Holmes v2.0

I don't know what's wrong with me, but I hardly ever have the patience to sit through an entire film alone. I need company to watch movies, or I just quit and do something else, like watching TV shows, which are shorter than two hours. I don't know, it's just me; but the real thing I wanted to say was, I actually got around to watching Sherlock Holmes, the movie that came out in 2009, only now. Yes, only now, for all the fans out there who can't live without movies, I haven't even watched Avatar yet, (gasp now, you scum-bags) so it's something you can't live with, but I can, because I'm way cooler and I have a life. Anyway, enough with the abrasive abuse,
(Hyde: just one more, please,please,please,please, pleeeez!
Dr.Jekyll: Fine, just one more, after that, you need to pack up and leave.
Hyde: Sod off! cool, I'm done now)
I just wanted to pen down my experiences, like the dear diligent Watson, who meticulously documented every twitch and tick on Holmes' face. Sherlock Holmes is, as far as I'm concerned, the second best detective in the world, the first being, quite obviously, M. Hercule Poirot, nest ces pas? Poirot is not as serious as Holmes, he's a jolly bumbling chap who is like Jacques Clouseau, but uses order and method, a dear phrase of his, in catching the criminal. He's like a lovable grandfather who's funny not by his own design, and is a delight to have around. Holmes, on the other hand, is a more intense character, someone with an obvious astuteness about him, he's to be admired from afar, up close, only Watson could tolerate his OCD. Both are vain, and lovably so, but Holmes' vanity is more intimidating than endearing. Poirot, on the other hand, is more than sociable, just quirky, and his remarks are taken generally in good humour, till the end, where the criminal is outed rather dramatically by Poirot, and that is when the killer realises that this funny old man meant what he said. My impression of Holmes stems solely from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works, not the ensuing fan-fiction, I have no respect for people who try to fill his shoes. The latest movie, however, seems to have crossed the line between Holmes and Poirot, Holmes is far more amusing, and Watson far cleverer than Sir Arthur's character. It was frequently quoted, by Directors of the West End theatres, "If there was a mop bucket on the crime scene, Watson's leg would be in it, and if he spots a clue by serendipity, all Watson would do was to blow his nose in it, and move along."
Watson, of Guy Ritchie's craft is infinitely more resourceful, I guess a century and a half of kithship with Holmes has finally rubbed off on him. Jude Law, by far, is the cleverest Watson of them all, their relationship being more balanced in friendship, than just a dewy eyed simpleton who's easily amazed by a cocaine addict's sorcery. It is quite enjoyable to watch two men, of camparable intellect, each displaying expertise in different branches of crime solving: forensics and medicine. Holmes here is more emotionally dependent on Watson than ever and Watson cheerfully let's Holmes manipulate him even though he knows what's going on, it was like watching a Victorian movie of House. A grisly,gruff brazen man who, for all his rationality, like a perfectly cooked christmas turkey: crusty on the outside, but soft on the inside, leans on a more emotionally stable man for pegs, who inexplicably supports this seeming parasite. Closer inspection reveals Watson needs Holmes as much as the other way round. Watson is a compulsive supporter as Holmes is a supportee. Watson needs someone waiting back at home who needs his care and support. Conan Doyle cleverly made him a doctor precisely for this reason and Guy Ritchie capitalised on this fact to create a more believable Watson, a man who is more of a deserving sidekick who does more than just make Holmes seem more of a wizard than he actually is. Instead of accentuating Holmes' intellect by using a dud of a Watson, like Conan Doyle did in his later works, Guy Ritchie created a man who made the duo look good, rather than just Holmes. Batman and Robin took a backseat in an equally Gothic Victorian London, more like Gotham city, than New York could ever be, the city DC comics actually modelled Gotham City after. Their on-screen presence was the best thing in the movie, but the story could have been more Holmes-ish. It was larger than life, more like a Victorian Bond movie. Guy Ritchie brought Victorian England to life, the only person to do so previously was Dickens, but Ritchie had the aid of images, while Dickens only had imagery, still, Ritchie is not as great as Dickens, but did a splendid job. As far as the plot was concerned, it was, quite frankly more James Bond than Sherlock Holmes, but the characters were most human, where they, especially Holmes and the specious Irene Adler, expose their vulnerability alongside their prowess, making them more realistic. As good as it was as a stand alone movie, it was not a Sherlock Holmes, it really wasn't.