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

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I ADORE the ‘new’ version of Sherlock and am SALIVATING for more episodes!

There’s a young man that works at my local grocer. He is the spitting IMAGE of the actor that plays Moriarty; I’m sure he wonders why this middle-aged woman STARES at him when she’s buying groceries; I’m just making sure he’s not going to KILL us all while we shop, LOL!

You all can say what you want - I LOVE this series. Not much on Free Government TV these days makes me actually sit up and take notice, but I love this series. (I won’t pay for cable TV and I use my Library for movies for the most part; may as well get some use out of SOME of my Tax Dollars!)

Ruin it for yourselves with your hypersensitivity. I would pay to watch Benedict Cumberbatch read the phone book. Maybe THAT should be the next episode? ;)

[greene66]

Yes, I really need to get that. I seem to recall the print was found in France, and had been divided up in serial format. Which is not as odd as it sounds, as serials were much more respected and an important part of early moviehouses’ scheduling, in the 1910s. But few exist in complete form, although I have watched some examples like “Dear Beatrice Fairfax” (1916) and “Lightning Bryce” (1919), both of which were quite good.

[Fiddlstix]

yes. I believe I’ve seen that same video. Conan Doyle comes across as a likable fellow that would be fun to engage in a conversation.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Wow, thanks for the heads up.

I too love the series.

BC has become more and more of a leftist loon.

I read somewhere that he was doing a play and at the end he came out and begged everyone to let in more terrorists and rapist from the Middle East.

[Demiurge2]

This episode was a one-off that, as near as I can tell, was supposed to be a drug fantasy of the current-day Holmes set in the late 19th century. It was scripted by Stephen Moffat, who produces the BBC’s Dr. Who. It shared characteristics of the current Dr. Who stories — convoluted, self-referential, PC, and too clever by half.

[Rockpile]

I want to horsewhip Nigel Bruce. I utterly despise him for the bumbling dumbass Watson portrayal.

[marktwain]

Shouldn’t your ire be directed at the writer?

[Rockpile]

Yeah I know, writer and director but Bruce seemed to delight in turning Watson into a bumbling oaf when he could have bucked them on it.

[uglybiker]

It's abominabubbabbubble!

[marktwain]

The only man that I recall in the movie, who did not look like an imbecile, was Moriarity, and he was a complete fabrication, a dream-wisp of nothingness, completely evil.