Rating Sherlock Adaptations

Comic Series I. * All my reviews are spoiler free unless otherwise stated.

I loved this show. I would not change a thing. Everlasting love.

The Empire of Corpses is a movie based on Sherlock Holmes in the absolute loosest of ways; however, it is a story being told using familiar characters and, while most people don’t consider it an adaptation, I’m going to. To explain my thoughts, I need to explain what this movie is about, and why you normally wouldn’t find it in places listing adaptations of Sherlock Holmes (or, if you have, why many others haven’t). The easiest way to understand this movie is to consider it a retelling of John Watson’s adventures in the war—if the war was about finding Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s work so that John can fully reanimate his deceased (currently undead) research partner. In this borderline dystopian world, Dr. Frankenstein’s reanimation of his monster was something that the whole of society tried to replicate and now corpses are used as unpaid labor, soldiers, or any other type of work dangerous to the living; however, these corpses do not have souls, thoughts, or opinions. The only corpse recorded to have a soul is Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, but his notes that indicated how the late doctor was able to do this have been lost—until recently, which is largely where the story starts. After John Watson illegally reanimated his deceased research partner Friday, he was drafted into the war to find Dr. Frankenstien’s missing notes due to his deep understanding of and desire to recreate the human soul to keep his promise to his friend and bring him back from the dead as an individual. There is much this movie tries to fit into its runtime, sometimes to its detriment. I was fairly confused in major moments throughout the story and needed to look up what was happening; however, I will be open I sometimes have context issues and don’t believe this confusion was fully the fault of the writing. That does not mean the writing was flawless, there were times it certainly could have been clearer or better paced to keep the audience from being lost. While it sounds like I didn’t enjoy this movie I, quite frankly, was enraptured by it, it is the most confusing mash of characters and storylines that I have ever seen—like an original doctor character was written and then John Watson’s story was somehow shoved in with no explanation. I loved it. There is likely a significant amount of context I didn’t understand as I have yet to read the manga or the novel (which has not been fully translated). It doesn’t feel like an adaptation; I don’t think it fully is one, but it still fits into a retelling of John Watson’s past. The premise is really what makes this movie what it is, I found it while looking for something else entirely, and couldn’t help myself but immediately watch it regardless of anything else I had to do today. The art style does not immediately stand out; it is par for the course if you have seen any significant amount of well-made anime, but it shines in its animation. It is beautifully animated, with the characters' movements, alive or otherwise, so distinct and fluid that it is visually appealing. The subject matter of the movie does mean that it leans heavily into body horror and violence, and there are scenes animated wonderfully, that are extremely difficult to watch if you have a fear of medical procedures (specifically needles). The sound design for this movie was also incredible, I don’t particularly remember much of the music, but the sound effects and background noise were incredible. The sounds of bones, footsteps, explosions, and movement were so well done that some scenes were only great because of the sound design. I highly recommend this movie if it is something you are interested in, it’s something so entirely out of left field it’s difficult to review without simply telling you you need to watch it just to understand and be as confused as I am. So do it, watch the movie, and be confused and intrigued.

I am only now realizing how much content there is for Sherlock Holmes solving the mystery of Jack the Ripper; however, this is one that took a stranger turn than most. Emulating the classic style of a letter or a journal written by the main character, we follow Sherlock Holmes as he suspects his former flatmate, John Watson, of being the Whitechapel Ripper. I can’t say much about what happens in the book as I feel the mystery of whether he is or is not the serial killer is the greatest draw-in for readers, and explaining anything might give away the reveal. It’s undoubtedly the main reason I chose to read this before the pile of fantasy books I have been putting off for so long. The fascinating thing about this book is that the mystery is not the focus, but Sherlock’s relationships with the people around him and his building emotional turmoil over them, is. He spends a lot of time working with Lestrade compared to John (for obvious reasons), and it was nice to see a book treat Lestrade like the intelligent detective he is—including outsmarting Sherlock on more than one occasion. To be fair to him, Sherlock does spend the entire book too caught up in his conflict of interest to pay as much attention as Lestrade must. Also, this book has one of my favorite interactions with Sherlock Holmes and Mary Watson, making them close friends who admit to each other that they both deeply love John (implied as neither platonic nor romantic). I cannot stand any media that makes women the villain for being married to someone, and Mary tends to fall to the wayside in most Sherlockian media. This book made them newly discovered friends, and it was pleasant. There is so much I want to say about what happens, but I’m too afraid of spoiling anything; I’m reading over this with a fine-tooth comb just to ensure I don’t accidentally include something that gives away the climax. Of course, that doesn’t mean this book is anything remarkable, it is okay, but I worry that people who want to read it might learn something that will take away the joy of the premise. I sometimes feel like I give things way more credit than they’re due, but I tend to rate things (regardless of quality) on how enjoyable they were to me. I enjoyed this book, I read it fairly quickly, and I think it’s worth a read if anyone is interested in a story where John Watson ends up the suspect.

