I believe Arthur Conan Doyle would have given Sherlock Holmes a cellular phone if the invention existed in the 19th century. It’s just when the game was afoot, he wouldn’t answer his calls.
Typically I don’t enjoy classic works reconfigured into more modern-day settings. They are usually bastardizations meant only to appease folks who can’t fathom men in top hats and women in corsets.
Sherlock–not to be confused with the Robert Downey Jr. action film—is a BBC television series in which Sherlock solves cases from Doyle’s stories in the 21st century. Sherlock succeeds where other modern reinventions fail (such as DiCaprio referencing his handgun as a “sword” in 1996s Romeo and Juliet). The creative forces behind Sherlcock have crafted infinite avenues for taking the Doyle characters and stories into the technological world. Each episode is complemented by taut, rich scripts that are biting with wit, surprise and gigabits of fun. There’s also the sharp chemistry between two excellent leads: Martin Freeman (Bilbo in this year’s “The Hobbit”) as Dr. John Watson and Benedict Cumberbatch (one hell of a name) as the brilliant, but bewildering title character.
The first three episodes were initially broadcast in 2010. Busy schedules (Freeman wisely accepted Peter Jackson’s offer) prevented the cast from reuniting for another two years–leaving a cliffhanger, no less— for another round of three episodes. Despite being limited to just six 90-minute broadcasts (so far), the quality of overall products greatly outweighs the quantity.
The basic premise remains close to the source material–Sherlock, the “amateur” detective, befriends a discharged army doctor, Watson (from Afghanistan in this case) and the two engage in a series of sleuthing. Holmes is brilliant, but socially inept, which Watson attempts to counter.
The many updates include Watson documenting his adventures in a blog, not a journal; Sherlock depending on his cases to distract him from his addiction to cigarettes–not heroin or opium. The other detractors from the source materials still maintain the level of respect for Doyle’s original stories, but open a new level of unpredictability and intrigue. Sherlock’s mind is like a computer–each time he processes information, text and symbols appear on screen to hint the infinite capacity of his mind. In a later episode, Sherlock delves so deep into his own brain that he envisions floating words and images hovering in front of him, which he rotates, rearranges and tosses with his hands as if he were inside Tony Stark’s house.
Sequences like these would be silly if it weren’t for Cumberbatch’s star-making devotion, which is the show’s strongest asset. Cumberbatch’s cold and calculating eyes flinch only when he’s puzzled (which aint often), frightened (even rarer) or display hints of humanity. Cumberbatch is at his best when he’s made a deduction and engages in a long, rapid-fire soliloquy that make can even the sharpest of minds search for the rewind button on their DVD remotes. Freeman is remarkably charming and warm as Watson. The two share a rapport that is always funny and smart.
Both series of “Sherlock” take some of the most famous of Doyle’s tales and mold them with surprising grace and liberty. The true standouts are episodes 3, 4, & 6 in which Holmes’ arch-nemesis, Moriarty, takes center stage and invokes an amazing sense of menace and tension. Although each season is plagued by a middle-episode slump, it remains one of the finest pieces of television today. Yes, I know this is a movie blog. However, Sherlock stands toe-to-toe with the best of cinema’s crime mysteries and each episode’s depth (and 90-minute run time) can constitute its worth as a series of feature films (just like Harry Potter and James Bond can avoid being branded as an extended miniseries). Doyle purists may cry foul, but for those of us who long for a smart, fast-paced crime show that would make David Caruso remove his sunglasses in envy, then the game’s afoot!!
chrissantucci.wordpress.com 