Message: 9 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:49:49 +1100 From: [email protected] To: Historical Costume <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [h-cost] Sherlock Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> > On the other hand, I'm not sure I would like seeing a modernized version > . . . Updated Holmes is one of the oldest tricks in the book...even Hollywood did it with fanfare with the Rathbone series in the late-30s/early-40s. I did not mind the pilot but thought it would make a good occasional bit of viewing rather than a series given the zapping around the screen and the oddball split-screening directors have fallen in lust with over the last decade -- stop trying to find ways to excite us and just excite us. Still, the performances are strong enough to let your memories of previous versions slip away for the duration. Holmes as a sociopath worked well, Watson as an old warrior did so too. The Moriarty hints were nice but Mycroft stuck out like dog's whatsits. I never watched the second and third episodes due to work but probably would if it did not mean doing anything more than flicking the TV switch. I guess that's the whole review: good, watchable but you would not go out of your way for it, -C. ------------------------------------------------------------ You can flick the TV switch tonight - it's been showing on free to air in Australia with the third episode on tonight. Just not on the ABC, where you'd imagine it would be. I liked the first episode a great deal. I was a bit distracted during the second, but it struck me as less good. Claire _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