The Sherlockian is one of the books I was hesitant to include here as it’s not technically an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes but a fictional story about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I inevitably decided I needed to write a review on this book, if not to share it, then to manically describe the hilarity of Arthur Conan Doyle and Bram Stoker solving a murder together. There is an actual plotline, but I spent the entire book not caring about the reveal of the diary mystery but on Arthur and Bram doing the weirdest things together—cross-dressing, getting drunk, brotherly bonding, going undercover, you name it. The best part? Graham Moore understood how Arthur should act, and I spent the entire book wanting to wrap my hands around his neck, and if that isn’t great characterization, then I don’t know what is. Though I have a lot of respect for Graham Moore after reading this book, it was nice to read something where the author seemed to have genuine knowledge about the subject—and enjoyed it. It is easy to tell when an author doesn’t know much or, for some reason, has a vehement hatred of the content they’re writing about (in this case, Graham Moore seemed to care about Sherlockian lore). I have read a lot of fun cozy mysteries based on Sherlock Holmes, and it always breaks my heart to feel like the author thinks I’m weird or a freak for my interest. I spent this entire book so excited to see all the obscure facts, and regardless of how boring this book got at times, I enjoyed it. [spoiler start] I also respect Moore for having a male and female protagonist and not having them end up together or even kiss! Honestly, I despise romance in my books unless it’s written well, and whenever two characters don’t end up romantically involved? My little aromantic heart flutters. Sarah is well written, and I didn’t experience the normal “this man has never met a woman” I usually get from books. [spoiler end] I don’t remember much of the story through the second set of main characters (Harold and Sarah); I just know that I got embarrassed about how nerdy Harold was because he felt too much like me. Except I wouldn’t wear a deerstalker cap through every life event, my roommate said I would have spent it complaining about how the deerstalker is never directly mentioned, but that’s not important. I think Harold’s reaction to the reveal was incorrect, but I think I’m built different, and we would not have the same opinion on events. Genuinely, the best part of this book is Bram and Arthur trying to solve murders; I feel like regardless of if you care about the overarching plot, you just need to read it so you can experience what I had to. I gave this book three stars overall, but I would lightly recommend it just for the amount of Sherlock Holmes knowledge and tidbits it has scattered throughout the book.

Finally, Jack the Ripper was a gorilla who tricked women by offering them grapes; that’s what I am choosing to take away from this series.

