS A HOLMES STORY: I find little to recommend it. There are too many >un-Holmsian qualities around the two main characters. Watson seems to be >used mainly as either a toady to Holmes, or as a buffoon in the Nigel Bruce >style; neither of these is true, and Watson must have grown some and lost >his glasses at some point, because he is usually depicted as being almost as >tall as Holmes and not fat or stocky. Holmes is a bit too dreamy and never >gives you the feeling that he has a great mind humming behind his face. a. If Watson's depicted as a "toady," how come he gets to do most of the rescuing? I thought that he was portrayed as more practical than Holmes, less far-sighted but very good in a tight spot. Indeed, it is this down-to-earth quality that Holmes seems to admire most in the books. b. Holmes is *supposed* to be the moody adolescent. The whole point - if there is a point; after all, this is an entertainment film, not a Major Work - is that young Holmes hasn't learned to keep his emotions out of the way of his deductive powers yet. Holmes was told outright by both Rathe and Watson that he had to control his emotions and think rationally; when he did this he came up with ideas, but when he didn't, he very nearly got himself killed. At any rate, I enjoyed it, due largely to the splendid performances by Rowe and Cox, and I'm going to see it again. -beth ravan ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!guido!ravan
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (12/22/85)
On minor comment on YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, I might have liked to see Holmes do more detection, but I don't think it was at all required by the usage of the character. I read the Unix Newsnet a lot, but a realistic film of YOUNG MARK LEEPER (Dear God, don't let them ever tell the true story) would not show me reading a single Newsnet article. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (12/23/85)
> [that some] have indicated that they were less than pleased > *does* surprise me, as all of my friends who've seen the movie enjoyed > it thoroughly. I enjoyed it, but far less than "thououghly". My reasons are much more related to the typical Schpeilberg excesses than to violations of Holmes mythos. > Still, I thought the scene of > Holmes' initial deductions about Watson was quite true to > form. True (at least *I* thought so also), but this and the hunt for the trophy were the only Holmsian moments in the whole picture. The main plot was just "Indiana Holmes and the Temple of Goonies", as others have pointed out. > At any rate, I enjoyed it, due largely to the splendid performances by > Rowe and Cox, and I'm going to see it again. I agree with Beth that the immature Holmes was a good portrayal, when you remember that he is *supposed* to be immature. However, the plot left *much* to be desired. > -beth ravan ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!guido!ravan