Jesse Stone and Captain Healy are shot during an unauthorized stake-out in Boston. Meanwhile, a cryptic letter sent from Paradise leads the mother of a kidnapped child to Stone. Though her son was declared dead, she hopes he will reopen the case.
Miss Marple's friend - a Catholic priest - is battered to death after visiting a woman dying under strange circumstances. Seeking justice, she becomes entangled in a nefarious organization centered around an inn run by purported witches.
Strange events happen in a small village in the north of Germany during the years just before World War I, which seem to be ritual punishment. The abused and suppressed children of the villagers seem to be at the heart of this mystery.
DI Lewis returns to Oxford after several years absence and is reluctantly assigned by his new boss, DCS Innocent, to the murder of an Oxford mathematics student who was shot while ... See full summary »
Here's the problem. Holmes is one of our most important literary characters, possibly the most influential. He was the icon of the scientific mind, the rationalizer of human behavior.
The problem is that we have no good film versions of the man. His character depends on the nature of his mind. In the stories, we are Watson the observer and we see but do not perceive so discover the workings of this great mind by his watching (and later writing of what we read).
With movies, we all watch. We cannot see Holmes watching unless the nature of the character is altered. The Brett Holmes decided to show depth through tense miniexplosions and otherwise brooding.
I like this decision better. It has Holmes as an active mind, curious beyond all bounds. Impatient with his own mind which is already many times faster than anyone else's. This means the character has to be taken out of Victorian times and removed from the usual case that Holmes was confronted with. Often they involved rational logic to explain the inexplicable: either apparently psychic phenomenon or the inscrutable criminal mind, often genius.
What we have here is an impossibility of the old type: we discover well before the end who is the villain, yet it is impossible. And we have one of the necessary disguises. But the mechanics of the thing is all different. The criminal is one familiar to modern serial killer movies. We understand him (unrealistic or not) and so does the good doctor's fiancé.
In this case, it is Watson that provides the successful sleuthing at the end while Holmes remains stymied. The drugs are played up too. It is a bit shocking to one who looks for the books in the movies.
But it has the right feel to it. What we want is a brilliant obsessive, someone with deep focus and tremendous reasoning power. But not a superman. Not someone with parlor tricks. We have that here, plus the feel of a man who can barely tolerate women.
I wish Rupert were more gaunt and less rugged looking. He seems too strong. The power of the man should be in his intensity, the impression that he sees through you, not his beef.
I'll recommend this even though the production values and story aren't very good. But the character engineering is. And it has an appealing imperiled girl.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
5 of 10 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?