I take great pride in the fact that I don’t have taste and will read or watch anything regardless of quality; however, I have always been ridiculously selective about which podcasts and radio shows I follow. If I do not have something to look at, it can be difficult for me to pay attention to/hear what is happening in this type of media, and thus my standards tend to be a little unfair. The number of shows I have discarded or given up on because of minute details is more significant than I feel comfortable admitting, but the few that I have gotten attached to mean the world to me. I love re-listening to podcasts, and I don’t tend to go far from my comfort zone, but I am so thankful I made myself listen to Fawx & Stallion. I honestly have no words for how entertaining this podcast is nor how deep my love of Hampton Fawx goes; he scratches the side of my brain that loves earnest, stupid men. The concept of this podcast is that across the street (and to the left) of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson is another detective agency consisting of Hampton Fawx, James Stallion, and Madge Stallion at 224B Baker Street. They aren’t necessarily the best detectives in London, but they’ve got spunk. It also probably doesn’t help that they’re competing with Sherlock Holmes himself; they really can’t be blamed for not excelling in a business field this monopolized. When they finally have the chance to solve their first big case (read: first ever) after Watson and Holmes take a trip to the countryside, Fawx, Stallion, and Madge begin investigating to the best of their abilities, well, probably. When I started listening to this podcast, I wasn’t expecting much, which is how I go into all new shows, but I was surprised at how quickly invested I became in not just the characters but the story. The humor was so spot-on for me that there were points I was giggling loudly at my desk at work, and I don’t normally emote when listening to podcasts. The kicker for me was that there was very little background noise when the characters were speaking, which made it so easy to follow along without having to stop and rewind multiple times, which was something new for me. I understand the desire to make a podcast dynamic, but if I can’t hear anything, it’s not fun for me, and I appreciate the sound design for this podcast (and the detailed transcripts)—even when there was background noise, it was quieter or the focus of the scene. There isn’t much I can say as the podcast is still ongoing, but I am begging everyone to listen to Fawx & Stallion; it has become one of my favorite podcasts of all time, and I am waiting for the rest of the series. Which I would not normally do; I do not like media that isn’t finished, but I’m excited to follow this show as it releases each episode. I would also like to mention that I am viciously happy about the amount of queer representation in this audio drama; I have a lesbian, two gay men, and a rat: the dream team.

When I said I wanted Sherlock Holmes and lesbians, I did not mean it like this. If The Crucifer of Blood put me into a slump, then Vampire made it impossible for me to pursue more media until I could figure out how to review it. I am conflicted about this short film, and it does not help that I already have a distaste (though for different reasons) for the adaptation’s source material. I have already decided that this review will focus heavily on the content of the film; rather than the aspects, and I will be placing warnings for spoilers where they are needed. The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire is low on my list of favorite stories for various reasons; however, [spoiler start] it is difficult for me to enjoy media wherein the disabled character is the “got you” villain. I especially disliked that, in this short, the physical disability became an intellectual disability for the fifteen-year-old Jack. The acting for Jack wasn’t necessarily bad, and the first half of this short treats him with an amount of respect that many autistic/intellectually disabled people don’t always receive in media. Although, It just quickly became apparent that it wasn’t going to stay like that, especially when this version of Holmes called him a moron. [spoiler end] I do not want to be harsh on something produced by a small production team, but something about this film made me viscerally uncomfortable. It might have been the framing, wherein it meant to have a horror aspect, but it did not manage to land it well. It might be due to personal taste; I can’t speak for everyone with a learning/intellectual disability, I can only speak for myself, and I just wasn’t fond of Jack’s portrayal. I will admit I am harder on modern adaptations, so perhaps I am not as lenient as I would be on older media, but my opinion still stands. When I first started watching this short, I wasn’t aware there would be actual lesbians, and I was a fool when I watched them kiss each other goodbye. I think the queerness of the Holmes and Watson portrayal is why I am so very conflicted. I love all adaptations where they are sapphic women; it was difficult for me to watch this film at points because of the forenamed representation. There is not much I want to say about Vampire; I mostly want to be done with this review so I can finally move forward with my list. I would not be opposed to more projects from this production team, I would look forward to it, but I think this might have been a miss for me. I think it is something you have to judge for yourself, I don’t have strong enough of an opinion, and I don’t think I will know where I stand on this film for a long time.

