A complete jumble of a movie **spoilers**

I will have to bow to your judgement of Vasily Livanov, not being up on my Russian actors. I have no real need to head back to the canon, as I never am away from it for long.

I still disagree about Plummer, My preferred Holmes is Brett, and I still enjoy Rathbone (it is Nigel Bruce that makes me want to tear my hair out!) A Holmes that could have stayed away from a case as interesting as the Ripper is not a good start, and when that self-same Holmes requires a psychic to shove him onto the correct scent, you now have a story that simply uses Holmes name as a tagline for promotion.

I am not sure why you would refer me back to the books in defense of the pacing of the movie. A movie is a comepletely different form than a book, and the story is not a canonical work, so it cannot use "follows the book" as an excuse for its pacing.

I certainly understand that different people see things different ways, but I stand by my opinion.
--
If I was God, I would still be an atheist; I have never had faith in myself.

I love it too. However Boomcoach does have a few good points (Holmes deductive powers are never really used) and he's certainly entitled to his opinion. I agree with most everybody else--Plummer was just great as Holmes. Rathbone was good too but Plummer plays him with a little more feeling. Also Mason was just great as Watson--100 times better than Nigel Bruce or Robert Duvall (remember the "Seven Per Cent Solution"?)

[deleted]

I would disagree with the OP- it isn't a complete jumble of a movie at all. It's very good in fact. It does have some striking weaknesses which keep it from reaching its full potential but I would grade it a B+. A very good Holmes movie.

"Time is the fire in which we burn"

Yes. I've read all of them--and this is one of the best Sherlock movies there is.

Yes, I've read all the stories, twice in some cases, seen most adapatations and I think this captures the true feel and spirit of Holmes better than pretty much anything out there.

It's flawed to be sure, but the performances are good and Plummer and Mason work superbly together. The feel of Victorian London is second to none and the material suits a Holmes story down to the ground.

--
What's the difference between a chicken

It may be a bit of a "jumble", but not necessarily in any negative sense - all the different moods gel and coher very well as they did in Clark´s earlier foray into slasher territory, Black Christmas. It´s in turns genuinely terrifying with some truly evocative imagery (it was apparently shot in a rather small sound stage but feels anything but), suspenseful as well as very funny without veering off into cartoonishness. Sure the chase is better than the catch which might somewhat hurt the repeat viewings, but I don´t think it depends ´that´ much on the whodunit tropes to cause any irreparable harm. And then there´s this great cast of actors all turning in fine performances - Plummer´s take on Holmes may be a tad unorthodox, but despite the uncostumary humanity and hot-headedness it´s still recognisibly Conan Doyle´s detective; Mason, I think, is THE definitive Watson, retaining the doctor´s down-to-earth sensibilities yet possessing some wit of his own; Sutherland makes a strong impression with the limited screen time and a character in grave danger of drifting off into silliness. Overall a very well made picture and likely the best movie involving Holmes adventures (as well as Jack The Ripper).

PS Why on earth was it renamed Sherlock Holmes and Saucy Jack? It sounds as if we´re dealing with some stupid spoof.




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

The guy caught in the net was not the ripper; he was the henchman. The doctor was the ripper. But you are right it was too convenient!