Wednesday, May 20, 2009


The words "unspeakably awful" get tossed around quite a bit here (okay, not that often, but I'm trying to make a point), but perhaps they should be reserved for things that truly deserve the description, like a Dick Cheney TV interview or--shudder--this:

I'm not going to the obvious and suggest this is a thorough and despicable violation of Conan Doyle's great creation. It is, of course, but the man's work has been adapted badly so many times, we should be used to it by now. (If the author's reputation could survive Irwin Allen's 1960 version of The Lost World, which featured the overpowering combined charisma of David Hedison and Jill St. John, it can even survive Robert Downey, Jr.'s shaky accent.)

The real question here is, Why? Why call it Sherlock Holmes if it has nothing to do with the character? Why does Jude Law still get high-profile gigs even though none of his movies have been hits? And why did some studio functionairy somewhere decide that what America was really in the mood for was two-fisted Victorian action?

In a way, this trailer reminds me of one from a decade or so ago. An American star barely managing an English accent, a desperate attempt to start a franchise nobody needs, a storyline wildly at odds with the nature of its characters--all here, just like in Sherlock Holmes.

Still, one advantage Sherlock Holmes already has over The Avengers--no tag at the end promoting a soundtrack album. Sugar Ray? Man, I don't miss the nineties at all...