Of late I've begun converting my old Echoes documents into LaTeX, like I've been writing Identity. It's pretty cool, to see how the style of writing has evolved over really just the last year and change. I feel like a much better writer now than when I began Echoes, and in part, that validates my efforts in writing it, even if, at times, I wonder why I wrote something for such a small audience to enjoy, but I believe it was worth doing.
But anyway, I saw Sherlock Holmes on Monday.
Initially, I have to share some of the critique of the film with other critics: this Sherlock Holmes seems more like the melding of the classic character with the modern action film. It feels modern, down to the confrontation on the bridge, with pieces coming apart and Holmes and Blackwood in mortal danger. But though this adaptation feels contemporary in that way, it also feels faithful to the character of Holmes, to the characters in total. Plunged into this sort of affair, you never feel for a moment that what Holmes is doing is out of place or unusual (for who he is). Holmes would attack the apparent supernatural with logic, and no doubt, how he sees through Blackwood's charade is momentous.
That said, some of my criticisms must still stand. The character of Irene Adler feels very much tacked on to the film; I dare say there's no chemistry between McAdams and Downey, Jr., but that may be because McAdams tried to do a lot with a role that didn't make a lot of sense. Another thing that struck me was that, while I kept up with the film, the whole of the mystery really didn't keep me enthralled. We know who did it. How he's done it is of almost no consequence, and who he's going to kill next isn't even a question until the last act of the film. For that reason, while entertaining and better than most films, I feel like there's still something a little off about Sherlock Holmes.