What an accident. . . With all the absurdity of what is happening on the screen to break away from him, I confess, unrealistic. Actors are so organic in the general atmosphere of insanity that sometimes you mentally take some part in events.
And now for the details.
Few people have not heard about the adventures of the famous detective, whose image is inspired by Sir Conan Doyle’s colleague Joseph Bell. Except that the most deaf tribes of Black Africa, which are beyond time, and even then - not a fact. Moreover, this detective is remembered not only by the extraordinary affairs for which he takes up, but also by the expressive uniqueness of his personality. In fact, the knowledge of these two indispensable components of any story about him and make any link Sherlockian link Sherlockian. What is Mr. Sherlock Holmes really like?
It is a calculated cold mind that does not trust passions and, in fact, nothing, sometimes even its knowledge, which it vigorously updates, and also contains only the amount it needs, including the skills of handling weapons and fighting without them. Although humanity is not alien to him, he allows himself to manifest emotions only for a short moment, expressive enough to, in Watson's language, see a man not only of great mind, but also of great heart, perfectly mastering induction (with some blatant "deduction" called by A. K. Doyle), and yes, coldness of mind does not guarantee the presence of cynicism, and Sherlock has an older brother named Mycroft, who also owns the Holmes method, but does not intend to develop it, for a public servant devoted to his country, and not a private investigator. What do we have on the screen?
Anything! Direct imitation of the image of the great detective described in the Sherlockian coexists with his gross contradiction! Of course, the second emotional confusion discussed above was played out exactly, but Holmes would never (!) calmly watch Watson walk down the rope to a possible death. On the contrary, he would have dissuaded him, as he did in The Motley Ribbon and The Death of John Augustus Milverton, rather than handing him a coil with the words, ‘You’re coming!’ And then, why, one asks, to ambush in the spirit of the same "Motley ribbon" so that, having slept enough in the shadow, just get up, walk into another room and open up to the enemy? But, perhaps, the fight with a combat robot and the “only shot in Holmes’ life” were the most gross violations of the canon, because Holmes, as is known from the canonical Sherlockian, perfectly masters hand-to-hand combat, being able to resist three armed with cold weapons opponents, and shoot him happened much more often than the aged Watson “remembers” in his diaries, and, right before his eyes, remember, for example, the same “Baskerville Dog”.
The other characters are drowning out. I believe that it is not necessary to unnecessarily comment on the fact that the Guardsmen, instead of opening a massive rifle fire at a robot impenetrable by revolver bullets, at first calmly on a platter with a blue rim, present the enemy with a weapon from which the latter easily beats them like a duck in a dash, and they even accidentally do not shoot back.
From the point of view of logic, there are too many questions here. But, since there is hardly enough space to paint them all, we will voice only the most interesting:
1) That Thorpe's rotorcraft zeppelin forgot the brainchild of Hirem Maxim? This machine gun in the infantry version was released only a year or two or three after the events of the film, and in the aviation version and at all - only at the beginning of the twentieth century. I thought there would not do without a couple of NURS on the other lever, but the latter were at the mechanical dragon, so I had to exhale.
2) Why is the bullet that shot Thorpe whole? From him was supposed to be a tiny twisted piece of lead, which would resemble a bullet only muzzle notch and externally restored form at the level of speculation. But Mycroft’s aggressive antipode (and the character was clearly made with an eye on Sherlock’s real-life older brother) walks around the lab, flaunting a full revolver cartridge. Not a bullet!
(3) Mrs. Auzine. There are two questions. First, how does a capsule of morphine, a drug that affects organic matter, shut down the mechanism? Second, once you've managed to shut down the machine, the question is, when the machine starts working again, what about the bomb? She should have been taken to a canyon where she would have exploded in good conscience upon awakening, but no, fifty-eight years later she is still alive and well. Brilliant, that's all!
So why, you ask, do I write a positive review, and the introduction is too optimistic?
In fact, these blunders may be rude, but, we must give credit to the directors, only the experienced in the topic is able to notice them, and, even noticing, is unlikely to be disappointed in the frequent variety of scenery, endless action, during which some of Holmes’ reasonings are even built, brilliant camera work, and, nevertheless, for the most part, quite true roles of Sherlock and Watson. Unless Lestrade doesn't look like a "freak in police uniform" who always doubts Holmes' thoughts, but these are also small things. Easy and relaxed narration is really able to keep the viewer at the screen for eighty-five minutes.
For all the peculiarities, Mrs. Goldenberg has a very interesting interpretation of the bibliography of Sherlock Holmes, which I would still recommend to view.
8 out of 10