It could be that I wasn’t paying close enough attention, but I spent a large portion of this movie confused. The story focuses on every character that is not John or Sherlock, and I believe the duo has less than twenty minutes of screen time; however, I do not mind that as much now as I did while watching. I think it is hilarious to say that my favorite character is Barrymore, whom I barely cared about in the stories, but who was exceptionally petty in this adaptation. There is a running joke where he often appears almost like a jump scare, and I thought it was the funniest thing in the world. He is my favorite character; he was the best part of this movie; I love him. With that said, I have some complaints about this movie, and while I enjoyed it, it still took me two days to finish it. As this movie is old, it is in black and white, but it is so dark the whole time that it’s easy to miss what’s happening—or which character is which. I don’t usually have an issue with black-and-white films, but this one was difficult to watch and often made it unbearably hard to pay attention. As I needed to pay attention to subtitles, I had to rewind to ensure I didn’t miss anything by spacing out or getting distracted. It was tedious, and I nearly fell asleep halfway through the movie. I did not, however, think this was a bad or boring movie—it was a little bland at times, but I also don’t care much for The Hound of the Baskervilles, or I wasn’t in the mood for it. I think it had the funniest lines I’ve heard so far in an adaptation, and I have heard some odd things, but “Why are you a misogynist?” has got to be the funniest thing that came out of left field. As stated, Sherlock and John don’t play a large part in the story until almost fifty minutes into the movie (and don’t appear until thirty minutes in), so I don’t have much to say about their performance. I enjoyed the actors; they were pretty good but did not stand out among the list of other actors. It was an average movie, and I don’t have strong feelings either way, besides loving this Barrymore more than anything in the world. The sound quality is surprisingly good, but as I do not speak German, I relied heavily on subtitles, but overall I did not have a difficult time watching this movie. The film did flicker and skip at times, but not enough to be disruptive and certainly not enough to make me sick as it often can. It was middle ground; that’s all I can say about it.

I am going to be honest; I did not like this movie. It took me five days to finish; it put me in a rut for almost a week and a half, which was frustrating. I wrote in my notes not once, not twice, but three different times throughout the movie that it was so tedious I thought I was dying. I want to be objective, I don’t like outright hating things, but I know in my heart that I wouldn’t like this movie—The Sign of the Four, which inspired the original play by Paul Giovanni, is one of my least favorite stories. There is not much I can say about the appearance of this movie because I could not see what was happening almost the entire film; it was so dark. Near the middle of the movie is a dramatic murder, but you can’t see anything, and the movie expects you to know what’s happening and to whom. I didn’t know who most of the characters were, nor do I think I could tell you what Sherlock or John looked like in this movie; though, that’s an entirely different problem. I do not believe that Charlton and Richard had any chemistry on screen, they felt very flat interacting, and I just didn’t like them as a pair. I think the acting was good, but this should have stayed as a play; it was formatted as such and did not translate well into a movie. This movie was almost two hours long, and it just dragged. I think the romance subplot also made me extremely uncomfortable and was likely a reason that I could not stand this John Watson in the slightest. Which is never a good sign; if you make your Watson unlikeable, how am I supposed to care about the Sherlock? I also feel bad for saying that Charlton Heston did not make a good Sherlock, especially as he did star in the Los Angeles Theatre production of The Crucifer of Blood. Heston is a great actor, but this was not his role. As a side note, in the credits of this movie, Jeremy Brett is mentioned, which confused me until I realized that the Los Angeles production was the first time Brett appeared in Sherlock Holmes media. In 1980, Jeremy Brett played John Watson on stage and was approached two years later by Granada Television to play Sherlock Holmes. I feel bad for saying that Charlton Hester was not a good Sherlock, especially as he managed to win the part from Jeremy Brett, who may be the greatest iteration of Sherlock. I don’t like saying a movie wasn’t good, but I don’t think I can say many positive things about The Crucifer of Blood. I love classic mysteries, I am okay with the plot dragging, but if it is so bad it makes the movie boring, then I can’t forgive that. I didn’t like it, I don’t think I can review it unbiasedly, and I don’t ever want to watch it again. If there were a play production, though, I would gladly buy tickets. I personally would not recommend this movie, but I think it could be enjoyable to others who like a slower Holmes mystery.

