Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-guido!ravan
From: ravan@guido.DEC
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Concerning the various reviews of 'Young Sherlock Holmes'
Message-ID: <62@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 09:45:20 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.62
Posted: Wed Dec 18 09:45:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 09:06:22 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 66



Re moriarty's (and others') reviews of YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES:

I was saddened to see that Mr. M. didn't like the film, although given
his name I suppose it shouldn't be surprising. (By the by, it is apparent
from some of his remarks that he did not stay through the end of the
film...)

That several others have indicated that they were less than pleased
*does* surprise me, as all of my friends who've seen the movie enjoyed
it thoroughly. Of course, the fact that we loved it won't change the
opinions of those who didn't, but I would like to encourage everyone who
hasn't seen it yet to take *all* the reviews with a grain of salt and go
find out for yourselves.

Concerning some of Mr. Moriarty's remarks:

  >There is no mystery here -- the audience cannot
  >see either an enigma being methodically unravelled, nor does it have clues
  >scattered before it which the detective interperts.  The mystery here is a
  >straw dog, waiting for the screenwriter to knock it over in the last half
  >hour.

	True, to a degree, though there were clues here and there.
	I would have preferred a bit more deduction and a bit less
	of those special effects (especially the airplane, which
	was completely unnecessary). Still, I thought the scene of
	Holmes' initial deductions about Watson was quite true to
	form. The obvious items like the name tag, there for anyone
	to see if they only practiced being more observant; the bit
	about the custard tarts, which I found extremely funny, since
	it is such a marvelous field for a schoolboy to be expert in -
	all the different colors and textures of custard! One has
	visions of Holmes hanging around the lunchroom sampling
	from dozens of different custard desserts and making notes...
 
  >AS A HOLMES STORY: I find little to recommend it.  There are too many
  >un-Holmsian qualities around the two main characters.  Watson seems to be
  >used mainly as either a toady to Holmes, or as a buffoon in the Nigel Bruce
  >style; neither of these is true, and Watson must have grown some and lost
  >his glasses at some point, because he is usually depicted as being almost as
  >tall as Holmes and not fat or stocky.  Holmes is a bit too dreamy and never
  >gives you the feeling that he has a great mind humming behind his face.

	a. If Watson's depicted as a "toady," how come he gets to do
	   most of the rescuing? I thought that he was portrayed as more
	   practical than Holmes, less far-sighted but very good in a
	   tight spot. Indeed, it is this down-to-earth quality that
	   Holmes seems to admire most in the books.

	b. Holmes is *supposed* to be the moody adolescent. The whole
	   point - if there is a point; after all, this is an entertainment
	   film, not a Major Work - is that young Holmes hasn't learned
	   to keep his emotions out of the way of his deductive powers
	   yet. Holmes was told outright by both Rathe and Watson that
	   he had to control his emotions and think rationally; when he
	   did this he came up with ideas, but when he didn't, he very
	   nearly got himself killed.
 

At any rate, I enjoyed it, due largely to the splendid performances by
Rowe and Cox, and I'm going to see it again.

				-beth ravan
				...decvax!decwrl!rhea!guido!ravan