Not that I am saying that your are at a disadvantage for having read the works, far from it, but I think having a background in the books will definitely affect how you look at the movie.

Now, after hearing about the original Adler character, I wish they had kept her more like how you described, because that would have been much more interesting. Yet another example of Hollywood having to throw in a love interest, even if it doesn’t stick. I am glad at least that you agree that the actors chosen for Holmes and Watson and how they portrayed those characters was well done, as well as Guy Richie’s direction. Yes, the villain was a little lack-luster for me too, but I was so pleased with how Holmes had figured everything out at the end, that the villain seemed less important than the resolving of the case.

But I again second that groan of disappointment over the end. I still feel somewhat cheated, though not as “What the Hell?!” as I did at the end of Transformers 2.

Today we head out to see “Daybreakers”. Let’s see how this portrayal of vampires works out.

I just couldn’t get behind this iteration of her, and I admit that that’s because I like the books so much. They’re built up to have this steamy history together, when in the books they met all of twice, one meeting being a witness to her marriage to another man. See, the thing about Irene Adler is, she completely turns everything Holmes has come to understand and dislike about women on its head. He first met her when a King of some small foreign country came to Sherlock with a case: Irene was engaged to be married to the king, he dumps her for a blueblood, she has a picture of them together, King hires sherlock to get it back. Holmes disguises himself to get close to her, but she recognizes him anyway, and (here’s the kicker) disguises herself and find out who HE is IN THE EXACT SAME WAY. She grabs her new fiancee and gets the hell outta dodge, and when holmes comes to find the picture the following day, he instead finds a note explaining how she twigged that something was up, how she was able to find out weho he was, that she only took the picture so that the King’s house wouldn’t try to move against her, and that that since she ‘loves and is loved by a far better man,’ she has no intention of ruining the king’s new engagement. Holmes apologizes to the King for his failure, but the prince exclaims that Irene is ‘always as good as her word,’ and this is the best possible resolution. People think that Irene is the only woman holmes admires because she was clever enough to see through him both times, but that isn’t really right. It was that despite her shady past, she was kind enough to keep on being nice to holmes even after the jig was up, and honorable enough to explain in a letter what he did wrong, and virtouous enough to explain her actions and the reasons behind them. She was a straight shooter, what is referred to in this day and age as a bro. And then the movie came along and made her Catwoman, just another femme fatale who may or may not be on the heroes side. Worse, they made her a damsel, and don’t give her enough chances to be very clever at all , and don’t actually give her a reason for her to be there either. So I didn’t like her.

Tell you what I did like though: the atmosphere. Some critics gave the movie flack because Ritchie grittied up the movie, removing it from the spirit of the stories, going far beyond what any of them have done. Well, duh; this isn’t victorian england guys, some allowances had to be made. Sure, Watson having a gambling habit and Holmes boxing with his shirt off to Rocky Road to Dublin made me raise my eyebrows a bit, but they’re supposed to be adventure stories, and to have the same effect on modern movie audiences that they had on Victorian readers, you need to build them up, and add some action moves and fight scenes in there (frantic chases may have been enough in the 1880s and even enough for PBS, but for the American movie-goer?). The Sherlock Holmes series is about a nutzo genius, his combat vet of a friend, and the wild and horrific crimes they solve together. That’s what the movie shows.

And lets talk about that nutzo genius and his army buddy. I thought Robert Downey Jr’s holmes was fascinating and adorable; In the stories, Holmes had eccentricities, butr was also something of a jerk and one got the feeling that he only did certain things to annoy people. Here, though, his eccentricities are a way to keep him from going mad, and he takes absolute pleasure using them and defying convention to solve a case and increase the knowledge of mankind. And it’s not that I object to him fighting, in the stories, he’s supposed to be really strong and know all these crazy kung fu stuff, so I gave that one a pass. And I love the little nods they make to the stories, like holmes using a revolver to shoot a “patriotic VR” (you know, Victoria Regina?) into the wall. And Jude law was just as good. See, a lot of people interpret Watson as bumbling and bewildered because he’s not as smart as holmes and was the straight man to holmes’ mad genius, whereas the only traights the stories put to him was that he was a bit stuffy and excitable. But the stories also said he was ex military (I remember him serving in india, but wikipedia says afghanistan), was a bit of a player, and was a doctor, THE go to profession of that time for brainey guys. Jude Law portrays all of that, painting watson as not some sidekick and chronicler of adventures, but as the long suffering partner who shares Holmes’ love of adventure and mystery while suppressing the urge to lamp him one (yeah, not very well, but sherlock kind of had that one coming).

I also totally agree with you about the ending. Finish the story before you start the next one, guys, Geez.

And the best part is, I know it’s true!

You got a few of those important points for the Zombie Plan, but oh how there is more. Of course I hope there never comes a day when we actually need to use our vast geek knowledge for that reason.