This short film is evil; it is wicked! I’ve never watched something done so well that elicited visceral rage inside me—I almost could not finish watching it. This short is not bad, but it made me want to pull my teeth out at some parts, and the ending had me so frustrated I needed to take a twenty-minute break before finishing it. Alright, the film. I think the most significant critique of this short is the camera work; though I will be gentle as this was a lower-budget project, there were times when the screen was shaking just a little too much. It wasn’t enough to give me proper motion sickness, but it was well on its way especially combined with the graininess of the film. This movie almost gave me everything I wanted in an aged Sherlock and John: two retired older men who raise bees and go camping together. I don’t know what I did to deserve this, but it gave me so much and then took it away in a confusing and upsetting story that continued to raise the tension throughout. The notes that I took while watching this short go from soft fondness to increasing confusion, to uncontrollable rage, and then to a feeling of utter heartbreak. When I talk about how much this short film upset me, I am doing it in a way explaining that I am upset with what happened but not with the film itself. While I do feel like the characters were out-of-character, that was also part of the story, so I don’t want to be nit-picky in that regard, but I also think that they knew what they were doing while writing this piece. The English subtitles were also not good, they were part of the premiere screening, but they don’t flow well and often disappear and reappear for the same scene. Aesthetically this movie is dull, but it takes place in the forest, so you can’t expect it to be visually breathtaking. I don’t want to watch this short again, I’m not sure I want to recommend it, but that also feels somewhat contradictory when I say that it isn’t a bad adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. It’s just a little frustrating, and it left me feeling more upset than excited about another piece of media completed. I love retired John and Sherlock, but I don’t think this film is for me.

To begin: this movie is a parody. It also isn’t actually about Sherlock Holmes or John Watson, but their grandchildren who attempted to continue on the legacy of their grandfathers. They are, of course, utter idiots who cannot do anything, let alone save the world. I don’t think there is a way I can figure out how to start this review, I need to provide so much context, but none of it makes any sense. The comedy in this movie has dated in places (especially with some racial humor), but it is actually pretty tame for a parody that came out in the late seventies. I am also not ashamed that some parts of this movie had me bursting out with laughter, though that is not saying much, as I have the same humor as a confused man in the sixties. Anyway, if I had a nickel for every time a piece of media made John Watson bionic, I would have two nickels, which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it’s happened twice. This movie is not good, not objectively; though, it was entertaining in a way that I am physically incapable of explaining—it’s something I feel others would need to watch because it is so nonsensical. I think the only issue I had with this movie (outside of aged humor and representations) is the fact this movie is so difficult to understand if you are hard of hearing; there are no subtitles not autogenerated on all platforms. While I know that older movies are often hard to understand anyway, I feel like this film was probably the worst out of what I have watched thus far. I spent a lot of time rewinding to figure out what was happening; it became very frustrating after a while. Now, this isn’t a profound adaptation, and I am not rating it on any scale compared to other versions of Sherlock or John—it was a nice reprieve from some of the slower movies I have been watching as of late. If you want something that pokes gentle fun at Arthur Conan Doyle’s work and various detective media, I think it’s at least worth a peek if you have the time.

I will begin by admitting that I may be slightly biased in my review, as I don’t like Henry Cavill. I will not be overly negative concerning his portrayal of Sherlock (as he did an okay job), but I wanted to say it to be as honest as possible. Watching this is the third time I have attempted to get through this movie, and the only time I have ever completed it; however, I am disappointed in myself for never getting through the first half of this movie before now. The fourth wall breaking is something I do not usually enjoy, nor quirky main characters, but I absolutely loved Enola; she was so entertaining. I had a hard time watching this movie whenever Mycroft “women don’t deserve rights” Holmes and Sherlock were on screen, but whenever they disappeared, I was having the time of my life watching Enola traverse London. It did fall into the modern demand for action, which took away from the mystery; however, it did actually feel like Enola was using her intelligence to figure things out instead of fumbling into every answer without doing any work. As a lesbian, I am not overly fond of awkward teenage relationships with heterosexual couples, but God, her relationship with Tewkesbury was cute. I think I enjoyed it more than usual because they did not officially end up together, which bugs me in almost all television series and movies I watch. I liked watching them develop feelings for each other but not immediately fall into “die-for-you” love. It might also be a small note, but I appreciate the acknowledgment of choice (and force) in corsetry instead of just being demonized; it was a nice nod toward the history and discussion behind the practice. This movie was aesthetically gorgeous and fulfilled my constant demands for a film set in Victorian England that isn’t just so dark you can’t see anything. The colors were rich throughout and only suffered through the end sequence, which made sense for what was happening. The plot was interesting, and I liked how they changed tracks (in terms of the main focus) early but still managed to make everything come together satisfyingly. I will be honest and say I just could not stand Sherlock or Mycroft; I thought they were both awful and just didn’t fit the characterizations (well, maybe Mycroft did), and I often got so mad when they were on screen I was tempted to fast forward through their parts. I don’t know if we were supposed to come to love Sherlock, but I just felt he was continuously awful and did very little to aid Enola throughout the movie. Mycroft, I just wanted to push him into a puddle and beat him with a blunt object. I think I was supposed to feel that way about him, so I’m not upset; I just felt like I shouldn’t have hated Sherlock as much as I did. That was just a high-class British man with an ego and nothing underneath; at the end of the movie, I still wasn’t sure if he even cared about Enola as much as they wanted me to believe he did. The acting was not bad; I just think I did not enjoy how he was portrayed. Despite those complaints, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and started the sequel immediately after finishing it because I wanted to watch more of Enola. As a Sherlock adaptation, I don’t think it holds up as Sherlock Holmes was unbearable, but as an adjacent media, it was one of my favorites. I haven’t cried because I felt as helpless as the characters in so long, Enola’s experiences made me so emotional throughout that I just loved her. Finally, I am proud to announce I will now be the Holmes’ stepmother because I will marry their mother if it’s the last thing I ever do. The women in this movie were all fantastic; I loved them all.

