Review of "Sherlock" The Abominable Bride TV 2016

Gun Watch ^ | 8 January, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The Sherlock Holmes series by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is enjoyable fiction that has millions of fans across the world over a hundred years.  It glorifies reason, logic, and observation of facts.  I do not consider myself a fan, but have enjoyed reading several of the novels and short stories.  The BBC has created a successful television series featuring the Holmes and Watson characters in a modern setting.  I have seen one of those episodes, and it did not seem too bad, though the focus on Holmes as a drug addict was a bit grotesque.  The new movie is based on the characters from the TV series.  The movie is advertised as a a period piece set in Victorian England.  One expects a classic story in the Arthur Conan Doyle style. 

I found myself in front of a Television set a few days ago, an unusual occurrence.  I was visiting. Without an Internet connection, and constrained at another persons residence, a new movie based on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character, set in Victorian England, sounded as though it would offer entertainment.  I was wrong.  One word from the movie's title describes it. Abominable.

If you are a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, I advise you not to watch this movie.  After I had seen it, I sincerely regretted wasting my time in doing so.  To put it bluntly, the movie is a very bad example of bait and switch.

There are some interesting guns in the movie.  There is a pair of 1873 Colt revolvers, a double barrelled shotgun, some Webleys that seem to be interchanged without regard for consistency, but there is little consistency in the movie.

I will avoid spoilers.  It is not hard, as there is hardly any plot to the movie.  There is no deduction, no facts, no line of reasoning based on minute and accurate observations of detail that an acute observer could use to advantage.  This is not a mystery or detective story; this is a psycodrama based on emotion, illusion, and most importantly, a glorification of political correctness.

There seems to be only one constant theme in the movie; a desire to degrade the image of Sherlock Holmes and Watson; to attack everything that made the original series enjoyable and entertaining, as a way to glorify and justify current politically correct attitudes.

In one scene Holmes is completely taken in by an obvious disguise that Watson immediately sees through, as does probably 95% of the theater audience.  Such deception is simply impossible for the character in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels.

I watched it.  I was disgusted.  It was something you would expect in an Orwellian universe where history has to be altered to fit the current political scheme. 

In defense of the writer, he did not do this to an actual Sir Arthur Conan Doyle story, but created an entirely new abomination.

For that,  I guess, I can be thankful.

 Â©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

[yarddog]

Yes that was him.

It also was the Sherlock Holmes Encyclopedia instead of dictionary. Darn I hate getting old.

[nopardons]

Lucky you and what a good daughter you have!

I have seen as many as have been made, Sherlock Holmes movies of all kinds and have some on discs. I've loved the stories since I was a kid.

[nopardons]

LOL...just keep saying that you aren’t “old”, you just know too much, so it takes a while to pull up the right answer. :-)

[yarddog]

Yes I remember Conan Doyle describing Dr. Bell. He would bring in an indigent patient, look him over and then describe everything about him to the medical students. He would always be right.

[CapnJack]

I’ll take the series played by Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke.

That series was fantastic.

[Fiddlstix]

Not only that, Dr. Bell was a "real Life" police consultant.
In other words, there's a bit of truth in the Holmes stories.

Click The Pic

Picture Of Doctor Joseph Bell.
The Real Life Sherlock Holmes

[odawg]

I agree with you.

I will never forget the first Sherlock Holmes novel I read, 8th grade, Hound of the Baskervilles. I then proceeded to read all the Sherlock Holmes stories and novels. I read one this summer that I didn’t know existed.

[greene66]

The long-thought “lost” film starring William Gillette as Sherlock, from 1915, was recently found and released on dvd. I always thought he was credited with a lot of the characteristics later associated with Holmes, as he made a career out of the character on stage. First portraying him in 1899, if I’m recalling correctly. But the film itself is a bit stiff and stagey.

I’m rather partial to Rathbone and Bruce.

[greene66]

And speaking of Holmes, has anyone else ever read any of the other early, famous fictional detectives, like Craig Kennedy or Nick Carter?

[yarddog]

Goodness!

Dr. Bell looks just like what I imagine Sherlock Holmes to have looked like.

[KC Burke]

Nero Wolfe

[Fiddlstix]

Thank you for posting. I must get a copy of that.
BTW, Gillette introduced the "deerstalker" hat to the character.
He also "shot up" cocaine during his performance to "keep in character".

[Fiddlstix]

I’ve always liked that Pic. I believe it may be the reason Gillette chose the now famous deerstalker cap.

[yarddog]

I think Edgar Allan Poe invented the detective story with Murders in the Rue Morgue.

I can’t remember the detective’s name except his last name was Dupin.

[BlueLancer]

John Watson: Crime Doctor!

Okay, any takers on the movie that's from?

[SevenofNine]

OH I got that silent version I pre order on Flicker Alley yeah by William Gillette if you see DVD bonus feature they talk about it they found it

[greene66]

I think I might have heard that. I’ve seen the 1932 movie, of course, but it supposedly has little to do with the Poe story. Bela Lugosi as the villain and Leon Ames the hero.

There was a lot of serialized fiction stories in those late-1800s newspaper supplements, but I suppose most is lost to time, unless the author was famous enough to have his work re-collected in hardback. I have some original, turn-of-the-century “dime novels,” but they don’t make for very interesting reading. At least, compared to the pulps that followed in the 1920s/30s.

[TalBlack]

I have had the EXACT same criticism of other “updated” Sherlock Holmes stories. For that matter Holmes would have seen through Irene Adler disguise, especially when she ventured to speak to him.

[Dawn53Fl]

I haven’t seen the new special you spoke about, but I’ve seen all the other shows in this BBC series. I never thought it intended to be a “classic” Holmes and Watson series. It’s a “cheeky” (to use a Brit term) look at Holmes and Watson and I find it fun to watch.

The BBC has done some outstanding “retelling” of some classic literature. One of the best, for Jane Austen fans, was “Lost in Austen”...is it true to the regular story, no, but it’s a delightfully fun look at the book through a different view.

[yarddog]

Anyone even slightly familiar with Holmes would guess that Dr. Watson is the alter ego of Conan Doyle.

I have a DVD about Sherlock Holmes in which there is a short film of Sir Arthur, playing with his dog then sitting on a bench and giving a brief statement about Holmes.

Conan Doyle comes across as very much the affable Dr. Watson played by Bruce.