Why... (From Post March 15th)

I love movies. I love watching movies, talking about them, and studying them, but I'm sick of leaving a theater annoyed. If I'm going to spend my hard earned (and limited) money supply going to/renting a movie I feel that it's only fair that I am represented.

Some of the most 'captivating' films are impossible for me to enjoy because the female characters are either peripheral or absolutely ridiculous. When I watch a film I want to be swept up and taken into a different world, I don't want constant and blatant reminders that the film I'm watching was not made for me.

This blog is an attempt to help others in the same boat and also a way for me to put my frustration into a productive place... reviews.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Sherlock Holmes

General Feeling:

I really expected a poor viewing experience on this one... there were several points against it:

1. Jude Law

Hate, hate, hate him, I'm not sure why, but looking at him makes me queesy, Mr. Law is creepy, sleazy, slimy, and ew, ew, ew, what can I say, it's not a rational reaction.

2. It's a modern Hollywood film

It's no secret that most Hollywood movies seem to be written in a boardroom over the duration of an afternoon (or re-written at least).

3. The previews made Irene Adler [Rachel McAdams] look lame

I was pretty convinced that the female representation was going to be crap... the previews nearly promised it...
.
.
.
.
I'm pleased to announce that I was pleasantly surprised!
I barely noticed Jude Law. I'm not sure of it was Mr. Law's mustache, or the role, but I promptly forgot it was him at all and didn't think about it again.

Hollywood made a bit of fluff that was actually rather fun. I never have a problem with Robert Downey Jr. but this time, as much as I still enjoyed him, his character was a little heavy on the eccentric side, but I was able to look the other way because it was just a bit of fluff after all. I used to love watching Sherlock Holmes on PBS and this movie didn't make me angry or annoyed, it was just fun.

Female Representation:

Usually the female role in mainstream films is a pointless addition. It's scary how often you could completely remove Ms. Love-Interest from the story with little consequence to the plot. Ms. Love-Interest is made further annoying by being over-sexualized and predictable.
Rachel McAdams playing Irene Adler was a refreshing change; not only was she a much bigger part of the story than I anticipated but she was actually represented fairly well. I would never say that she was in ideal representation of a female character with depth and substance BUT, here's the kicker, she was represented with almost as much depth and substance as the character's of Watson and Holmes. Irene was used as bait once (annoying) but at least she was level headed and not so much a damsel in distress when it was going on.

But the real shocker was the fact that she wasn't overly sexualized either. There was the shot of her naked from behind (which I was disappointed not to get from Robert Downey Jr., which would be only fair). McAdams looked pretty, obviously, but so did Mr. Law and Mr. Downey Jr. and it all worked for me. I was really excited for the awesome tweed pantsuit she was wearing for the final battle, stylish AND practical for ass kicking!

I have to say that I would LOVE a fun movie like this with the female as the LEAD. Is anyone listening? I know a shit-ton of girls and guys who would love to go see a fun, cool, caper with a female lead who isn't over sexualized, lame, neurotic, or man crazy. Imagine if either Watson or Holmes' character was a girl... and they DIDN'T fall in love? Awesomness. The only time you have a male and female lead is in a rom-com (blah)... and it can be done successfully: remember X-Files anyone? X-FILES!

Grade: Robert Downey Jr.'s BUM

No comments:

Post a Comment