There is not much I can say about this film, considering it is only thirty seconds long; however, it was interesting to go as far back as I could and to see what survived almost one hundred and thirty years. It is not a long clip; it made me mildly motion-sick, but it did make me giggle, and that speaks more about how incredible it is that some media is timeless. I also love that the first known appearance of Sherlock Holmes on film is about the great detective getting harassed by a teleporting thief. I did a little research about the history of this movie, as it’s difficult to review something that is only a thirty-second silent clip. The film was released in 1900 for the arcade amusement mutoscope machines (also known/used as coin-in-slot “peep-shows”) and re-released/registered in 1903 when submitted for copyright. The director, Arthur Weed Marvin, would later become an early cameraman for D. W. Griffith’s debut film, though passing away before being involved with any of Griffith’s later work. Which, thank goodness. It was presumed lost for several years; however, in 1968, a paper copy of Sherlock Holmes Baffled was rediscovered in the Library of Congress by Michael Pointer (a Sherlock Holmes film historian). It was not until 1912 that movies would be under copyright; the submission of the film in 1903 was likely the only reason we are able to view it today. It is not a spectacular film, nor is it revolutionary, but I think it is worth a watch if only to experience the thirty seconds that started Sherlock Holmes on the big screen.

I am beginning to understand that I prefer older/elderly Sherlock and John over all other iterations of the pair; I find them far more enjoyable than younger interpretations. This movie delivered on that so much that I nearly burst into tears when I first saw them appear; they’re just two old gentlemen teasing each other about the royal family at the theater. Murder by Decree was another movie based on the concept of Sherlock Holmes solving the case of Jack the Ripper, but I couldn’t quite figure out what was happening until the end—even then, I don’t think the plot was the best part of this movie. It was certainly better than a Study in Terror, and I enjoyed the reveal of the killer, it was not the climax, and it made me very emotional. I think it could have done better with the concept, but I did not expect the turns or plot twists, and I feel like I would gain an even greater appreciation for this movie if I were to watch it again (which I will be doing). While I do show a bias towards the actors who play Sherlock in television series, I want to express how incredible Christopher Plummer was for this character; and how fondly I will think of him in this movie, he was just so good. It may also be that Christopher and James had phenomenal on-screen chemistry; it felt like they were dear and loving friends. I loved watching them interact; I didn’t care about the mystery; I cared about how enjoyable it was to watch these two try and solve it together. When watching these movies and shows, I take notes as my memory is faulty, and I try to take note of what’s happening, how it sounds, and what it looks like, but the page I have just talks about how much I enjoyed the characters. Well, that and how hilarious the predator vision sequences were, like Jack was an 80s alien on board a spaceship. If I can give this movie another compliment, it was how alive most of the scenes in London felt and how crowded it seemed to be even without a large crowd of extras. When it comes to older movies, I feel like there’s a certain level of realism that modern movies lose, and I can’t figure out if it’s because the scenes are different or the cameras. Aesthetically it was not incredible, but sometimes it felt like I could step onto the streets of Victorian London, and that’s always a fantastic way to get invested in a story. Murder by Decree is not a movie I think you should watch for the plot, but one watched for how charming the characters were; well, that, and the cute pea scene. I love the pea scene.

