Sherlock Holmes-A Study in Scarlet/Pink

My, 'Memoirs', of Sherlock Holmes:

After thoroughly enjoying the BBC series 'Sherlock' (2010), alongside watching the recent films-I finally decided to fulfill one of my life-long desires; to read the works of Conan Doyle and traverse the colourful mysteries of our favourite 'consulting detective'. Back when he emerged from the page for the first time, capturing the nation in the 19th Century and who continues to do so even now.

With the re-emergence of the character it set me to reminisce of my youth in which the 'Basil Rathbone' films were bestowed upon me-passed down from grandparents to parents, and considered 'their' Sherlock Holmes. One memory that sticks out is that of the sinister man who had a club foot in;'Sherlock Holmes and the Pearl of Death', his sinister footsteps echoing out into the night. I will never forget the fear and intrigue that was instilled in my heart by the eerie black and white films which kept you hanging at every breath with it's subtlety. In the centre of it all was a man; Sherlock Holmes. He was an unusual fellow, lacking many 'normal' human qualities and yet carried a charm and piercing wit which audiences and readers alike fell in love with.

I must confess I never truly saw any others between those and the most recent bundle of adaptations-due to family bias-but I would probably agree that Jeremy Brent does not strike me as a perfect Sherlock. Benedict Cumberbatch on the other hand, feels as if he could have been transported from the 19th century and fits both the modern and Victorian stereotype-with chiseled and piercing looks, very much fitting what I imagine in my mind when the description in the book is presented. The portrayal of his character in the most recent BBC series is also not far off the original characterization of Sherlock.

‘His very person and appearance were such as to strike the attention of the most casual observer. In height he was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing, save during those intervals of torpor to which I have alluded; and his thin hawklike nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision. His chin too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man of determination.’-A Study in Scarlet.

This leads me on to a brief synopsis of 'A Study In Scarlet' to whet your appetite, with a study comparing modern and classic to follow:

A Study in Scarlet has everything to set off a successful set of novels, mystery, love, action, betrayal, revenge and even a little bit of controversy on the way. It proves to be so much more than a detective novel; Sherlock Holmes' 'powers' are almost other wordly to his new found companion Dr. Watson when a seemingly straightforward murder case results in an incredibly thrilling chain of events. We uncover the sinister 'Avenging Angels', a secret society among the early Mormons, in a shocking tale with twists at every turn. Truly a must read!


-Emma-

How do YOU feel.

Have the critics ever influenced your decision? If yes, why?

Would you go to a movie regardless of bad press?

Are there any films with bad rep that you feel didn't deserve the lashings it received?

Would you go to a movie because of media hype?

Are there any films you feel have been overrated extraordinarily that doesn't deserve it?

Do you feel you will turn to critics in the future due to the ticket price rise in this current climate, making some of us more selective of what we go to see?

Answer honestly-all answers are right answers!

Marmite.It's a love or hate situation.

Ok, so films such as 'The Green Lantern' are being poorly reviewed; this is not a film I would rush out to see myself but I am interested to know if the criticism is just, and are there films out there you love but it feels like everyone hates?

An Interesting article about the state of film criticism

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/924952/pirates_of_the_caribbean_on_stranger_tides_and_the_state_of_film_criticism.html

The Influence of words

And so a film was born, to see the eyes of millions of anticipating viewers, the end...hardly.

Films are knocked out year after year like children born of a woman who could not keep her legs shut; however even the worst films of the year, the tackiest looking, would take a lot of hard work which is easily forgotten when you enter the cinema.
Of course this doesn't mean stop disliking a film if it really is something dire but some films really are a part of the film maker, a spillage if you will, from their head. I believe a true film maker is someone who makes films because they want to, not to impress or gain favour of the critics.

It takes more to make a film than to watch and write down the negative and positive points of a movie. It is suggested that 'true' film critics should be practiced writers and academically involved in film analysis, but at the end of the day if you like a film, you do, if you don't, you don't. My first example; the stunning visuals of Transformers: Dark of the Moon does not change the fact that while aesthetically pleasing, both sides of my brain were not required to work to watch this film. This, however, is my opinion; is that not what all critics express?
There are sources I trust more than others such as Total Film and Empire magazine, but even they have disappointed me of late with their appauling outlook on the Pirates franchise. I would never claim them to be perfect films but they have a charm, named Jack Sparrow, who has become iconic. Sorry 'Captain' Jack Sparrow.
Anywho I will delve into this further as I continue to investigate.

What I want to know is this; What do you guys out there think? What is your opinion on film critics and do you feel it influences your desire to see a film in the cinema?

I am researching this subject and I would appreciate ALL opinions : )

Films I have seen this week: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and X-Men First Class
Any thoughts on these?

Captain-out