I don’t think I could adequately explain what happened in this movie, though not necessarily in a negative way. This movie is about the concept of Sherlock Holmes solving the case of Jack the Ripper; however, for a film about Jack the Ripper, there was almost nothing about the actual investigation—what there was also entirely inaccurate. Of course, the movie is about Sherlock Holmes, and nothing else needs to be factual to be enjoyable, though it made the plot hard to follow during the middle of the movie. I did not dislike this movie, I did not like it, but I still had an okay time while watching it and did burst out laughing during some parts (not when I was supposed to be laughing, I don’t think). It was difficult to be invested in the story as I did not care about this version of John and Sherlock; they were entertaining, and I loved how flamboyant Sherlock was at times, but overall they weren’t memorable in the least. The soundtrack for this movie was fantastic; I think Georgia Brown’s introduction song will be in my head for a long time; whenever the characters were in the tavern, I was having the time of my life. They were the best scenes in the movie. Also, this is a movie made in the sixties, all the action scenes had bongos playing aggressively in the background, and I love bongo music. When it comes to any variant of Sherlock solving the Jack the Ripper case, there will never be a police reveal of the villain, which I prefer, and I’m glad this movie followed that trend. The climax and reveal of the killer were so, so, so confusing. There was a fight, there was fire, and there was the funniest scream I will ever hear in any media in my entire life (I watched this movie at work and was very embarrassed when I started laughing so hard I cried); it was not a good ending if I’m being honest. It wasn’t terrible, and, quite frankly, I would watch this movie again because of how camp-like it was. The one quality about this Sherlock I enjoyed was how feral he often came across as—he was violent, made threats, and got so excited to show off his cane sword to John after they got attacked on their prostitute dinner date. I also did not make that piece up, Sherlock took John to dinner in Whitechapel, and John had the time of his life. Finally, I want to thank this movie; it had such a pretty design of Sherlock and John’s apartment, it was in very few frames, but it looked so cozy.

It was not as bad as I initially remembered it being; however, it didn’t feel like a Sherlock Holmes movie. There is action and fighting in the original stories, but this movie was supposed to be more action than detective (I think)—which makes Sherlock feel like the backdrop to an action movie set in Victorian London. I thought John Watson was entertaining though I did not like his relationship with Sherlock, nor did I particularly like Robert Downey Jr.’s interpretation of him. It was a strange movie about John Watson and some man that acted like Sherlock but was not Sherlock. I am not opposed to an unconventional Sherlock (I enjoy it more often than not), but I just can’t figure out why I did not like this version of him. He was just a guy and not in a fun way. The score wasn’t too bad, though it was often too loud, and I couldn’t hear what was happening. The movie was too overstimulating, and I think it took away a large part of understanding what was going on at any given moment. It was loud for the sake of being loud, maybe to cover the fact there was no plot. I still have no idea what happened with the story or remember any of the names of the side characters except the man named Coward. The villain wasn’t even fun; that man was just a knock-off Dracula. Aesthetically the movie was good; the final scene was one of my favorites from any period drama. It was nice to see a version of Victorian London that wasn’t so dark you couldn’t see what was happening; it is a beautiful movie. I had no idea who Lestrade was for a good portion of this movie; there should have been more of him or the man I thought was Lestrade. This movie also loses points for having Irene Adler as a love interest for Sherlock; I’m sick of people using her for that purpose and misunderstanding her in the original stories. I love Irene more than I have words to explain it, and I just need her to stay away from Sherlock because she deserves so much better in all universes. It wasn’t the worst interpretation I’ve ever seen, but I don’t want to watch it again.